“To achieve the system described by Isaac where a unit could be broken into parts and still function, we would need units reduced to the molecular level, but nano technology may soon allow it.”
– Joe Schumacher, Computer Engineer
July 11, 2007 Albuquerque, New Mexico – Regarding the CARET document and information from “Isaac,” about the back-engineered extraterrestrial technology he worked on in Palo Alto from the following two emails seem valuable to share with the Earthfiles viewing audience. The first was sent to me on July 1, 2007, from Joe Schumacher, a retired computer engineer now living in Las Vegas, Nevada. The second was sent to me on July 6, 2007, from Arthur A. Reyes, Ph.D., Information and Computer Science, now teaching at the University of Texas-Arlington in a non-tenured position.
1) From: Joe Schumacher, Computer Engineer
Subject: Drone comments
Date: July 1, 2007
To: [email protected]
I thought I might add my “two cents worth” to the debate in progress regarding the various drone sightings.
I retired some years ago, but my background includes 8 years specializing in electronic countermeasures in the USAF followed by 20 years working as a large systems field engineer and programmer for one of the so-called “Big 3” computer companies.
What prompted me to write was the description by Isaac regarding software being integral to hardware and all of the various components being activated within a “field.” The description reminded me of preliminary work we had done to eliminate the miles of wiring required to interconnect the massive computer systems and peripheral networks I dealt with during my computer career. For instance, in the headquarters of a large banking network, you might have 3 large central systems parallel processing and checking each others results, 200 or more tape and disk drives on floors above and below, and thousands of communication links to the rest of the world simultaneously sending and receiving data. You can imagine the amount of cables required if all the components had to be physically linked.
I have been out of the industry for some time so I do not know how systems presently connect, but our preliminary experiments used a small central processor with both RF and infrared laser communications to broadcast what Isaac described as a “field.”
This controlling CPU had redundant mates, and it performed multiple functions. For instance, movement sensed within the field initiated scans of employee identification badges to confirm their authorization to be there, but it’s primary function was to awaken additional parts of the full computing capability as workload required additional resources. Typically, a processing unit might be accumulating a large amount of data requiring access to storage media so the “field” CPU then awakened another multiplexor handling peripheral data exchange. Once awakened, the unit announced itself in the “field” and then communicated directly with all the other units, assuming a share of the production work in progress. Conversely, when workload diminished, the central CPU also sent “sleep” signals to various units. It’s a first step toward the system Isaac describes since it eliminates miles of wiring between individual units; they need only connection to main power with a very low power consumption CMOS circuit in “standby” awaiting a “wake up” signal from the “field.”
The nearest we got to integrating software within units utilized PROM chips which could be reprogrammed on the fly by the central CPU when upgrades were required. To achieve the system described by Isaac where a unit could be broken into parts and still function, we would need units reduced to the molecular level, but nano technology may soon allow it.
Regarding the various configurations of drones, it appears that the power source relates to use of circular accelerators similar to atom smashers. The central ring alone is apparently sufficient to power the first models pictured, but I noted that more circular assemblies were added as the complexity of configurations expanded with additional modules. In the maximum configuration thus far captured on film, there is a dual circular module added between 2 modules added to the central ring, and the forward assembly also has another large circular module possibly powering the 4 boom assemblies. The thought of an atom smasher arose because I noted the circular assemblies have enlarged sections in the positions where we typically use magnetic pulses to accelerate particle streams.
As to the antenna array atop, it might serve as an accumulator for electrons or photons required in driving the craft, but it is also reminiscent of a configuration I once noted while in the service which had to do with an interesting transmitter known as a “deception generator.” If your aircraft sensed a “lock on” by enemy fire control, the unit modified the incoming signal to indicate a position opposite to any evasive maneuvers you might take, and the antenna oriented itself to return the signal in the direction of it’s strongest reception point from the sender. You can imagine what would happen if you were at treetop level, doing about Mach 1, a fighter behind you had turned control of his aircraft over to weapons computers, and you initiated a steep climb – if the pilot could not quickly take control from targeting computers, he might find himself abruptly meeting the ground. The unique shape of the antenna elements suited it well for the purpose; highly directional when used to transmit a return signal, but also receiving well from all directions.
The big question becomes; what is the purpose of the craft? When I first saw the Chad pictures, they reminded me of the sensor configuration found in some metal detectors. I imagined that there might be a Mr. Spock aboard who turned to Captain Kirk and said “sensors indicate the planet is class M with abundant resources.”
The cage assembly hanging below looks ominous. It reminds me of the machines where kids deposit a quarter and try to pickup a toy with a grappling hook. I think I’ll stay undercover while outside in the future.
In any event, I thought it worthwhile to comment. If we all contribute possibilities, we might resolve the mystery.
Many thanks for your efforts on our behalf,
Las Vegas, NV
2) From: Arthur A. Reyes, Ph.D.,
Information and Computer Science
Subject: “Isaac” is credible & his “language” merits research.
