The Dragonfly UFO Incidents, Part 4

In our final part of this investigation, we examine the mysterious symbols on this UFO and apply a method to confirm its authenticity.

In the first three parts of this case, we examined reports of an unsymmetrical, non-disk-like craft photographed throughout California in 2007, seemingly part of a secret U.S. government-run project, if we can believe a whistleblower account. We also considered the credibility of witnesses and skeptics, and the alleged workings of the craft itself. In this final, extensive part, we move to the question of how the craft, as was alleged by “Isaac,” the whistleblower, could be made to fly by a special arrangement of the symbols on its surface.

This claim is by far the most enigmatic made by Isaac: that the symbols imprinted on the outside of the craft are what power its flight. Can this be true? Are there precedents for how the visual appearance of an object can affect the surrounding environment and allow flight – or anything else – to become possible? The implication is that there is a kind of power to written or inscribed words or symbols. Given the extremely original shape of the Dragonfly craft, one interesting question is whether the writing itself has been found elsewhere, or is it entirely original, as well?

Patterns of Language

Let us explore this possibility after we examine our basic evidence: the five (and only five) pages that the presumed whistleblower Isaac released and which bear what seems to be an extensive map linking several circular sequences of “writing” that were allegedly found on an alien craft which was somehow made flight-capable, and is the Dragonfly UFO we have been reporting on in this series of articles. The pages below were allegedly smuggled by Isaac out of the CARET lab, and appear to be part of (as Isaac described it) a manual titled Linguistic Analysis Primer that was a system for deciphering the craft’s symbols. The contents of – and more importantly, the analytic method employed by – the manual remain a mystery to us; Isaac did not elaborate on the process by which the symbols are interlinked as shown in the smuggled pages. These pages seem to show symbols arranged in concentric circles from which thick black spokes (also bearing alien writing) and thin curved lines emerge that connect discs to other discs displaying similar but different symbol sequences. It appears that the discs were originally separated from each other, and that the connecting lines are part of the lab’s process of interpretation. Isaac mentioned that the attempts at decoding this writing were hardly successful in comparison to the complexity of the system itself. To recall his description of the alien language, we should ponder the five most dense sentences of his text:

The [alien] 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 [sic] 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.

Linguistic Meaning From Grammatical Markers

In describing our use of language, Isaac’s main observation is that “each element of the language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expressions can be built.” Early on, children learn how to use parts of speech – nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. – and realize that the meaning is created through a construction of those elements, but also, that each element by itself also has its own meaning. As humans, regardless of language, we instinctively understand that a sentence such as, “the blue house is big” is different from the meaning of its individual words “the,” “blue,” “house,” “is,” and “big.” That is, “blue” has its own meaning, as does “house,” for example, and, when they are not combined into a sentence, the words still have meaning in a larger, more abstract, and decontextualized way – “blue” is a basic color, “house” refers to any house, etc. Therefore, the specific combination of words in a sentence is what narrows down the broad meaning of the words to a specific thought or meaning. We almost have to work hard to see, describe, and understand something so instinctive to us as the concept of words versus sentences. But the point is that grammar connects words to sentences in a way that allows meaning to emerge: through specific sequences of words (there are exceptions in order languages, but everywhere, parts of speech are identifiable). For example, consider these three utterances:

The big house is blue.
The small house is blue.
The old house is blue.

In all three sentences, the word blue refers to a house in the same way, even though the house itself is different, depending on the first adjective. Meaning emerges through the order of words, not just the words themselves, such that The big blue is house makes no sense – the order destroys meaning. But in the proper order, a sentence can be expanded to be endlessly long, and still make sense. In James Joyce’s classic novel Ulysses there is one sentence of 4,391 words that sprawls across 17 pages.

Along with phrase expansion, additional (often emotional) meaning can be conveyed by means of repetition; as we repeat a phrase, any words repeated within it become gradually less localized and more conceptual, a technique that is applied in The Bells, one of Edgar Allan Poe’s more mesmerizing poems. It concludes thus:

Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the throbbing of the bells—
Of the bells, bells, bells—
To the sobbing of the bells;
Keeping time, time, time,
As he knells, knells, knells,
In a happy Runic rhyme,
To the rolling of the bells—
Of the bells, bells, bells—
To the tolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells—
Bells, bells, bells—
To the moaning and the groaning of the bells.

Poe knew that the grammatical form of any utterance provides a pattern to be filled in by either factual reports about the world of the writer, or imagined notions and possibilities. By stretching and repeating the elements of a phrase, it becomes more amenable to emphasis – it gains power. Regardless the pattern used, we can conclude one general principle: any word can be replaced, repeated, or removed, but to preserve the meaning of an utterance, whether poetic or factual, the proper grammatical structure (which is to say, the sequence of words used in it) must be kept. So strong is our reliance on grammatical order that even when certain words are omitted, meaning can be preserved, so as the missing verb in this utterance:

This sentence no verb.

This short journey into linguistics illustrates the human dependence on meaning as a function of word order (this is a so-called universal, even when, for other languages, word order is slightly difference and language specific). Order makes meaning.

But, according to Isaac, this is not how the alien language works. Rather than having one word repeating, reinforcing, or modifying another word, sentence after sentence, Isaac describes a system where every word modifies every other word. This is what he means when he states that “every element of each ‘diagram’ is dependent on and related to every other element, which means no single detail can be created, removed or modified independently.” Although this is somewhat true of human language as well, I think that Isaac means that for the alien mind, the sentence system is more like a mathematical equation; no term can be removed or altered. In fact, the idea of the language being “functional” – his term – would argue for this interpretation, and as we can see below, it seems that the elements in the diagrams appear to flow, as if a symbol machine were trading energy between nodes as in a network.

In the hands of CARET lab personnel, the map shows evidence of extensive study, but how the symbols in one sphere connect to another is never explained by “Isaac,” and perhaps that’s all the CARET team could determine. Note, however, that the map pages refer to a “compound junction”, a “parent junction,” an “octal junction,” and a “rotary junction.”

Some pages that were smuggled out are heavily redacted – why is that? If “Isaac” is already sharing highly classified information, there is no need to shield further elements from us. One possibility, of course, is that the pages were already redacted by the time they fell into Isaac’s possession.

Gravity seems to be vectored or directed from one object to another, rather than existing as a field uniformly distributed around an object based on its mass. We know, for example, that given its mass, the earth exerts a gravitational force that is roughly equal around its entire surface area. We are not aware in any scientific way, by contrast, of what we might imagine as gravity columns, spaces or places where gravity is increased vertically as though it were projected or otherwise rising up from one point to another. The secret document states that this is precisely what has been observed in the recovered alien materials:


Unlike the more general-purpose antigravity fields generated by implementations of this technology obtained from other sources, A1 is capable of multiple modes of operation and varying levels of precision. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Al’s functionality is its ability to focus its antigravitational effects on specific objects, rather than entire spatial 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 constituent parts separated by empty space. Once in effect, these constituent parts behave as if they are directly and physically linked, and are completely inseparable by pulling or pushing them in opposing directions. Only when the effect of Al is deactivated will they once again 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 rotated independently of the other. Under the effect of an RSR, however, the segments might behave as if they were a three-foot rod consisting of both foot-long broomstick segments separated by an additional foot of empty space. While the two rod segments would still appear to be separate, to the point that an observer would be able to pass their hand through the space that separates them, they would be unable to move one of the rods without the other behaving as if it were directly attached.(p.4-5)

Note, too, the comparative reference to other work, as they have observed “antigravity fields generated by implementations of this technology obtained from other sources” – we might be just a bit skeptical of Isaac here for having failed to mention that other (obviously secret) projects were referenced. Even if he wasn’t informed of their work, he ought to have been as impressed by this admission as we are.

A symbol chart has made its way out into the world, part of which shows a kind of nomenclature system for the observed symbols. It’s probably useless as an interpretive device, but shows the correlations between photos taken by various persons who submitted them – Raj, Chad, LAP, and Isaac:


Reproduction of Symbols

Alienware, the DELL computer subsidiary, actually adopted the letters into their marketing, while denying any connection with the source of the symbols:

Thank you for your email. It’s great to hear that our promotion has reach out to you and your Forum group regarding the CARET document. Alienware did NOT create the information regarding this phenomena or the CARAT [sic] linguistics. This is NOT an intellectual property of Alienware. The information has anonymously spread throughout the web for some time. We have taken the CARAT [sic] linguistics and have applied this as a marketing tool to draw attention to our promotion.

How strange that some team at a company that builds the most powerful laptops in the planet should have been careful enough to copy the symbols, yet in a public statement, misspell the CARET acronym twice.

As noted elsewhere, a Alienware even tried to trademark some of the symbols, which would be impossible because (1) they cannot prove that they were the creators, and (2) already existing in prior photographs and documents relating to the CARET case, there was what is called prior art, meaning that the material is already in the public domain, so it would be impossible to claim as private property. The legal team at Alienware Corporation (they filed the application, showing the company’s Miami headquarters address) should have known this before even filing the trademark application, of course. But a look at the application shows several interesting facts.

The symbols were clearly very carefully studied, because here, in the application with the US Patent and Trademark Office, they have been perfectly reproduced:

The filing date is Aug. 27, 2008, one year after some of the first photographs became public. This date coincides with the date of a second filing by Alienware, for another set of symbols:

As descriptive statement of these marks, Alienware contended in each case that “The mark consists of symbols that are meant to represent alien letters,” and that “The symbols/characters have no meaning in a foreign language.” The latter is certainly difficult to disprove without government clearance.

These two trademark applications were filed with the USPTO, both eventually denied, not because of the prior art argument (which sinks many applications with the USPTO) but rather because Alienware didn’t file a so-called Statement of Use, which is an affirmation made by the Applicant to the USPTO that the trademark is in fact, now “In Use” in interstate commerce. After Alienware applied for the trademarks, they merely needed to put the symbols on a commercial product in order to prove “use” by U.S. trademark standards. We know that attorneys for Alienware hadn’t simply abandoned the case because they filed for a time extension, in each of the two applications, and both were granted, apparently awaiting the deployment of these symbols in some product. Since about all that Alienware needed to do was put these symbols on their website in association with some product or service, and the condition of use would have been fulfilled, and, given that even after being granted an extension, it did not do that, we are left with new question and another dead trail on this case. The fact that Alienware could simply have filed for another extension and kept the applications alive – yet elected not to – confirms that the abandonment of the applications was the result of an internal decision. For example, there might have been an internal management decision or change concerning the use of these symbols. Even so, why not finish the applications, so as to keep these hieroglyphics? They would then become free publicity of the best kind: speculative. There is, instead, reason to believe that Alienware was asked, or warned, against further publicizing these symbols, as no other option meets the logic of this event sequence’s abrupt end, after time extensions were allowed in the applications, and there is no beneficial business case for dropping a trademark for what would have been destined to become the first-ever visual memes related to alien origins. Lastly, it is difficult to believe the possibility of simple abandonment of the applications, after Alienware’s own legal team didn’t file them, but instead hired Daniel D. Frohling, an attorney whose website promotes him as a legal strategist on marketing and corporate communications mechanisms and content. It also states that he “advocates for his clients, whether in negotiations, with regulatory agencies or in litigation.” In other words, they didn’t just hire a regular trademark attorney; instead, they chose a specialist in using trademarks in marketing, as marketing, and for marketing. So the idea of dropping the trademark applications would never have come from him. Who did it come from? All we can know is that it was someone with enough influence to do so – within or outside Alienware itself.

Beyond this flagrant copying of the symbols, there is a report that the symbols shown in the secret laboratory documents presented by Isaac resemble those in a drawing made by Betty Hill, in the famous UFO abductee case that bears her name and that of her husband, Barney. From her abduction experience, Betty recalled seeing alien symbols, which she subsequently depicted. They are reproduced on page 464 of the book Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience: The True Story of the World’s First Documented Alien Abduction (Stanton T. Friedman, Kathleen Marden, Bruce Maccabee. 60th Anniversary Edition, 2021). Indeed, there is much resemblance between her recalled characters and some found in the preceding pages of the CARET Linguistic Analysis Primer. This is her drawing of those symbols:

As others have demonstrated in more incomplete form, her symbols above match to those on the CARET document that appears to show a transposition map of how symbols can relate to or extend other symbol sequences. The first two columns below show the symbols taken from the CARET documents, some of which are on a black background and others over white, and the rightmost column are the symbols drawn by Betty Hill:

Every symbol that she drew from an experience in 1961 appears in the CARET Primer smuggled by Isaac, presumably made in 1986. In addition, no one appears to have commented on what seems to be a bar code on the outer perimeter of these radial discs. Let us look at how, by rotating and removing them from their radial (circular) composition, they could be laid across, to resemble a UPC code. I have extended the final code into an approximately horizontal line:

What these lines, of alternating height and thickness might represent, is, like so much of this case, a complete mystery. The only person able to shed light on this writing is Isaac, or anyone with whom he might have worked.

Lacking interpretive assistance, let us abandon this lead, whose tendrils lead to dead ends. I’d like to focus now on the possibility of the symbols themselves as energetic elements, which is what “Isaac,” the Palo Alto CARET Laboratory engineer, shared about them. Here we can ask some questions that may have useful answers, if we classify the symbols under some general category, not familiar to most people, that we could call symbolic energy language. Such a “language” may not be written or spoken, but rather experienced, and when invoked in some active way, there is a transformational effect on physical matter. Are there other cases of symbolic energy languages that may prove Isaac’s claim?

It appears so, and examples of this will be the subject of our next investigative venture. Until then, I wish you a joyful week, but not before we mention one final stop in this case. I’ve been in touch with Kris Avery, the 3D visual design virtuoso who, 15 years ago, created an animated video of the Dragonfly UFO – you will recall this from a previous article in this case. This animation was so well-rendered that many people – including the investigator Linda Moulton Howe – were fooled into believing that this was a genuine video of the actual UFO. Kris informed Linda that this was only a sort of exercise, done as a kind of personal challenge in proficient use of Lightwave 3D, the rendering program that generated the Dragonfly images – and also the animated pages of the CARET documents produced by Isaac. Again, this video is so photorealistic that I am compelled to include it once again, below:

In our communications, Kris has been nothing but kind and articulate in sharing a story of personal travail of near-tragic proportions, including threats by militant UFO enthusiasts who believed Linda’s claim that this video was authentic – and in believing this, they considered Kris a CIA-trained agent of disinformation whose video was an attempt to hide the actual photographic evidence of this object. Much to Kris’s disappointment – and regrettably, to mine as well – Linda Moulton Howe never published a retraction once Kris provided proof of the video as a mere 3D animation. This is a cautionary tale about how the desire to believe in something can eclipse factual evidence, particularly when media celebrities refuse to clarify the record.

The Final Question

Having said this, we must therefore close this case with one final question and a final analysis. From the outset, every detail of this case was covered from the standpoint of its likelihood of being true. I never reached a conclusion regarding the truth or falsity of the case, I merely presented everything as if it were true, allowing each reader to reach a conclusion on their own. But now, as we leave the tendrils of this Hydra-headed beast, we have but one final question to ask: Is the Dragonfly UFO case real? That is, were these photographs real? Did people actually observe what we see in them, in the real world? Was “Isaac” a real engineer working on a secret program that flew this object?

We have no certainty of these events, but we are not entirely in the dark, either – we can establish some answers. For example, we know whether Kris Avery’s video, which is an animation of the reported object, actually proves that the photographs sent to Coast to Coast AM and to Linda Moulton Howe are fakes: it doesn’t. This is because, as we mentioned earlier, proving that something is a copy of something else does not prove that the original is a fake; it only verifies that a counterfeit of the original has been created. And so, we have the Avery material, which is not real, and the photographs, whose veracity is unknown. To prove whether the photographs are (like the Avery material) fakes, let us compare at least one image from each.

The first is an original photograph from the group that was submitted in 2007 to the media outlets mentioned above, and which may be real or fake. We have already seen this photo:

The second is an image created by Kris Avery:

Both appear to be equally realistic. However, the many subtleties of shading that exist in natural outdoor light are almost impossible to recreate digitally, and they escape the human eye’s ability to distinguish them. What is needed is a way to enhance those many reflective shades in the two images, to a level where we can see how similar or different their treatment of light may be.

To heighten and reveal these shades, we can perform unsharp masking, a process that greatly increases the image contrast along the edges of objects in a photo, since it is along the edges that most light is reflected in the widest band of shades.

Here is an Adobe Photoshop Unsharp Mask filter applied to the photograph of the object:

Observe how the edges show a long “burn” of color that gradually disappears toward the center of the wing surfaces. This is what we would see in an object whose surface is correctly reflecting many hues of sunlight.

Now the same Unsharp Mask filter, with the same settings, are applied to Kris Avery’s animated image:

We see almost no actual banding of hues, either from the wing surfaces or the round fuselage itself. In fact, the center fuselage section shows a great number of shadows in the photograph:

The ring in the Avery animation shows a narrow number of reflective shades; it was not photographed in natural light, and in fact, looks “burned down” to brown and black almost immediately:

From this, given that we know Kris Avery’s work is an intentional animation – albeit a work of phenomenal photorealism – the photograph stands in sharp contrast, reflecting many more shades, as would be consistent with an object exposed to natural light.

While, at the moment, there is no conclusive evidence of the veracity of the photographs (and we cannot parse the symbols in the CARET Linguistic Analysis Primer), Kris Avery’s work has provided a powerful reference point: a digital “fake” so realistic that has fooled expert reporters, and more importantly, a way to show that the photographs of the Dragonfly UFO submitted in 2007 are not fake.