The O'Hare UFO sightings from late last year really convinced me that something "other" than a hoax had taken place, precisely because the evidence wasn't weighted on some malleable digital image. Here we had a story broken by a mainstream newspaper reporter (John Hilkevitch, Chicago Tribune) that was picked up by all the major outlets -- I learned of it on NPR! The highly credible eyewitness testimony of several aviation professionals, coupled with the FAA's curious reticence and prevarication about the event, struck me much more strongly than even the clearest photograph or video clip could have. It occurred to me that whatever intelligence was guiding that craft purposely chose to descend on a busy airport runway. This rules out a military-ops explanation, and ensures multiple sightings by expert eyewitnesses -- a high-profile move for certain.

We are being teased into a new paradigm, I thought. As the evidence grows more irrefutable, yet hangs just outside the realm of solid proof, it is indeed a choice to recognize it as reality and be awed, or to dismiss it and switch over to today's newest distraction.

;)

st 

 

My introduction to these issues came on the morning of 9/11. My first reaction to seeing the footage of the planes hitting the towers (before I fully understood what all was happening) was that this must be some sort of special effect. Others I have talked to had similar reactions when they first saw these visuals on television that morning. I realized then that a decade or so of highly realistic special effects depicting apocalyptic scenerios in the movies had had quite an effect on how I viewed reality in a very topsy-turvy manner. "Wow, what I'm seeing right now out my window looks as real as what I just saw in the movies."

I wake fearfully and often from the dream of being in the privatised (digital) library of tomorrow, where all material is immaterial and each record unable to be authenticated. No originary works. No provenance. Multiple histories, crafted for profit to suit public policy. For thinking about the potential of images to craft reality, consider Galton, Darwin's cousin, and the inventor of Eugenics. (hasn't he been mentioned in these blogs before..?) To obtain the reality of a particular peoples' essential nature, he superimposed multiple individual pictures to take a racial 'average'. Jew, criminal, loose woman turned into visible types,  in black and white. There may be, however, some freedom in being freed from so-called reality:  "Nothing's true - everything's permitted"

Do not miss this website. 

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

This is either an extremely well orchestrated hoax - or it isn't.

The diagrams are extraordinary, and seem to relate in a very profound way to certain crop circle imagery from the last decades.

Here are some excerpts from Isaac's description of the functionality of the alien "sign language":

 

The “Language”

I put the word Language in quotes because calling what I am about to describe a “language” is a misnomer, although it is an easy mistake to make.

Their hardware wasn’t operated in quite the same way as ours. In our technology, even today, we have a combination of hardware and software running almost everything on the planet. Software is more abstract than hardware, but ultimately it needs hardware to run it. In other words, there’s no way to write a computer program on a piece of paper, set that piece of paper on a table or something, and expect it to actually do something. The most powerful code in the world still doesn’t actually do anything until a piece of hardware interprets it and translates its commands into actions.

But their technology is different. It really did operate like the magical piece of paper sitting on a table, in a manner of speaking. They had something akin to a language, that could quite literally execute itself, at least in the presence of a very specific type of field. The language, a term I am still using very loosely, is a system of symbols (which does admittedly very much resemble a written language) along with geometric forms and patterns that fit together to form diagrams that are themselves functional. Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field, they immediately begin performing the desired tasks. It really did seem like magic to us, even after we began to understand the principles behind it.

I worked with these symbols more than anything during my time at PACL, and recognized them the moment I saw them in the photos. They appear in a very simple form on Chad’s craft, but appear in the more complex diagram form on the underside of the Big Basin craft as well. Both are unmistakable, even at the small size of the Big Basin photos. An example of a diagram in the style of the Big Basin craft is included with this in a series of scanned pages from the [mistitled] "Linguistic Analysis Primer". 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!

Explaining everything I learned about this technology would fill up several volumes, but I will do my best to explain at least some of the concepts as long as I am taking the time to write all this down.

First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, and a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say its holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you want and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole system. They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4 elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful than 1. Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to computation at any time and in any state. The shape of these "chunks" of substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more complex.

So back to the language. The language is actually a "functional blueprint". The forms of the shapes, symbols and arrangements thereof is itself functional. What makes it all especially difficult to grasp is that every element of each "diagram" is dependant on and related to every other element, which means no single detail can be created, removed or modified independently. Humans like written language because each element of the language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expressions can be built. However, their "language" is entirely context-sensitive, which means that a given symbol could mean as little as a 1-bit flag in one context, or, quite literally, contain the entire human genome or a galaxy star map in another. The ability for a single, small symbol to contain, not just represent, tremendous amounts of data is another counter-intuitive aspect of this concept. We quickly realized that even working in groups of 10 or more on the simplest of diagrams, we found it virtually impossible to get anything done. As each new feature was added, the complexity of the diagram exponentially grew to unmanageable proportions. For this reason we began to develop computer-based systems to manage these details and achieved some success, although again we found that a threshold was quickly reached beyond which even the supercomputers of the day were unable to keep up. Word was that the extra-terrestrials could design these diagrams as quickly and easily as a human programmer could write a Fortran program. It's humbling to think that even a network of supercomputers wasn't able to duplicate what they could do in their own heads. Our entire system of language is based on the idea of assigning meaning to symbols. Their technology, however, somehow merges the symbol and the meaning, so a subjective audience is not needed. You can put whatever meaning you want on the symbols, but their behavior and functionality will not change, any more than a transistor will function differently if you give it another name.
 

 

"Will the transformation."-Rilke

This is certainly a timely revelation:

From the article:

"Last week came an astonishing new twist to the Roswell mystery. Lieutenant Walter Haut was the public relations officer at the base in 1947 and was the man who issued the original and subsequent press releases after the crash on the orders of the base commander, Colonel William Blanchard. Haut died last year but left a sworn affidavit to be opened only after his death.

Last week, the text was released and asserts that the weather balloon claim was a cover story and that the real object had been recovered by the military and stored in a hangar.

He described seeing not just the craft, but alien bodies. "

 

Choose between a, b, c, or "all of the above"

 

;)

st 

 

 

Accepting the multiple possibilities inherent in the "drone" images or other unknowns is not an option for most humans at this time.

 

I have been trying to figure out what you might mean by this statement. And although "Quantum physics seems to sometimes require a Zen-like acceptance of paradoxical things which are simultaneously true," these paradoxes do not apply to macro-level physics (i.e. the physical world with which we interact every day -- the world of trees, cars, humans, etc.). On this level of reality, the "drone" images are either:

 

a.) A Hoax ,

 

or

 

b.) Not a Hoax

 

I see no way around this. What would it mean to "accept multiple possibilities" in this case? To accept that the images are both a hoax and not a hoax? That doesn't strike me as a particularly profound alternative.

The beauty of this Battlestar Galactica loveliness is that it asks us to wonder if the universe is bright, if it is indeed intelligent, full of life, order, design, structure, creativity, genius, whim, humor, amazement, surprise, shock, fear, apprehension, revelation.

The answer is, of course, of course.

Deciding whether these pictures are hoaxes are not reminds me of something similar I recently came across. I read some of Rational Readings on Enviromental Concerns which is a collection of essays that give alternative explanations to about every issue I have heard explained in enviromentalism. Some have obvious biases, but others are very sound and convincing. In the convincing ones, it is a different set of facts that set one perspective against another. Rachel Carson had a bunch of facts to show how DDT was harming bird eggs. Gordon Edwards had a bunch of facts to show how DDT had no effect on bird eggs. I was left wondering who do I believe. There's no way to ultimately decide when two sides differ over what the facts are. Yet these ought to be hard tangible things, the effects of DDT, not some nebulous ever shifting concept. It seems our sad fate that we are destroying any sense of a shared reality by people saying we never had one. We all experience the sky as blue, the wind as blowing, our senses, our thoughts, our feelings, and many other things are held in common and undisputable. These mundane and overlooked things are truth, these are our foothold on reality. But we don't seem to start there. We can't seem to let things be what they are, we have to shape them into something we can understand by mangling and destroying them. We create theories and have opinions that are rooted in nothing but the flimsiness of our minds, when we should root ourselves in physical reality and allow all that shows forth from there to grow and bloom in our minds just as a plant roots in the hard earth and spreads its leaves in the soft air and blooms in the delicate sunlight. We ought let the world speak for itself and not impose our own illusions upon it. If we actually did this we wouldn't be worrying about the authenticity of photos because our culture would not be so riddled with the urge to impress others with our own cleverness or uniqueness of experience. People would seek rather to be clear organs of perception for humanity, holding truth in higher esteem than a clever speculative explanation.

If it turns out to be a hoax and it is pretty hard to believe, it is still perhaps one of the best hoaxes ever. It qualifies as a work of performance art. The CARET documents with the level of details are worthy of a good science fiction movie. There is a really well developed backstory here. Personally, I don't believe we need the help of aliens to invent the microchip or LCDs. Because frankly, what is so advanced about those anyway? If they can travel through the vast distances of space their technology isn't going to be reverse engineered by even the smartest of us monkies.

I'm sorry if this is redundant, as I haven't sifted through very much of the 'drone' debate-- but as a 3D artist / motion graphics designer, I instantly recognized the look of the rendering engine. It's unmistakable! Here's a quick link to the type of thing I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity

 

On the other hand, I can't stop thinking about the little self-transforming machine elves...

Whatever about multiple choice realities - the jury's out (and in) for me.

Whichever reality I find myself in on a given day, I always keep my trusty Occam's razor handy.

My feeling right now is that this is a... No, I won't say 'hoax' It seems so much more like Art.

Like much of the science fiction that I have read, It counjures up the most delicious of philosophical questions. The notion of the 'language' is a particular delight to me.

And that is all very well. Let us be delighted by these artefacts of Internet trickery as they flicker and crackle past us.

Never let these ephemera uproot us or interfere with the visceral, spiritual connection that needs to develop between each of us and the sustaining earth underneath our feet. Plant vegetables, brew beer and create great art!

Peace, Dna.

The images from the Isaac documents look like a new Sony camera. I'm not trying to be snarky, but it all looks like the work of some Japanese hoaxers. I find the "language" diagrams quite beautiful. The explanation of the language as having holographic properties that contain intention is like the sygils (sp?) that alchemists use. My other thought is that they are like circuit diagrams. Some of the other descriptions of the "language" remind me of Hebrew which is context sensitive and also meant to "conjure" when written. Consider our word for writing: we "spell" our words. Writing itself is a holographic projection designed to heighten the functions of the left-brain hemisphere. To Native Americans, the alphabet was an alien technology. http://mediacology.com