Date: July 6, 2007
To: [email protected]
I read all the content at Isaac’s website carefully. I share with you
some of my thoughts about it, especially the “language”: I feel Isaac’s
diagrammatic notation is more important than any other aspect of his
website or this emerging story.
A Little About Me
I have served as a senior lecturer or assistant professor in the
department of Computer Science & Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington continuously since 1999. I earned a Ph.D. in Information & Computer Science from the University of California at Irvine (UCI) in 1999 and a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from Polytechnic University in 1987. I worked as an engineer on the B-2 bomber for Northrop in Pico Rivera (Los Angeles) from 1987 to 1992. In graduate school I researched tools & methods for software engineering, including programming languages, expert systems, & various diagrammatic notations. I now teach senior & first-year graduate courses in software engineering, advise undergraduate students regarding their academic progress each term, and help direct the university’s Autonomous Vehicles Laboratory.
My following comments do not represent the University of Texas-Arlington, but are my personal observations based on a long-time engineering and computer science career.
Isaac Is Credible.
I find Isaac’s writing style and the content of his narrative to be
consistent with that of a knowledgeable and experienced engineer or
engineering manager. Isaac’s use of jargon such as “big-O notation”,
“context-sensitive languages”, “style manuals”, “workflow”, the
distinction between software and hardware, etc., is correct, concise &
insightful. I find nothing in Isaac’s narrative to indicate fiction.
However I find it humorous that he picked the pseudonym “Isaac”, which means “he will laugh”.
Isaac’s Extraterrestrial Computer Technology
Isaac states that the extraterrestrial computer is a homogeneous solid
material that upon (much) closer inspection is actually a holographic
array of processing elements. I believe Isaac is providing a vague
description of what Ray Kurzweil describes in his book The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology © 2006, as the ultimate expression of a computer: a quantum computing material that is precisely organized at the subatomic level & higher.
In the type of computational material that Kurzweil references, every
quantum metric, e.g., speed, position, spin, etc. of every particle can
be used to store information. If I recall correctly, one cubic centimeter of this computing material would be at least as intelligent as a human being and would consume no energy, except very minute amounts to reset the input & output pins. The implications of this technology are explored at length in Kurzweil’s book.
Isaac describes a diagrammatic “language” or notation that is innately
functional and operates by utilizing some universal principle. What
could this universal principle be? Kurzweil’s book references the work
of several theoretical physicists who believe the fabric of the universe
is not continuous, but divided into discrete elements. Specifically,
they see the fabric of spacetime as working like a cellular automaton,
which is an array of cells in which the contents of any cell at any
point in time is determined by the contents of adjacent cells according
to a small set of simple rules. Note that in cellular automata, time &
movements occur in discrete steps, like the moves in a board game. If
the universe is really a computer, then there should be ways to program
it. Isaac’s “language” could be a way of doing so.
If Isaac’s diagrammatic notation utilizes some universal principle to
function, then I would guess that sacred geometry and alchemical notations are actually dim recollections of how this principle was applied in earlier, more advanced civilizations. It’s interesting to note that the concept of such diagrammatic notations is finding its way into the popular mind, e.g., the animated series Full Metal Alchemist depicts the characters making “alchemist circles” in which they stand to perform alchemical operations. Full Metal Alchemist takes place in another world where alchemy is the high science.”
If viewers have more information about the dragonfly-drone phenomenon, please email me at [email protected]
For further information about Issac, the CARET document and the dragonfly-drone eyewitnesses and images, please see the Earthfiles reports below filed under Environment:
- 07/10/2007 —2005 and 2006 Memphis “Drones”?
- 06/29/2007 —Another “Drone” This Week Near Maxwell AFB
- 06/26/2007 —Part 1: Explanation of the Recent “Strange Craft” Sightings
- 06/26/2007 —Part 2: Documentation, Palo Alto Caret Laboratory Q4-86 Research Report
- 06/22/2007 —Dragonfly “Drone” Seen October 1995 in Arizona
- 06/17/2007 —More Big Basin, California, Bizarre “Drone” Images
- 06/15/2007 —Part 2 – Star Wars Physicist Edward Teller, Outer Space Menace And Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs)
- 06/08/2007 —More Drone Photos and Other Eyewitnesses
- 05/30/2007 —Birmingham-Type “Drone” Seen At Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, in Mid-1980s
- 05/28/2007 —Letters About Unidentified “Drone” Aerial Objects
- 05/25/2007 —Two More Eyewitnesses of Aerial “Drones” in 2005 and 2006
- 05/21/2007 —Updated: Odd Aerial “Drone”? Photographed Again Over Capitola, California
- 05/16/2007 —Updated: Odd Aerial “Drones”? Over Lake Tahoe and Central California
- 05/16/2007 —Updated: Engineer Comments About Odd Aerial “Drones”? Over Lake Tahoe and Central California
Majestic 12 Documents: http://www.majesticdocuments.com
© 1998 - 2018 by Linda Moulton Howe.
All Rights Reserved.