It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sequel/Kevin Puppos-- CARET Schematic

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:44 PM
First, this topic IS NOT argue whether the ISAAC/CARET/Drone is hoax or not; it is to establish the meaning of the schematic. It is clear that someone put a lot of thought into this, and intelligence. The schematic (Fig. 14.11) is purposeful, and in conjunction with the limited portion of the document we are given, appears to be a description of the major systems, sub-systems, and control system of the craft from which the anti-gravity generator was alledgedly derived.
I'm pretty sure I can identify some of the primary systems, and some sub-systems in the schematic, but the lower quadrant still holds some mysteries. Sequel, I did a search and found you had come to the same conclusions in an earlier thread. Care to discuss? I only have dial-up in my somewhat remote location, so bear with me.

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 09:39 PM

(1) The schematic in figure 14.11 represents a an accurate reproduction of the functional description of the craft from which the gravity generator and I-beams were obtained.
(2) The major functions described in the report are accurate, but not necessarily complete.
(3) The original craft had two anti-gravity generators, as stated in the original report.
(4) The circles represent components, the connections represent information flow. This can be data, energy, or gravity.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by TruthSeekerSeven

Hi Truthseeker,

I was checking in on the forums over at Whitley Streiber's site around the same time the drone story broke out and it certainly became a favorite topic of mine.

I came across the post by "kevinpuppos" and searched ATS to see if anyone had commented on it yet. I had been lurking long enough to know that I was in the company of many competent people out there that could either disprove Mr. Puppos' translation of the documents or confirm that what he describes is possible.

I could be wrong but I believe it was the only in depth analysis of the documents at that time.

I am happy to have received some feedback on my contribution to that thread.


log in