[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by EngineeringType
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.

I’m going to go with my gut feeling here (this is a conspiracy forum)
I’m convinced that you are Isaac
You are aren’t you?

Engineering Type: I would like to welcome you to the AboveTopSecret.com Community and THANK YOU for your very well written, very well thought out post(s).

With regard to starting another thread on the subject of the CARET Documents exclusively I would say that it will be the exclusivity that proves hardest to maintain.

I am open to the creation of such a thread as long as the Members who desire it understand there will most likely be people replying/posting in it on other aspects of the case and we can't have any drama or crass/shabby treatment of those people if and when they do.

I would suggest that the title include a notation indicating the thread is about the documents and only the documents, that will help a little to be sure.

Springer...

Originally posted by moonking
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]

I think you may be mistaken in assuming that we're dealing with someone who saw the drone photos and then set out to create the CARET documents. Perhaps I'm wrong here but it just seems that there would've been far too much work involved in the CARET items ...to make them in such exquisite detail and then neglect some major difference in propulsion! Either "chad" and "Isaac" are working hand in hand or the CARET documents are real (IMHO).

Also, I don't think the perception of one of the witnesses with regards to leaf/branch movement automatically cuts some kind of anti-grav propulsion out of the realm of possibility. We have no idea of what kind of physical reaction would be encountered with items in close proximity, after all, leaves/branches have *some* mass and would, theoretically at least, likely be repelled by a nearby engine of this type, right?

It is also probably an excusable error to regard these diagrams as "electrical", when they are probably radically different, say, for instance, the stripping down of magnetic fields into controllable elements...mind you, I say this recognizing just how alien they might actually be, perhaps diagrams of some aspect of nature that we are utterly ignorant of (heh, there are probably a few of those out there yet, don't you think?).

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
It is also probably an excusable error to regard these diagrams as "electrical", when they are probably radically different, say, for instance, the stripping down of magnetic fields into controllable elements...mind you, I say this recognizing just how alien they might actually be, perhaps diagrams of some aspect of nature that we are utterly ignorant of (heh, there are probably a few of those out there yet, don't you think?).

To play devil’s advocated here

I think what the diagram are suppose to be is the schematic for the “Hardware” as well as containing the imbedded “Operating system” with it’s functional software to boot , Then once placed on the proper material it becomes “Realized”






[edit on 24-7-2007 by moonking]

Originally posted by moonking

I think what the diagram are suppose to be is the schematic for the “Hardware” as well as containing the imbedded “Operating system” with it’s functional software to boot , Then once placed on the proper material it becomes “Realized”
[edit on 24-7-2007 by moonking]

Yes, I think that's a good guess of what that surface element is about but I suspect it's more sophisticated than the appearance gives. It might be likened to a "tree" diagram, as though a very tight bundle of data was relaxed and unfolded in a way suggestive of natural symmetry (a bit like water seeking it's own level, if that makes any sense).

I'm curious if "Isaac" has any further information about these diagrams, for example, we see them as these quite striking black and white illustrations, but is that what they look like "in context" (as it were)? The photographic imagery of the parts would seem to suggest something like that, but the diagrams seem akin to something that we might relate to as a control panel. The "parts" look to be a very dramatic black or a very dark tone with white or a very light coloring, yet the diagrams as presented are black on white...are the illustrations (labeled as "analysis") simply reversed for practicality and clarity? On the "parts", how has the lettering been made to manifest? Is it applied, as in painted, printed on? Or is it simply the base substance, with it's surface area atomically manipulated in order to make the lettering/software appear (like anodising)? Or more abstractly, is the programming *within* the parts and the lettering ends up being a very curious sort of physical projection on the surface?

We have to keep in mind, that if we can find no telltale evidence of these pages of "Isaac" evidence being hoaxed.....that we need to think well outside of the box our current technology has us living in. What will our own technology evolve to in, say, 500 years? We also have a tendancy to regard alien manifestations of any kind as being from a unified government/civilization, when in fact, they could be from some variant of a capitalistic venture, seeking to make profits through the harvest/mining of unusual elements, bio-matter or what have you....and there may be emblems or repeated identifiers of ownership within some of the markings.

These are, of course, just ramblings if the evidence can be proven as fraudulent....but as no one has been able to do that yet, we need to build a framework of potentials to posit what we might be looking at. "Issac" has said that he has more evidence stored away, ready to be released under the proper conditions. The cynics among us will suggest that this simply allows him time to manufacture more hoaxical documents. However, you also have to try to put yourself in his shoes: the more he releases, the greater the chance of his identity being discovered. I get the sense though that he feels that whoever was holding the documents wouldn't exactly mind having these things come into the public view. Perhaps they've run into a dead end with them and are trying out the "hive mind" growing within the internet?

