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)

1111's Analysis of Isaac's Anti-gravity Device

The following is yet more analysis from forum member *11 11*. The member is well-versed in CGI (amongst other relevant disciplines) and is a prolific poster as can be seen from the following comments which range from the 27th June 2007 (one day after the Isaac documents were made public) right up until the 3rd June 2009. *11 11* has appeared on several Drone-related threads and on various forums under several different screen names but has never denied or tried to hide who he was and where he originally posted (i.e. ATS member *11 11*). For further background -wrote by himself- then see here.

Posted by 11 11, on June 27, 2007 at 22:39 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

These are amateur mistakes, or his software lacks a certain functionality.

When you examine this image pay attention to the reflection's on the objects.

The object on the right is not reflecting the object on the left like a mirror. The objects are so close together that they should be reflecting each other, but they are not. This is because the amateur CG guy wanted more glossiness, so he used "Specularity" instead of "Reflection".

Here is the Specularity VS Reflection information from Texturing for Dummies, from the exact program "Lightwave" which I believe he used.

As you can see, these are pictures are CG.

Real CG guys would have noticed this.


Posted by 11 11, on June 27, 2007 at 22:03 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

The picture explains my point...


Posted by 11 11, on June 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by isitmagic:

I actually see a reflection there.

You are not seeing real time reflections, you are seeing fake reflections.
Just compare both objects, on the front part of both objects, they both have identical reflections.
The shading on both objects should not be identical.

But on the photos they are:

I fixed them to show how they should look:


Posted by 11 11, on June 28, 2007 at 05:17 pm

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

The fact that both sides of the objects physical mesh and the texturing are exactly identical, yet mirrored, is absolute evidence of a CG 3D model. It is very very common of 3D artists to save some time and clone and mirror half of a symetrical object to make it whole. Most people usualy texture their objects after mirroring, but its 100% evident that this 3D modeler textured the object, then, mirrored it. Another reason for a 3D artist to have mirrored textures, is to save room on the texture map. Video games and other software like to use as little resources as possible, so they will have limits to texture sizes and stuff. So if the 3D artist only gets a 512x512 gif image to put all his textures on, he will use parts of that texture on multiple parts of the object.

In this case, he cloned and mirrored an entire half of the object. This is very common, and a well known rule of thumb is to keep logos and language away from the texture when doing it, or it will be backwards. For example, a video game made a model of a helicopter, and for realism they add a few tail numbers on it. Of course, these tail numbers read "8081808" or something similar, because when you mirror that, it is still the same number.

There is no getting pass this, it is definetly CG.

I believe UFO's exist, and that we possibly have some of their technology, but this particular instance is FAKE.

Posted by 11 11, on June 29, 2007 at 12:10 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]


Posted by 11 11, on June 29, 2007 at 12:35 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by chunder:

If you can provide evidence that the only way these pictures can have been produced is through CGI then you will have a point.

Ok here it is chunder, proof that this is CGI, and can only be CGI:

Look at this picture, it has blob shadows that can only be created with mutliple lights above the object, yet there are no "highlights" on the ultra reflective surface.

How do you have shadows, but no "highlights" on such a reflective surface??

Highlights are Basic Art 101, even cartoon balloons with zero lighting have "highlights":

(Image Source)

In Basic Art 101 you are even taught about how to put "highlights" when you are creating eyes, to give the eyes "life".

The object should show highlights of each light around it. If this is such a reflective surface enought to act like a mirror, it should be mirroring the actual light source, but it isn't. This is because CGI rendering software tend to ignore the actual highlight of the light source.

Besides the obvious lighting, and mirror reflecting errors, this object just so happens to be using blob shadows and a default white background used by many many many rendering software packages...


Posted by 11 11, on June 29, 2007 at 13:31 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by Lamâshtu:

11 11, wouldn't it depend on the material if there were highlights? i kind of agree with the orange ones in your first pic, but not with the "most obvious" one - say this membrane like thing on the inside of that blue circled part were something like cloth (just an example), there would be no highlight?

You are correct, it does depend on the material. But this object is already reflecting the light from the white background. If the light source is reflecting off of the white background on to the object, then you SHOULD see the light source "highlight", every reflecting object in the world has the "highlight" from the light source. Just look around your house.... find anything reflective and put it under a light, and look for the brightest spot on the object, it will be the "highlight".


Posted by 11 11, on June 29, 2007 at 14:53 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Highlights are a reality, and there are zero highlights in the object renders.

Look here:


Posted by 11 11, on June 29, 2007 at 19:21 GMT

From ATS Thread: [HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Someone please explain these shadows, and missing highlights on the objects.

Please tell me where the light source is object.

Actually, the models are missing signs of REAL light.... ??


The following is the most recent and was posted by 11 11 (a.k.a. *neveleeleven*)
June 3rd, 2009 at UFOCasebook on the
*#8 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth* forum thread.

Not only are the shadows FAKE, but ALL of the symbols and characters on it are FAKE too. The reason there is an illusion of "detail" is because of the "texture map" on the CGI model. You don't even have to be a pro to make a texture map, its basically just an image. You can take a picture of something painted in real life, and apply it to your 3D model, so it looks painted in the model.


The "antigravity" device..... half mirrored! What that means is, only half of the device was created in CGI, and the other half was CLONED and MIRRORED. That is why the "symbols and characters" are mirrored too. In 3D Studio Max they have a tool called "symmetry" that does this for you.

This is what CGI artists do when they want to SAVE TIME, or when they are LAZY.

ALL CGI modelers are lazy in one way or another, they look for ways to add detail with minimal amount of work. A good example is a car. Look at almost any car modeling tutorial, and you will see that they create HALF of the car first, either the left or the right side. When they finish, all they do is CLONE and MIRROR the half they made, and then weld them together (symmetry tool does this automatically), to get a complete car with identical sides, because a car is usually symmetrical.



Professionals usually do texturing before using the symmetry tool, so both sides are textured identically. However, if you use characters and symbols on your texture, then use symmetry, they will be mirrored too (just like the Isaacs device). This is why real professionals use "detail/decal maps" for characters and symbols that aren't supposed to be mirrored.

So the "antigravity" device has major points against it for CGI:
1) Evidence of "symmetry tool" used. (symmetrical model, and mirrored characters).

2) Fake shadows with a low "rays/samples" and "filter" light setting. (shadows aren't solid, they are grainy).

3) Missing highlights/reflections.
4) Evidence of image manipulation on the following image:

You can see on the left the "antigravity" device's shadow is grainy. Just like it would be on a low ray/sample setting in CGI. The image on the right shows different sample settings 5, 30, 100.

CARET Hoax - Antigravity device grain

If the "antigravity" device was created with Light Tracer, I would guess the Rays/Samples setting was somewhere between 30 and 100.

This is a quick tutorial using Light Tracer, read the "Rays/Samples" and the "Size Filter" sections:

You have to be a complete CGI noob to not spot this...

There are so many different possible light and shadow settings that it would take quite some time for someone to create an exact replica of ANY CGI image.

Actually, just seeing the plain white environment that resembles a light box, my B.S. detector went off.

The all white environment and floor (light box style) is normally called a "Work In Progress (WIP) Render" in the CGI world.

In step #4 in this tutorial, you create a "plane" for a floor, and make it white, so you can place the object on top of it to render shadows on the floor. Usually, you try to hide the "edges" of the "plane" so the model looks like it is in a light box. However, if you have a reflective surface, it is going to reflect the edge of the plane.... it does that on Isaacs device...

I made an example: First I created a cylinder, gave it a mirror reflection (raytrace reflection), then I made a yellowish sphere, then I created the white plane (floor).

As you can see in the above image, the mirror like cylinder is reflecting the yellow sphere, and it is also reflecting the edge of the white floor/plane where it meets with the grey environment (like a horizon).

Isaac's device is reflecting the edge of the white floor/plane too!!

This proves that Isaac's device is NOT in a light "BOX", it is actually sitting in a 3D render software on a light "PLANE", and you can see the edge of the plane in the reflection.

Source: UFOCasebook forum, "#8 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth"