From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2007-07-01 23:03:06
The original sightings which prompted the release of this information looked like a hoax to me when they first appeared a couple of months ago. Having read the letter and accompanying documentation, it all fits with the other stuff I have read. Also, as someone who has worked in Computing and Software Development for over 20 years, I find the way he described concepts in his letter to be “right on the mark” and also the accompanying documentation seems self-consistent and written in manner appropriate to what it is describing Below, I have extracted the readable text from the PACL CARET Documents for you to evaluate for yourselves. I think it’s time for people to really consider what we should be thinking about and what we should be allowed access to. Please forward this information – you never know, it could help to change our future. All this has come from: isaaccaret.fortuneci… Sightings discussed in this audio (witness interviewed): www.checktheevidence… I have compiled “Isaac”‘s letter and the documents scans into a single PDF file here (6 Megs): www.checktheevidence… Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT DECEMBER 1986PALO ALTO, CA AND PACL ST/ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT 1. OVERVIEW This document is intended as a primer on the tentative findings of the Q4 1986 researchphase (referred to herein as “Q4-86”) at the Palo Alto CARET Laboratory (PACL). Inaccordance with the CARET program mission statement, the goal of this research hasbeen achieving a greater understanding of extraterrestrial technology within the contextof commercial applications and civilian use. Examples of such applications, in noparticular order, include transportation, medicine, construction, energy, computing andcommunication. The ultimate goal of this research is to provide a core set of advancedtechnologies in a condition suitable for patent review. 2. EXTRACTION The process of converting raw artifacts of extraterrestrial origin to usable, fully-documented human technology is termed extraction. The extraction process ultimatelyconsists of two phases: first is the establishment of a complete theoretical and operationalunderstanding of the artifact, and second is a distillation of the artifact’s underlyingprinciples into a usable, product-oriented technology. Suggestions of specific productapplications on behalf of PACL have been encouraged, but are not considered mandatoryor essential. The results of a successful extraction are collected in what is termed an extraction package(EP), which should include the following: * 1. Complete theoretical and operational overview 2. Assessment and summary of compositional materials 3. At least three (3) working prototypes, demonstrating multiple instances ofsuccessful, repeatable and reliable implementation 4. Assembly notes and BOM * At the time of this writing, a fully successful extraction has not yet been achieved,although numerous threads of research are showing promise. Comprehensive documentation of PACL’s extraction process can be found in document PACL-D0006, entitled “PACL Extraction Procedure Guide”. 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF 04-86 Q4-86 focused on four key subjects, all of which were based on artifacts of extraterrestrialorigin obtained from crash site recovery operations conducted during the last two decadeswithin the continental United States. These subjects are: * 1. “Personal” antigravity generator (so-named for its small, portable size) 2. Three-dimensional image recorder/projector 2 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT 3. A complex system of symbols and geometric constructs capable of both definingthe functionality of certain artifacts as well as manipulating their behavior,crudely analogous to a computer programming language but without the need 4. for a compilation or interpretation phase. 4. RESEARCH SUBJECT: “PERSONAL” ANTIGRAVITY Antigravity technologies are among the most ubiquitous recovered from extraterrestrialcrafts. While antigravity is most commonly associated with propulsion, the principlesunderlying the technology extend into a far broader domain; indeed, virtually all aspectsof most extraterrestrial craft seem to incorporate its use in some way. A prominent exampleis the seemingly impenetrable field, of controllable diameter and attenuation, surroundingthe craft that protects it from weather conditions and the surrounding environment,as well as debris, and, unsurprisingly, ballistic weaponry. Additional examples includedampening of G-force on passengers and on-board equipment, movement of doors andhatches (or their closest equivalents), and even placement of fixtures (such as- controlconsoles, or their closest equivalents) within a given space. Perhaps most startling is thefact that the very components within a given extraterrestrial craft appear to be held inplace, in relation to one another, exclusively by antigravitational means. This is a partialexplanation for the commonly noted lack of rivets and adhesives in the construction ofthese crafts. PACL aims to translate this technology into a product-oriented EP capable of directapplication within the consumer market. However, since the sudden emergence of suchradically advanced technology would undoubtedly yield destructive consequences, PACLrecommends a strategy of incremental dissemination in which deliberately downgradedversions of the original technology are released over a period of years or decades tosoften the impact of integration with existing infrastructures, in technological, economicand social terms. 4.1. WHAT IS PERSONAL ANTIGRAVITY? Not all recovered extraterrestrial technologies are equal, and many previous experimentson antigravity have been performed on cumbersome artifacts suffering from enormousform factors and impractical weights. An ironic consequence of these previous generationsof experimentation is that many man-made aircraft that would be otherwise ideal forantigravity propulsion models are incapable of supporting the weight of the device beforeits gravity-canceling effects are activated. This has lead to many clumsy and accident-prone solutions, such as using a second antigravity generator to load and position thefirst within the aircraft before activation and takeoff, and then repeating the process inreverse after landing but before deactivation. Despite some minor successes in narrowly-defined domains, these approaches are obviously not acceptable in the long term. 3 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT Recently, however, a rather different implementation of antigravity technology hasappeared, undoubtedly the product of a different, and presumably more advanced source. it can produce gravity-canceling effects of magnitudes comparable to existing artifacts in apackage less than two feet across and weighing less than five pounds. PACL has termed this technology “personal antigravity”, as its virtually negligibleweight and dimensions suggest applications as focused as antigravity generation fora single human user. Early experiments suggest, however, that despite its remarkableprecision and focus, this technology is equally effective when broadened to deal withmassive payloads of arbitrary scales. 4.2. OVERVIEW OF RECOVERED ANTIGRAVITY ARTIFACTS 4.2.1. KEY ARTIFACTS PACL has conducted the brunt of its antigravity research on three key artifacts. The firstis what PACL considers to be an “antigravity generator” (seen in figure 4.1), a devicethat appears to provide a “source” of antigravity that can then be projected onto orharnessed by other components within the craft. The second two artifacts are curved I-beam segments (seen in figure 4.2) that, when placed anywhere within a certain radiusof the generator during a specific mode of its operation, immediately fly into what ispresumed to be their relative positions within the original construction of the craft. The generator artifact is assigned the identification code A1. The I-beam artifacts areassigned identification codes A2 and A3. 4.2.2. SECONDARY ARTIFACTS etween Additionally, PACL has been provided with a s n i ;a II,. 1^:i % x ‘ ‘c ( ‘capable of controlling A1 by activating and deactivating it, as well as switcningits three primary modes of operation. This device, assigned the identification code SI,is of particularly sensitive importance, as it is the only known method of controlling 4.2.3. RIGID SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS Unlike the more general-purpose antigravity fields generated by implementations of thistechnology obtained from other sources, A1 is capable of multiple modes of operationand varying levels of precision. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of A1’s functionalityis its ability to focus its antigravitational effects on specific objects, rather than entirespatial volumes, creating what PACL has termed a rigid spatial relationship (RSR). An RSR can be thought of as creating an “implicit solid” between two or more constituentparts separated by empty space. Once in effect, these constituent parts behave as if they 4 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT Figure 4A The artifacts used by PACL during the antigravity research phase of Q4-86. are directly and physically linked, and are completely inseparable by pulling or pushingthem in opposing directions. Only when the effect of A1 is deactivated will they onceagain behave as separate objects. As an example, imagine cutting a broomstick into two segments, each one foot in length.Once separated, each segment is its own object, capable of being moved or rotatedindependently of the other. Under the effect of an RSR, however, the segments mightbehave as if they were a three-foot rod consisting of both foot-long broomstick segmentsseparated by an additional foot of empty space. While the two rod segments would stillappear to be separate, to the point that an observer would be able to pass their handthrough the space that separates them, they would be unable to move one of the rodswithout the other behaving as if it were directly attached. 4.2.4. OVERVIEW OF A1 A1 consists of a two-segment cylindrical core, 1 foot, 2.2 inches in length and 8.3 inchesin diameter, with needle-like appendages extending from each end. The total lengthof the device, with needles included, is 2 feet, 2,4 inches. Both core segments featurea triangular array of three “arms”, extending 7.6 inches from the center of the core, PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT Figure 4.2 Close-up shot of the I-beam segments. each of which end in a circular “pad” with a diameter of 2 inches. The device weighsapproximately 4 pounds, 3 ounces. Research on the internal functionality of A1 began late in Q4-86, and as such, littleis currently known. What is certain, however, is that the device contains no movingparts whatsoever, does not feature any kind of control interface in the form of buttons,switches, or levers, and, apparently, can only be manipulated by the technology containedin SI. According to the limited data to which PACL has been given access in regardsto the placement and housing of A1 within the original craft, A1 was one of a pair ofidentical generators, together responsible for all antigravity-related functionality, frompropulsion of the craft itself to placement of all components within the craft’s internaldesign. From this information, as well as experiments conducted with SI, it has beendiscovered that A1 operates in one of at least three modes of operation: 1. Field mode. A1 generates a field of (presumably) arbitrary size and any shapethat can be expressed as a convex volume. Within this field, gravity is effectivelyredefined with any desired strength and orientation. The parameters of this mode¿including the shape of the field itself, are defined by ___SI. Surprisingly, A1 does not appear capable ot generating a rieia witn any degree of concavity, nor can the strength or orientation of theartificial gravity within the field vary from one point to another. An example of 6 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT field mode would be creating a controlled gravity environment within an aircraftor spacecraft for passengers and cargo. 2. Component mode. Rather than generating a general-purpose field of constant gravitycontrol, A1 will manipulate the gravitational effect on specific objects, allowingthem to take any position or orientation relative to its own centroid. Componentmode appears to be used commonly for maintaining the physical constructionof a craft’s design. Rather than attaching a craft’s components to one another byway of rivets, adhesives, welding or the like,, they are simply held in place, quiteprecisely, by antigravitational means. Unlike field mode, PACL has not yet beensuccessful in controlling the parameters or data that drive this mode. SI doesnot appear capable of controlling this mode beyond activating or deactivating it.Once in effect, the details of which components are affected, and how, seem tobe provided by the components themselves. See the following section for moreinformation. Component mode is responsible for the RSR effect described in theprevious section and depicted in figure 4.4. 3. Multi mode. A1 combines the functionality of the field and component modes,producing specific antigravity effects on individual components while alsogenerating any number of general-purpose gravity control fields. The samelimitations that apply to the field generated in field mode apply to fieldsgenerated in this mode as well, but the ability to create multiple fields of differingparameters allows those limitations to be effectively circumvented in mostsituations. It is believed that this mode was used most commonly for managingthe antigravitational needs of the original craft. 4.2.5. OVERVIEW OF A2 AND A3 On their own, A2 and A3 appear to be completely non-functional segments of a curvedI-beam (seen in in figure 4.3). However, when A1 is switched into component mode, theirposition and orientation in relation to A1’s centroid are precisely enforced with an RSR(seen in figure 4.4). * A2 and A3 are primarily differentiated by their lengths, which are 7.2 inches and 9.1 inches,respectively. Despite the difference in their lengths, both artifacts weigh approximately2.6 ounces. While initial experimentation indicated that the artifacts were composed of a consistent, solid material, experiments on A1’s component mode suggest that the artifacts are more internally complex, somehow containing information that describes their position and orientation in relation to A1 when the mode is in effect. Whether or not they possess additional functionality beyond the storage of this information is currently unknown, but is considered likely due to their otherwise ambiguous purpose within the craft’sdesign. 7 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT Figure 4.3 Top-view shot of the I-beam segments. ‘ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q4-86 RESEARCH REPORT Figure 4.4 I-beam segments ¡inked to the antigravity’generator in an RSR. 9 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS PRIMER Figure 14.11 Full view’ of diagram D39-08-117c. 119 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS PRIMER 130* Figure 14.12 Isolated view of a three-node AB-type semaphore cascade, extending from an exterior vertex of an octal junction. 120 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS PRIMER Figure 14.13 Rotary junction with orbital sub-junction connecting to an octal switch. 121 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS PRIMER Figure 14.14 Compound junction in a dual-link union with heavy-state tri-switch and diffuser. 122 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS PRIMER Figure 14.15 Parent junction with three non-orbital child junctions. 123 PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY 03-85 INVENTORY REVIEW