There's no knowing what their motives are, all we can do is search what we have for something that will give them away as being false.......or untangle just what we're looking at, in the off chance that it might be real.

Originally posted by moonking
I’m going to go with my gut feeling here (this is a conspiracy forum)
I’m convinced that you are Isaac
You are aren’t you?

i had the exact same feeling...please Springer, verify his credentials

Originally posted by moonking
I’m going to go with my gut feeling here (this is a conspiracy forum)
I’m convinced that you are Isaac
You are aren’t you?

interesting...wouldnt that just make this whole thing that much more dynamic? i bet that must be ultimate flattery to engi...id like to here a response regarding this from both engineering type and springer...

Originally posted by errorist

...please Springer, verify his credentials

Am I missing something here? What makes you think he's "Isaac"? Even if he were (and theoretically, any of us could be), wouldn't you prefer his contribution, rather than harassing him? He's made some of the most important comments I've seen on this subject and probably won't appreciate these accusations.

Keep in mind that much of the scientific community is unaccustomed to the rough and tumble world of online forums and might misunderstand these comments as being aggressive and antagonistic. I don't know about you but I'd like to see more people like Engineering Type participating in the unravelling of this mystery and I'd suggest that we modify the behavior that we might normally indulge in order to create an environment where they will feel welcome and enough at ease to participate. From what I can see looking at this thread's back pages, you've all been banging your heads against an unyielding wall over this material. Encourage the participation of professionals by acting professional......that's logical, isn't it?

its all just theories we test and watch ripped apart unless theres a bit of truth to it. i dont think he would find it insulting to be likened to the man responsible for enlightening us with this technology. assuming its hoaxed implies flattery, assuming its reality implies that he and when i say he i mean whoever isaac is and for all we know it could be some chick, put out the information for a moral reason as he said, he wanted it off his conscience. he felt we had a right to know and if isaac is reading our posts hes probably itching to get more out but scared of the fact that more info gives more possibility that your anonymity could be compromised.
Engineering Type is very articulate, very insightful, quite obviously experienced in fields of interests pertinent to our debate and i think i speak for everyone involved here when i say we do completely appreciate and enjoy his contributions, whether hes isaac or just engi hes a contribution to be sure and no ill intent is meant by our posts, we are simply seeking the truth as we have always, i think its important to reiterate that none of us here intend engi any ill will, disrespect, or rude sentiment.

Gut feelings tend to hit you hard and leave just as fast when you give it some thought
I feel I should at least explain to Engineering Type why I thought this

When I initially read your 3 part post it seemed to me to be similar to the style of Isaac. You seemed so in tune with the content, other engineers have stated the plausibility in theory, but your post came across with a real understanding of all the aspects of it, even stating that documents conformed to government standards and then went on to point out a direction for us to follow next, as if you were the author explaining where you got your material from. I felt your suggestion to focus on the plausibility of what Isaac is saying along with his documents, while disregarding other disputed aspects of this case was more of an attempt to guide us to see the beauty and appreciate the hard work that has gone into them and yes, even to believe them, not that you are by any means the first one to come along that gave merit to Isaac, but being I have a brother who is a Dr. of nuclear physic at fermilab and having seen his analytical mind at work, I would expect someone with your obvious knowledge to be a little more skeptical.

And this is the craziest one of all (I’m sure), when I read Isaac’s post on his website, there was this one little word that for some reason stood out and stuck in my head. When I saw that same little word in your post it was like an “alarm bell” went off in my head.
and that little word is “albeit”
Crazy huh?

Originally posted by Arlington Acid
It is also probably an excusable error to regard these diagrams as "electrical", when they are probably radically different, say, for instance, the stripping down of magnetic fields into controllable elements...mind you, I say this recognizing just how alien they might actually be, perhaps diagrams of some aspect of nature that we are utterly ignorant of (heh, there are probably a few of those out there yet, don't you think?).

The labelling of the diagrams uses transistor / electrical switching type terminology.

If you were to give those diagrams to a multi-disciplined mid to high level electrical / electronic design engineer who did most of their practical work in the 60's - 70's and asked them to label I reckon very them similar terminology would be used.

Personally I think that may point more towards Isaac's background rather than the CARET teams combined expertise.

Also this might be a conspiracy forum and I can't say with any degree of proof that someone is or isn't Isaac but if Isaac did visit this site calling him out would probably be the best way to shut off any further involvement so might be best not to make any accusations.

I don't neccessarily agree with Engineering Type's assertions that if hoaxed this would take years of work from many professional sources.

It could be done in a few weeks by an idiot with a bit of money.
It could be conceived by someone with a smattering of knowledge of UFO's and other edge topics, someone reasonably clever, thought up and tinkered with over a period of time.
If you look at the whole thing as a work project and you were given a basic overview of the outcome required, what resources would you really need - 80 hrs x the right 3 people should be sufficient. In the context of effort put into other hoaxes even where there is no monetary gain that's not extravagant. 2 old retired mischevious guys sitting round the table - an ex electronics / computer engineer with a camera hobby, an ex graphics designer with CGI experience, both with an interest in fringe topics.

i would have to say that hearing moonking, he speaks alot of why i felt the same way. ive heard people on this thread say they are engineers or cgi pros and that this stuff is at the least a good hoax but never touching on the intricacies engi did or make the argument for credibility of isaac so convincing. i didnt have the gut reaction to "albeit" but i kinda was like "whoa...." after just reading it now.

and i think that if isaac did watch for his released information to circulate, he would want the information to get through to the people but im sure anonymity is priority. in that sense i have to say i think that isaac knows this stuff has got to come out, its the reason he put it out there in the first place assuming it is in fact real.
chunder is right though, no more pointing the finger even if its possible.therefore i apologize engi
but i mean honestly, its got to be quite flattering to hear people say your on the level, so much so that your like at the least quite astute to the things isaac left in the hopes they would start us on a path to enlightenment.

(heh) Actually Moonking, that isn't all that crazy! Language is an area where people aren't particularly self-aware, which is why you see agencies like the FBI tearing documents apart, looking for one little word like you intuitively found. While I have no doubt that Engineer Type is just who he says he is, I suspect he'd appreciate how a rarely used word, term or phrase could be found in his and "Isaac"'s writing and that an intelligent mind would begin to have questions.

What I was suggesting was a generality, a creation of an atmosphere that anyone "walking in off the street" would be comfortable in, in order to encourage the kind of participation that this subject needs (i.e. professionals who are familiar enough with the highest level of scientific description, to advise us as to the real potential of these documents).

So far, nearly all of the focus has been on CGI, which with enough talent and time (and hardware) is "fake-able". Language, particularly technical language, is much less easy to manipulate (unless you're at the top of your field). I'm sticking my neck out here and saying that I think that the "diagrams" are un-fakeable, as they would require a mind of extraordinary brilliance to have created them to begin with, and I'm betting that a mind that stellar wouldn't throw away such a creation in a hoax.

We need help here, people like "E.T." and everyone's scientist brother, sister, cousin, what have you, need to be encouraged to contribute here (even if they have to be dragged in!). So, let's be nice, professional and welcoming. I know this is pushing it a bit, but it'll be worth it to get to the bottom of this, eh?

There's nothing I can add to or detract from "Engineering Type's" credibility here other than to tell you nobody else has posted on his IP address, which certainly lends itself to supporting his claim he is a new member.

Springer...

It was a gut reaction on my part and I’m in almost disbelief that I originally posted that which is why I at least tried to explain my thinking at the time , It’s not like me to have a knee jerk reaction like that
The last thing I would want to do is chase off someone who obviously has a lot to contribute and god knows I don’t want to start a cyber posse
I have been humbled

Originally posted by Arlington Acid

I think you may be mistaken in assuming that we're dealing with someone who saw the drone photos and then set out to create the CARET documents. Perhaps I'm wrong here but it just seems that there would've been far too much work involved

ISAAC ***************************IS*************************** CHAD, I know people here know this but just pointing it out for the millionth time, the reason the documents POPPED INTO EXISTANCE sooooooooooo QUICKLY, is because they were made long in advance in conjuction with the photos, their all part of the same weak pathetic hoax, many people here do have common sense and know it to be a hoax designed to fool weakminded people, the exact same people that believed in the john titor hoax. If you are devoid of logic and common sense you will have bought into this hoax hook line and sinker, but as for myself the billionth of a second that I saw the photos I knew for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a hoakey corny cheap hoax, it's just being able to tell an apple from an orange to me it isn't difficult.

I still highly suspect that it's the same team from the john titor foundation llc. the foundation of coward hoaxers, hey if they make 100 grand in one night after their book appears on amazon dot com from it being plugged on c2cam then the whole thing to them was worth it, you see there is no ammount of complex detail in artwork and invented characters and cgi models that are too much for the hoax minded team who take it seriously enough to plan a year in advance as if it were for a movie or album, it is I suppose a form of art in and of itself, and I bet they love this thread to death for mythologizing their story to this point.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by Razimus]

Originally posted by chunder
I don't neccessarily agree with Engineering Type's assertions that if hoaxed this would take years of work from many professional sources.

It could be done in a few weeks by an idiot with a bit of money.
It could be conceived by someone with a smattering of knowledge of UFO's and other edge topics, someone reasonably clever, thought up and tinkered with over a period of time.

I disagree chunder. I think the notion that it seems "do-able' to you is that you've had so much exposure to it now that it seems almost second nature. But the truth is that the CARET documents, every one of them, are brilliant. This is genius level stuff, well beyond an idiot with a bit of money. You can take almost any aspect of it and you're struck with (well....I sure as hell am) the staggering depth of this stuff, I mean "self-actualizing software"? Could you really come up with a concept *that* off the charts? If this is easy stuff to you, you could be making gigantic money in the private sector, dreaming up ideas for the corporate flunkies!

Besides that, why would some investor gather together a team of people with unmeasurable IQ's to create a hoax that is, frankly, fading away on the internet? This was so far above everyone that they thought the drones were what they should be concentrating on. The CARET documents have been almost completely overlooked, regarded by nearly everyone as a bunch of technical jibberish and fonts from MYST!!!

This is THE SERIOUS that we're looking at here, either it's some bizarre psy-ops program that someone dropped a king's ransom on or we are looking at the blinkin' holy grail friend! Whatever you do, please don't take the attitude that this was easily done, because if you go there, you'll be challenged to back your words up...and you don't want to have the "Isaac" package as your watermark for success.

I think I agree with Moonking about EngineeringType possibly being Issac. Here is my comparison of the writing styles or similarities in the writing. I'm putting everything I can find on here so some of these may be a bit ridiculous, but I thought I'd present it all so far.


1. Both started with a very short intro sentence, followed by a description of themselves.

ISAAC: Here is the breif [sic] introduction. I'm using the alias Isaac, and used to work in what was called the CARET program in the 80's.

ET: Greetings everyone. I am a new member to this site, so let me tell you about myself.

2. Both frequently use parentheses, particularly towards the end of sentences or when a comma would suffice.

ISAAC: Trust me, those things don't fail unless something even more powerful than them makes them fail (intentionally or not).

ET: I have seen one or two contributors refer to the language in this report as ridiculous babble (or words to that effect).

3. Both have a similar use of colons. Begins with a personal statement, "I should be" and "Here is my", both are used to clarify a point.

ISAAC: I should be clear before I begin, as a final note: I am not interested in making myself vulnerable to the consequences of betraying the trust of my superiors and will not divulge any personal information that could determine my identity.

ET: 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.

4. Both use exclamation points. Ok, this is a stretch but nobody uses these anymore. For some reason when I read these marks it comes across with the same sense of excitement or wonder. And to me they address, simple connections which don't necessarily warrant the energy of an exclamation.

ISAAC: The only difference is that these days, cameras are a lot more common!
We needed a copy of that diagram to be utterly precise, and it took about a month for a team of six to copy that diagram into our drafting program!

ET:OK, I won’t do this for every diagram, but I could!

They are exact systems engineering descriptions of what is in fact depicted!

5. Both use slashes, '/', as well as in the same context.

ISAAC: During my time there, I worked with a lot of the technology that is clearly at work in the recent drone/strange craft sightings, most notably the "language" and diagrams seen on the underside of each craft.

ET: Three days ago, I stumbled upon the Isaac/CARET/Drone controversy.

6. Both use hyphens within sentences. Pacing feels similar preceding the hyphens.

ISAAC: So in other words, civilians like myself who had at--at most--some decent experience working for the DoD but no actual military training or involvement, were suddenly finding ourselves in the same room as highly classified extra-terrestrial technology.

ET: My guess would be that--if this is not a hoax--the math was developed/refined to help explain the self-repeating patterns described.

...continued...

Many writers have similar unconscious structures for opening and closing paragraphs. I thought it was interesting to assess how both began.


Comparison of Opening Paragraphs:

ISAAC: 88 words.

A- Here is the breif [sic] introduction.
B- I'm using the alias Isaac, and used to work in what was called the CARET program in the 80's.
C- During my time there, I worked with a lot of the technology that is clearly at work in the recent drone/strange craft sightings, most notably the "language" and diagrams seen on the underside of each craft.
D- What follows is a lengthy letter about who I am,
E- what I know, and what these sightings are (probably) all about.

EngineeringType: 82 words.

A- Greetings everyone.
B- I am a new member to this site, so let me tell you about myself. I am an engineering type who works in government.
C- 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.
D- I have never seen anything during my career in the government that defied explanation or any antigravity technology
E- such as that being discussed in this thread.
F- In short, I’ve never seen anything out of the ordinary.

A- Short opening sentence.
B- I am [define myself].
C- I have worked at [experience].
D- This is what I learned or didn't learn at work.
E- Mention of thread or letter
F- Declaration of what they've 'seen', 'sightings'

I could be reading into it too much but I thought it was worth posting.