UFO-Blog.com Fighting against truth decay.....
DroneHoax.com Home - (* Denotes recently added/updated article)
Original Drone Reports

Chad - California
Wife/Mufon 7013 - Lake Tahoe
Rajman1977-Capitola, California
Listserv: Stephen, Big Basin
Ty - Big Basin, California
Isaac Caret/Pacl Documents

Related Drone History

Mufon Report (After 1 - Year)
The LMH Effect (Earthfiles.com)
The Dreamland Drones (Strieber)
The 'Walter' Drone Hoax

Dronehoax.com (Issac) Critiques

Who Is Isaac & The Drone Link
Identifying Isaac
Isaac's Alien Treaty

Linguistic Analysis Primer (LAP)
The CARET Facility

Drone Image Analysis

1111 Analysis Part 1
*1111 Analysis (HPO Model)
*1111 Antigravity Device Analysis
Biedny/Ritzman Analysis
Freelance_Zenarchist - LAP
JB Analysis
Jeddyhi Analysis
Kris Avery Analysis

Marc D'antonio Analysis

Marvin Analysis
Mufon/Reichmuth Analysis

Radi Analysis
Torvald Analysis
Wayne/Secret Web Analysis

Personal Beliefs, Perceptions & Reality

Skeptical Of Believers?
Marcello Truzzi - Zeteticism
The Burden Of Skepticism
UFOs - Age Of Information
Failure Of Science/Ufology
UFOs - Edge Of Reality
Logical Trickery Of UFO Skeptic
7 Warning Signs Of Bogus Skepticism
Marcello Truzzi, Pseudo Skepticism
Unfair Practices On Paranormal Claims
10 Signs Of Intellectual Dishonesty
*What Is Pseudoscience?

Additional Witness Information

Rajman1977 Additional Info
Lake-Tahoe Additional Info
Isaac - Follow-up Emails
Location, Location, Location!!

Other Online Critiques

Issac's Hoax: A Sad Story
A "Viral" Fantasy
Issac's Letter
Caret Documents - Another Hoax
A Skeptical Point Of View (Jeddyhi)

Follow-Up Emails From Isaac
Timeline Of CARET/Isaac Release Into The Public Domain

After Isaac posted his Fortunecity site which was subsequently picked up by C2C AM & LMH (Earthfiles.com) it is alleged that he was in contact with LMH for a while after this initial communication. LMH was trying to arrange an interview with Isaac and digitally coding his voice so as to maintain anonymity.

LMH has since published two emails that Isaac sent to her as a direct rebuttal to her Earthfiles readers who posed emailed LMH with questions for Isaac. The haste with which Isaac replied is astounding considering the circumstances surrounding these communications. (This is discussed in more detail below the emails).

Perhaps even more astounding is LMH held onto these emails for almost a month, not telling anyone she had them or sharing Isaacs answers with those who asked him. Instead she opted to wait and see if an interview could be secured with Isaac.

I guess she didn't want to spoil her own exclusive..

Sound familiar?

July 27, 2007  Albuquerque , New Mexico -  After the Isaac letter and CARET document were released on June 26, 2007, one of the criticisms was expressed this way:

"Looking at the so-called 'documentation' that goes with this stuff, the text-formatting is obviously done with relatively recent vintage page-layout software. You can tell by the perfect nature of the block justification.

"That type of extremely precise (even in word-spacing), indeed perfect, text-formatting DID NOT EXIST IN 1985, particularly in a laboratory or even corporate environment. After looking at all of the fancy 'documents,' including the Macromedia Freehand or Adobe Illustrator-designed 'alien diagrams,' I state now and for the RECORD that this whole thing is a HOAX, and will be proven to be such."

Another critic wondered why the extraterrestrial diagrams were formatted for 8.5 x 11-sized paper? Other repeated criticism was that if Isaac really wanted the public to see some of the research facts behind the aerial "drones," why did he blacken some of the CARET document text?

One of many critics emailed these comments, which Isaac addressed in 2nd reply below:

"This is a big hoax. For one thing, the US Government would NEVER allow this information to left in the hands of some worker. Another thing, the manual does not look anything like a legal NASA or a government document either. The pictures of the 'artifact' are photoshopped and I can tell you that the aliens DO not label every single part as pictured. The anti-grav unit pictured is fake. The photos of the drone on the floor are model parts. The configuration of all the drones sent in to you and others is something the aliens would never design as all these designs pictured show gross misuse of space. All their ships are based on the use of space. Not one inch to them is wasted and if you look at the history of  'probes' from EBE's they are SMALL and fast. I think you have been had. I am surprised that you and George Noory etc. are easily tricked by this. I would definitely check with your reliable contacts deep in the 'Know' and find out for yourself."

I emailed these issues to Isaac and on June 27, 2007, I received his replies in two separate emails indicated by receipt times, which Isaac gave me permission to share in an Earthfiles follow-up. My delay in reporting these emails is that I had an indication from Isaac that I might be able to interview him by phone. So, I waited, hoping the interview would occur. But to date, that has not happened.

From: Isaac
Subject: Re: "Drones"
Date: June 27, 2007 Received 1:34 PM, Albuquerque, New Mexico
To: earthfiles@earthfiles.com

Isaac: "There are a few misconceptions that I have noticed so far and would like to clear them up, and will also answer your questions:

1) I realize now that I did not make this clear, but I should clarify that I am not responsible for the blacking out of the Q4-86 report. Most of the copies I was able to make came from documents that were already archived, which meant that they had already been censored for use by outside parties that needed access to some, but not all, of CARET's information. I'm trying to share this information, not hide it, but if I did feel that if a given topic was too sensitive for some reason, I would make it clear that I had personally covered it up and probably try to give a reason why.

2) I do not understand the question about why the diagram would be "formatted for 8.5 x 11"... As I mention in my letter, the diagram is a reproduction, not the original. We had a team of technical artists painstakingly copy the diagram from its original source, which was a slightly curved panel not unlike the one seen in the Big Basin craft, although this one was apparently inside the craft, not on the outside. We copied it into a drafting program over the course of about a month.

Our software was understandably primitive by today's standards, but it was still orders of magnitude more powerful than a pencil and paper would have been. This made a task that would have otherwise been nearly impossible relatively feasible, albeit extremely time-consuming. I can assure you, "they" did not make anything particularly convenient for us. One of the reasons we chose to reproduce that particular diagram was because out of all the diagram-artifacts we had access to, it was on the flattest surface.

Since the geometry of the forms is extremely important, curvature of the surface it's printed on must be "corrected" if it is to be reproduced in a surface with a different contour (such as a flat page). This can be done in a number of ways, by either using a mathematical model to reverse the effect of the surface curves on the diagram's shapes, or by methods of physical measuring that allow precise measuring of irregular surfaces. In either case, however, it adds a significant new dimension of labor to an already extremely labor-intensive task, so it's avoided whenever possible. We really just needed one or two accurately copied diagrams to serve as convenient examples for our own work in decoding and reproducing it, so luckily this was not something we had to do often. Some experimentation was being done on ways to "scan" the diagrams as well, using an almost completely automated process that could automatically account for curved surfaces, but during my time there, very little progress was made on this front.

3) I think the confusion over the quality of the documents stems from the fact that he (critic) is under the impression they (CARET document) were typeset. They were not. First of all, I'm no guru when it comes to graphics or design, but being in close contact with numerous people from places like XPARC will give you enough background to know the lay of the land. What's first important to note is that systems capable of desktop publishing had been in development for many years before CARET, mostly starting with the Xerox Alto (in 1973), which XPARC developed themselves.

In fact, I once remember hearing from someone related to the original Alto team that Boeing (I believe) used the Alto to lay out and print the documentation for one of their planes (or something to that effect, I heard the story years ago). The joke was apparently that there was so MUCH documentation that the plane itself could essentially be filled with the pages. Furthermore, laser printing itself had also been around for many years (albeit in an extremely expensive form), and was also developed within XPARC (more or less). Other systems, such as PERQ and Lilith, also came out around the late 70's and while none of them turned into major commercial products, they were not uncommon among large companies and [mostly] universities and were put to very productive use.

These systems were also the inspiration for the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which was of course perhaps the biggest factor in the consumer-level desktop publishing boom of the late 80's and early 90's. By 1984, there were quite a few options available for producing these kinds of documents, they were just ABSURDLY expensive, so they weren't on every street corner. Obviously it was nowhere near as turnkey and simple as it is today, but it was a very crude approximation of the same process with similar tools. We just had far less features and everything was a hell of a lot slower. But the point I'm trying to make is that while our method of documentation was somewhat advanced for its time, and also somewhat uncommon, it was hardly unattainable by a sufficiently motivated, financed, and well-connected organization.

I had very little contact with the technical writers for the most part, but I do know that we were using this kind of technology for both page layout and printing. CARET was expected to produce a massive amount of detailed, well-formatted documentation that could be easily modified and re-used for numerous drafts and revisions, and we would not have been able to keep up using traditional page layout and typesetting techniques. The mid-1980's were a very transitional period for these fields, and I would suggest that people do not assume we were using run-of-the-mill standards.

One of the things I appreciated most about CARET was that if the technology was available, and we needed it to work better or more effectively, it was given to us with little debate. But typesetting and digital page layout are apples and oranges, so I think most of this is a moot point anyway.

The bottom line is that many people both inside and outside the engineering world frequently underestimate how long we've had a lot of the technology we have. 99% of the algorithms we use today were developed decades ago, they just didn't have the same practical applications immediately available. Most of the engineers of the 60's and 70's would have been right at home with today's developments and technologies. The only difference is that things have gotten smaller and faster. In the vast majority of technologies, that is the only thing that REALLY changes from one era to the next. If I told the average person that we had speech-synthesizing technology in 1936, they probably wouldn't believe me.

I could show you a prototype of a simple drafting/design system that was operated by a light pen directly on a screen from the 1960's. You could draw a shape freehand, then immediately rotate it, modify it, duplicate it, or whatever. You could draw lines connecting different objects, then erase them by simply drawing a squiggly line over it. The computer could interpret the squiggles as a sign to erase something, all in real time. And this was half a century ago, and decades before CARET. Think about that for a moment. The point is, most of what we have today is much older than we think. The only differences are that it's faster, cheaper, and a marketing team has given it a glossy finish and found a commercial application for it. But if you take away some of the speed, power, ubiquity and consumer appeal, you'll find a lot of today's technology scattered throughout much of the 20th century. I hope this is helpful.


From: Isaac
Subject: Re: "Drones"
Date: June 27, 2007 Received 4:28 PM, Albuquerque, New Mexico
To: earthfiles@earthfiles.com

Isaac: "1) While I wasn't a major player in the (CARET) organization, I was hardly 'some worker.' My middle-management position is the only reason I was able to make out with what I did. Bear in mind that even someone in my position would never get the chance to leave with even the smallest of actual artifacts, but paperwork smuggling was feasible for anyone who wasn't subjected to the frisking.

Also, let's not forget that paperwork only proves so much. I'll be the first to agree that everything I've provided could be faked, I suppose. It is, after all, just a series of images. While the powers that be obviously don't want this material leaking if they can help it, they're certainly aware that scans of documents aren't in the same league as UFOs landing on the White House lawn. I'm not the first person to leak a document or a photo, and I won't be the last. The information I've shared is very unlikely to change the world, and this is the reason I'm not worried about being literally murdered if I'm identified. I'll face consequences to be sure, but it's not the kind of thing they kill for.

2) Of course the manual doesn't look anything like typical government and military documents. The entire purpose of CARET was to recreate the look and feel of silicon valley private enterprise, populate it with private industry engineers, and let it tackle the problem of extraterrestrial technology research. Style manuals were among the numerous things we brought with us from the 'outside world.' I'm not sure what else can be said about this. I agree it's uncommon for non-standard documents to come out of this kind of research, but it's even more uncommon for people like myself (and even more so for many of my co-workers) to be brought into this kind of project in the first place. Most of us were decidedly not military men. I find it a lot more bizarre than the fact that we were able to design our reports a certain way. CARET was an exception to many of the usual rules.

3) If he (one of many critics who emailed Earthfiles and which I shared with Isaac) believes the pictures are fake, I certainly can't do or say anything to prove otherwise. He sounds very sure of himself.

4) Most importantly, be very wary of anyone who claims to 'know the mind' of extraterrestrials. The comments he's made are, to put it lightly, naive and extremely presumptuous. Firstly, he's referring to 'the aliens' as if there is a single collective group of them. The universe is not split into 'humans' and 'non-humans,' any more than Earth is split up into 'Spanish' and 'non-Spanish' or something equally arbitrary. There are numerous races - and again, like our own races of humans here on earth, they do things in very different ways.

His comment that 'the aliens don't do this or that' is akin to saying 'humans don't speak Japanese.' Well, many humans don't, but Japanese humans certainly do. The point is not that his statement is right or wrong, but simply that it's phrased illogically. He then goes on to suggest that the design of the drones is wasting space, which is again, alarming in its arrogance. We had some of the brightest minds in the world spending years just to understand a single facet of their technology, while this individual claims to be able to assess basically every detail of a given design after looking at a single photo and conclude that it's inefficient. I'm not even sure such a statement should be dignified with a response, and I'm sure you can understand why.

To be honest, whoever this person is, I wrote him off as soon as he said 'the aliens would never design as these pictures depict.' That's about as presumptuous (if not ignorant) as a statement on this subject can be, at least coming from a fellow human. Unless there's an alien engineer on the other side of this email, there's simply no way such statements could have merit. I'm really only writing this as a courtesy to you.

At best, he's been exposed to technology from a radically different race, and at worst, he doesn't know what he's talking about. This individual may have access to real information, and he might not. If he is a fellow 'whistle blower,' then I'm not interested in attacking him. If he's not, and is simply making things up, then I'm even less interested. Whatever he is or isn't is not for me to say, but judging by the way he talks about this issue I have my doubts.

It's a big world and these are complicated issues. A sense of humility and the admission we don't know everything is one of our greatest assets.


I answered a couple of questions regarding what I perceived as further problems with the LMH side of the Drone Hoax, or more precisely the timeline/s involved between receiving notifications of the Isaac documents then the sequence of events before she personally received a reply from Isaac regarding questions posed by Earthfiles.com readers which LMH had forwarded to him:

Isaac initially contacted C2C late on the 25th June, below is a direct quote from an email I received off Lex a while ago that confirms this. (After I enquired as to the specific time/s):

The Isaac correspondence came in at 6/25/2007 10:33 PM PT.

On the 27th July (a month later) LMH posted the following:

July 27, 2007 Albuquerque, New Mexico - After the Isaac letter and CARET document were released on June 26, 2007, one of the criticisms was expressed this way:


I emailed these issues to Isaac and on June 27, 2007, I received his replies in two separate emails indicated by receipt times, which Isaac gave me permission to share in an Earthfiles follow-up. My delay in reporting these emails is that I had an indication from Isaac that I might be able to interview him by phone. So, I waited, hoping the interview would occur. But to date, that has not happened.

From: Isaac
Subject: Re: "Drones"
Date: June 27, 2007
Received 1:34 PM, Albuquerque , New Mexico

Also note that this is the first & only time I've seen LMH reference these unannounced conversations with Isaac, but I digress...

As you can see the email was received at 1:34 PM, Albuquerque , New Mexico

I've checked the world clocks and it seems that C2C is an hour behind LMH, ( Albuquerque , New Mexico = Mountain Time Zone) and they didn't receive the Isaac communication until 10:33 PM PT.

Now if someone at C2C was reading the emails at this time of night, they still had to read the email which would no doubt be queued up with others, realise what they were reading then quickly read it all to see exactly what was being claimed, make a snap judgement and alert whomever on the C2C side would need alerting about such information, and then finally inform LMH and post the information online. LMH stated in the quote above that, " After the Isaac letter and CARET document were released on June 26, 2007 ."

So LMH didn't receive the documentation until at best the early hours of the 26th June, she could well have awoke to discover them on the morning of the 26th when you consider the lateness of the hour we are talking about.

Anyway she has to realise there's an email there because again as DRT member Tomi has said that even she (Tomi) has to use special pre-agreed words in the email headers to stand a chance of being read, and even then LMH sometimes still misses them. So she (LMH) has to read the email and the Isaac documentation to assess its worth. I don't need to remind you (but I will!!) that this is no mean task as when combined they are make for a lengthy document; she then has to decide to post the images and the text.

Due to the length of the documents LMH was forced to split the documents into two web-pages and these are still the longest two pages I've seen at Earthfiles, and of course they needed formatting for her site. Plus I don't know if you've noticed but Part2 was actually posted first. LMH wouldn't make a basic error like this by accident and I believe she actually done it so that people visiting the Earthfiles website would see Part1 before Part2. Anyway what I'm getting at is this means it's more than likely she uploaded both pages at the same time, which in turn means that she had to acknowledge, read, recognise, copy, reformat and post the document in its entirety before it went, 'live.'

So after all of this, and after it was uploaded it still has to reach the public. It's a little while before the aggregators pick the story up and quite a while longer before the new post propagates through the internet via alerts/notifications. So I believe the first time her fans arrived was at the absolute best late-afternoon, and at worst late or during the night (26th June).

And then people visiting the LMH website have to realise there is new information available, read the Isaac documents, understand what is being said and digest the information.

They then need to decide that they are going to reply via email, think about their questions, formulate them and send them to LMH. These questions were varied and examples of these ranged from readers querying the 'model parts' to the formatting of the document, image sizes etc.

So what time could it be now?

In my opinion it must be nearing midnight (if not after) on the 26th June before a readers reply could be sent back to LMH. Now as we know LMH receives vast amounts of emails as it is, so vast that code-words are sometimes overlooked, so to have replies to the recently posted Isaac documentation piling in as well must have proved quite a workload.

If LMH had been at her computer almost constantly since receiving the documents you can't expect every Earthfiles reader to have been and I don't think it's likely that LMH would have received any reader emails until the 27th June.

Now, the previous 24 hours have already being hectic with quite a bit of time and work involved at Earthfiles, so LMH had to read this new deluge of emails as well as the regular ones, pick out the most popular or most pertinent questions, compile these in an email and finally send it to Isaac.

Isaac has to realise he's received it, read the questions then compose another lengthy & multi page email in reply to these accusations, he replied twice and when combined these two emails amount to well over 2,000 words!!

So, if C2C received the email at 10:33 PM PT on the 6/25/2007 then this would make it 11:33 PM in New Mexico and if C2C read the email AS SOON as they received it then forwarded it to LMH this means the earliest time LMH could possibly have been aware of the Isaac communication was the 26th June, so basically everything I have described above had to take place before 1:34 PM the day after this, which was the 27th June.

So taking on board everything that had to happen in order for LMH to receive a reply from Isaac, a reply that directly answered the questions posed by Earthfiles readers then I struggle to see how all of these events I detail above could possibly have occurred in the timeframe stated by LMH, a timeframe which in reality is a matter of hours rather than days. I should probably point out at this juncture that:


The only reason I place so much emphasis on the times & dates is so other members can appreciate how unlikely it was that Isaac replied so quickly and exactly what it would have entailed were he to do so. Also, the only reason that I mentioned the time LMH posted the initial documentation was because it was directly relevant to her receiving the questions from Earthfiles readers, questions which she then emailed to Isaac and as I also pointed out Isaac replied in two emails totalling over 2,000 words.

It has nothing to do with how quickly she republished the Isaac documents but rather was relevant in showing everything that had to happen before she received a reply from Isaac answering the questions.

The actual dates really are inconsequential but what is consequential is the time lapsed between when Isaac first ever contacted C2C and LMH receiving his reply to questions asked by Earthfiles readers, which was somewhere around 24 hours and I believe that's been generous. The following may explain it better, and remember Isaac was unheard of before any of this occurred.

  • Isaac contacted C2C. (10:33 PM)
  • C2C noticed his email.
  • C2C read and digested his lengthy documentation.
  • C2C published the documents/contacted LMH.
  • LMH received this email and read the documents.
  • LMH published the documents.
  • Earthfiles readers located & read these documents.
  • Earthfiles readers formulated & wrote these questions in an email.
  • Questions were then emailed to LMH.
  • LMH noticed she had received these emails.
  • LMH read them and picked out what she thought were pertinent questions.
  • LMH emailed Isaac.
  • Isaac noticed he had received these emails.
  • Isaac penned a lengthy reply answering these questions.
  • Isaac emailed this reply to LMH.


There's a couple of *bottlenecks* involved with the above timeline:

C2C didn't receive the email until late at night, would anyone from C2C have been reading emails at this time? Also C2C receive many, many emails and as Isaac was unknown prior to this email it wouldn't have been a priority to read his first, so it may well have went unnoticed until the next day.

The next bottleneck as I see it is Earthfiles readers contacting LMH as before this could happen, LMH had to be aware of, read, resize, format and post all of the Isaac documents. Then Earthfiles readers had to have realised there was new information, read/digest it and then articulate their questions in an email which was sent to LMH (who also receives many, many emails on a daily basis).

My point is that according to what was wrote by LMH that all of this occurred in a matter of hours.
I found this unrealistic at the time and still struggle to reconcile the events with the timeframe.

Here's a (cropped) screen grab from the Earthfiles webpage in question.

Here's the time LMH posted the Isaac images:

Here's the reason I can't provide a link: