Opinions 2006 AD (News + Current Events)
"When a human lights a match, are the photons made at the time or were the
photons always there?"
-Ted Huntington
Other quotes from me
12-18-06 to 12-22-06 Relativity grew from the Fitzgerald space-contraction idea to save the ether theory after the Michelson-Morley experiment. Idea of time t being the same for all matter and space everywhere in the universe no matter what velocity.
12-12-06 to 12-15-06
11-14-06 to 12-08-06
11-18-06 Democrats win majority in Senate and Congress, alternatives to Repubs being "thumped". Top list of things I am voting for and working towards as one of many popular leaders. Greenwald vids. Maxwell theory that heat is velocity of particles as relates to photons that may be variable or constant velocity with perfect elasticity.
11-05-06 more good vids, 9/11 done by first timers? sky lobbies blown, Pentagon dumpsters, Sheehan anti-gay, those who claim to know what a god wants, repubs are reckless, hydrogen+oxygen probably fuel of future, laser weapons, saddam death
10-21-06 Different tricks of the insiders in the thought-cam net, like make you swallow wrong, twitch yer eye muscle, etc
10-15-06 my views on the next election
10-13-06 Forget the globalists, Pnac, IMF, Bilderberg, the true powerful are the godders, antisexuals, psychologers, prohibitionists, thought-camera net, violentists, anti-full-democratists, anti-full-free-informationalists. Clear truths that fly in the face of the popular science.
09-22-06 Mechanical clocks tick more slowly the fast they move? The stuff I want to see if ever included into the camera thought net (so-called PSIGI)
09-15-06 Exploring photons obeying Newton's laws (speed of light not constant).
09-08-06 Einstein wrongly viewed light and everything else as two different things. Our descendents=spherical? from adapting to life with no gravity. Can planets explode/nova? It's the same time here as everywhere in the universe. We can disagree but let's make damn sure we jail murderers! Julian's 4th century CE criticisms of Christianity. The neocons stuffing their pockets with money and the poor children that lose their lives for them. Possible "gravity partially powered" electrical generator.
08-25-06 The cult of Jesus gave us the 9/11 mass murder. There is a massive unpunished violent criminal empire operating on earth. Astronomy and physics need to grow up like biology has. PSIKI. Was Hell created to be anti-Hellenic?
08-11-06 Nobody should have to live under a law that they do not get to vote on. Haltan Arp red-shift theories. Top 13 biggest mistaken beliefs of the 21st and 20th centuries.
08-04-06 This is like an Interrogation Nation and a constant Bad Suggestion Session. Nazi hunting for anti-9/11-truth people caught: Sciam and Shermer.
07-28-06 secretly hearing thought has turned average people into monsters, San Diego experience, public must view liars as telling truth and honest as lying
07-14-06 pulled over, is your child violent? or antisexual?, JFK DVD "The Case for Conspiracy", Tarpley
07-10-06 Internet voting, Ultra close votes hint at corruption, fragile earth, dual nature of atoms
07-03-06 Some person smashed my front driver's side window
06-30-06 Flag burning law fails by one vote, evolutionists being decimated by antievolutionists in terms of free videos, Morgan Reynolds
06-27-06 Excluded exclusive interview with murderer
06-26-06 Denton suicide, 10 secret technologies, 9/11 boils down to two theories for excluded, TP holds number 7 and 11 for "science" duration:long video.google.com
06-20-06 How about a "Public Thought Ipod" where the public gets $1 for each 3 minute thought listened to? Narrowing in on actual 9/11/01 story. Do objects eventually orbit each other in zero gravity?
06-09-06 The Pupin-thought-camera net owns and controls everything except our mouth muscles 100% of the time. How many times, are people going to have to quote "Loose Change" before justice is done?
06-07-06 A future universe of mostly globular galaxies? History of various kinds of cell reproduction (binary fission, budding, etc) important to understand. Primary Election Results
06-06-06 Major media all going with "Omen" theme (why not "Amityville" or "Exorcist"? or everybody different?), intermediate galaxies, many in China don't recognize "Tiananmen tank man", just like many in USA don't recognize images of Sturgis, Cesar, and Pupin.
06-02-06 Going to other stars, anti-gay marriage bill: how tolerant and warm and important.
05-31-06 Large amounts of rudeness in "Rude Idiot County". Southern California where the weather is the nicest but the people are the rudest. Recipe for instant rude person: just add camera-thought net
05-25-06 FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. Sex chromosomes oldest? Naked Guy death
05-18-06 What I tell childhood friends: what a terrible history the earth has, and we had no idea then.
05-16-06 Woke up, got out of bed, and a person used a laser to make me itch my nose
05-15-06 sexuality is a Molehill, the 9/11 inside job, Iraq and violence are a Mountain
05-13-06 My Votes for 06/06/06 election, updated 5/14/06
05-11-06 More comments on Bush clapping 4 times just after WTC2 collision. What if an academic was President? Like Einstein or Sagan?
05-10-06 rise in global epidemic of violence, religion and lies due to rise of neocons, full democracy not anarchy, time same here as in Andromeda? what were their last thoughts? Media, are less news reporters and more bulk ad sellers and distributors. Bush claps 4 times after second WTC collision.
05-08-06 What happens when everybody knows about 9/11, FF and TC? Saw Colbert video
05-05-06 Actual News: Orange County Nazis in true form thanks to Public Access Bush Documentary. There are only two basic 9/11 theories (reichstag or hijackers). Why do individuals have to do what major media and democrats have millions to do?
05-04-06 Vicente Fox goes back on word aligns with US naziistic neocons
05-03-06 small amounts of drugs legal in Mexico, non-sexual molestors with photon projectiles escape punishment, no soda in school, new public access shows
04-24-06 Ed Davis, Paul Wellstone, Cynthia McKinney, deemployed CIA woman
04-23-06 Next big police state move: We will be stopped at checkpoints and our pockets and computers searched for pornography
04-21-06 video.google.com is where it's at
04-20-06 This text is never going to match the secret videos
04-06-06 Words of encouragement to the excluded.
04-05-06 grew a bladder. life for me in OC like Neidermeyer to Flounder, but Neidermeyer is everybody.
04-04-06 How many of you like to be insulted? How many like to be zapped? made to itch? I think we have an overwhelming majority...why isn't our view in power though?
04-03-06 taxes, 9/11 videos
03-30-06 Carroll freed, arab virginia guy gets 30 years, stem cells from sperm producing cells
03-28-06 Earth passed Spring Equinox, many birds are singing
03-27-06 Bush suggests painting plane
03-23-06 Eukaryote nucleus probably was a prokaryote. 4 more public access shows, US gov consolodation, lower military spending to next closest nation=lower taxes
03-22-06 we need democracy damn soon!
03-20-06 Agnostics, Atheists, Buddists, Christians, Godders, Hindi, Islamists, Judeists, Zoroasterans, can all live in peace united as nonviolentists
03-17-06 1900s="century of lies". Portman movie. Lopez Obrador. Recent Iraq bombing
03-14-06 My views on what our government should spend on
03-13-06 Future of this star system. OC trial raises interesting issues.
03-10-06 What Thane Cesar will say in 2008
03-09-06 What do: Michael Jackson filmers, Tommy Chong, and Martha Stewart have in common?
03-08-06 Vote to ban violent people from access to beaming images and sounds onto brains. The Terry Hatcher molestation.
03-07-06 Proud of the AP to go to court for the names of those locked in jail without trials
03-06-06 Oscars, Voting for Conservatives is voting for more violence
03-03-06 Eukaryote nuclei=bacteria captured in sex? Glitter sentenced to 3 years
03-02-06 Prokaryote origin of eukaryote nucleus. The current danger of psychology
02-27-06 Future where people focus on sex and science?
02-24-06 Cody Posey kills 3 gets 40 days until possible parole
02-23-06 More words of wisdom from a kindly elderly gent
02-21-06 Time from spiral to elliptical=100 trillion years?
02-17-06 UN wants Guantanamo closed, Attorney General should be elected
02-16-06 http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ free audio shows
02-15-06 First sex on earth homosexual? Monomultiism
02-10-06 Logic versus sexual fever, Jill Carroll
02-08-06 Sex Slaves/"The Day My God Died"
02-07-06 The Newspaper headlines that should have been
02-06-06 Full email to Michael Moore
02-03-06 Stew Albert died at 66, avagadro
02-02-06 CHP video shooting
02-01-06 one more alternative to expanding universe, denuded Hydrogen (proton) combustion possible?
01-31-06 Alito confirmed, Female postal person, trampling love
01-30-06 Kirk Cameron free info-mercial on atheism. How the left and right wings should be in my opinion.
01-29-06 Castro is not left-wing to me, Castro is a dictator. What should be basic left-wing and right-wing ideals.
01-28-06 butane lighter may not be nuclear if mass is lost from electrons, but I have doubts
01-27-06 Which nation will be first to go public about hearing thought? What if France does?
01-22-06 This group of Republicans in power are not the enforcers of violent laws, they are violators of violent laws.
01-20-06 one of my cheapo bikes was stolen, wgbh video comments, wecht indicted. Canada election.
01-19-06 wgbh videos, Roberts and Scalia vote together, how about public 51% overrule law? Nigeria actually kills homosexuals.
01-17-06 Everybody has a calling, found "The Thought-Reading Machine" 1937 book
01-12-06 hundreds killed in Islamic ceremony, simple combustion
01-11-06 flying car may be compact helicopter
01-10-06 voyeurism secretly passed all other "kinks" and is unquestionably number 1!
01-09-06 simple problems with modern science
01-06-06 More shyten
01-05-06 living forever
01-04-06 living forever
01-03-06 Haught in Penthouse in 1990, Journey to Centauri song complete
01-02-06 Liberals must walk plank when a hair is out of place, conservatives start war killing thousands but don't get so much as a warning
12-18-06 to 12-22-06
12/18/06
I think what we need to worry about with electing conservatives is 24/7
9/11 7/7.
I found a very valuable puzzle piece of information in the history of
science. In 1889, George FitzGerald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Francis_FitzGerald
and http://understandingscience.ucc.ie/pages/sci_georgefrancisfitzgerald.htm),
came up with an explanation to save the ether theory, that was threatened
by the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and that explanation was
that matter contracts in the direction of motion just enough to allow
light to appear to move the same velocity in every direction. And this is
the concept of time and space dilation, that the faster an object is
moving (presumably relative to all other objects in the universe), the
more compressed the matter is. So everybody can see that this concept or
time and space dilation is a fundamental part of the General Theory of
Relativity, and everybody openly admits that this explanation to save the
theory of an "ether" which fills space is the ancestor of the theory of
relativity. Most people probably don't know this little piece of history.
In addition, Einstein dropped the idea of an ether (although I think this
is an important point that needs to be fully researched....since Einstein
adopted space dilation, and space dilation is a fundamental requirement
and the only difference between relativity and newtonian physics, isn't it
possible that Einstein also believed in the ether and light as a wave?
perhaps only just initially?), but retained the excuse FitzGerald provided
to save the theory of an ether (which Isaac Asimov explained is as old as
Aristotle). So, as a theory, which may be inaccurate, but one I am
entertaining, we should try to put ourselves back in 1889, and this idea
is that there are really two schools of thought, traditionalists who grew
up with ether theory, and modernists who supported Michelson's new view
without an ether. And I think one of the appeals of the general theory of
relativity (which Michelson rejected), is that it preserved the ether
theory (although not explicitly, and did infact explicity, according to
Asimov, reject the concept of ether). So these two schools exist even now,
its basically traditionalists and modernists, although in some way by
supporting Newton a person who rejects space-dilation might be viewed as a
traditionalist. In any event, this story about FitzGerald, I think shows
clearly that relativity is a descendent of the ether theory and that is
strong evidence that space dilation is inaccurate (beyond the other
explanations I have already offered). It has been 100 years of this 1800s
belief of ether and it is shocking how many people believe relativity.
Through history there are branchpoints such as the branch at Michelson and
FitzGerald, another exists with Aristarchos and ...(the earth centered,
this will persist for 1700 years and is perhaps the longest running
mistake in science on earth), another with the creation of the ether
theory (Aristotle and ...?), a very distinct one with Newton/Biot and
Thomas Young, one with Pupin and ...William Taft (and many others,
wikipedia hints that this was because of affairs he [and no doubt other
married men had] that would become public) and no doubt the openly racist
Woodrow Wilson and many many others?. And what we see is that those with
the more accurate view lose to those with a less accurate explanation. So
it is interesting to me to look at those people who were the more accurate
but lost the battle of popularity (Biot and Michelson being two prime
examples). It's interesting that there was a second "Albert" besides
Einstein, also a Jewish German speaking person living in the USA, "Albert
Michelson", whose views, as far as I can understand, were set in stark
contrast to Albert Einstein's, and are the more accurate. So I would list
the main arguments against relativity as being accurate as: 1) time is
probably the same throughout the universe 2) relativity is directly
descended from an excuse to save the ether theory 3) relativity rejects
the idea of photons as being matter and views them as separate from mass.
It's amazing that people actually claim that the Michelson-Morley
experiment actually helped the theory of relativity, and I think they are
missing a simple point that space dilation, the basis of relativity, was
created to accomodate the ether (or aether) theory. As an interesting
aside, Newton also believed in an aether, although rejected light as a
wave resulting from the movement of aether, thinking aether to be made of
smaller particles that interact with light particles (according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). This page explains
this: "Lorentz and Fitzgerald offered a more elegant solution to how the
motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction),
but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity
(1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether
at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor." So here, Einstein took this
matter-dilation excuse and incorporated it into the theory of relativity,
but removed the idea of a aether, theorizing that empty space itself
contracts. But that length contracting to explain the Michelson
experiment, was to defend the theory of the earth moving through an
aether...so relativity in my view is a total mistaken mixup...a mix of the
length-dilation to prop up the aether theory to satisfy the
traditionalists mixed with a sprinkling of new no-aether claim to satify
the modernists...that froze theoretical physics in 1905 (although this
freezing started with FitzGerald in 1889, and the aether theory was a
plague in theoretical physics long before). Another interesting point is
that the Doppler shift for light, I think is completely compatible with
Newtonian and Euclidean geometry. No trickery or other dimensions are
needed to explain that a source emitting photons moving with a velocity
relative to an observer will see the distance between the photons change
relative to the original frequency (for example the known frequency of the
spectral lines for sodium). In the view I support, although we should keep
an open mind, particles of light do travel along with the light source
(but in my view captured in atoms until they are released). But when
released from an atom, photons do not add in the velocity of the source
(which is a collective velocity of many photons captured in the form of
atoms), relative to some observer, in my view because the source also is
made of photons. So no object made of photons is going to be able to
accelerate or increase the velocity of photons being emitted. Any object
that nears the velocity of a photon could only be reduced to a single
photon, no tangle of photons will ever attain the speed of a single
photon, since two (or more) photons in orbit of each other will never move
in a straight line. In some way, relative to the velocity of photons, the
light source, a collection of photons, is basically at rest relative to
the exiting photon, when the photon exits the other photons of the source.
For example, imagine in this single frame or instant of time all the
photons are in fixed locations, frozen in time. Then in the next instant
of time all photons are in new positions (since none can ever be still,
although this is still a debate). We see that within the realm of photons,
collective, larger scale velocity, for example relative to the earth, the
size a human would observe is a meaningless quantity. I'm not entirely
happy with this explanation, and I will revisit this central idea of: why
do particles of light appear to not add in the velocity of the light
source. My basic simple answer for now it that light sources are made of
photons and at the scale of photons, the larger accumulation of photons in
atoms of, for example a flashlight have no influence on photons emitted.
This is a universe, in my view, of photons responding to gravity, the
larger, cumulative objects the result of many many countless photons. When
we look around us...it's unbelievable to me, how many particles we see in
a single glimpse. A few dead leaves blow by...each leaf has quadrillions
of atoms....each atom quadrillions of photons...and that is just a tiny
leaf, one of thousands, on a tiny planet, one of quadrillions of
planets...there is simply a very very inconceivably large number of
photons in just the theoretically tiny part of the universe we can see,
and whatever that number is, is far smaller than the number of
photon-sized spaces.
Getting back to a moving light source: Only a change of frequency is
detected in a moving light source, and photons are separated by more or
less distance from each other because of the velocity of the source.
Because of this the Doppler shift does happen for the frequency of
photons. Beyond this, a startling conclusion I think can be reached in the
theory that particles of light may not always maintain a constant
velocity, the one exception being when they collide with each other (that
is if they collide with each other), as in light reflecting off a mirror,
which may be similar to water drops bouncing into a pool or rubber balls
bouncing off each other. Understanding particles of light, which in my
view combine to form all other forms of matter, is in my opinion, the key
to understanding the physics of the universe (in addition, an explanation
of electricity using only gravitation must be accounted for). But this
idea of a constant velocity of light may still serve as an important part
of the explanation in the view I support. And this is that there may be a
limit on the force of gravity when two photons are very close together,
and perhaps even touching with a distance between them of 0. While in
Newton's equation this would cause a gravitational force of infinity, in
actuality, perhaps the universe has a limit, perhaps on this distance, or
more likely in my view, on the force of attraction between two or more
particles that can be obtained. And so this may be why particles of light
have a constant velocity, it is the fastest velocity that can be attained
given the force of gravity, and the force of gravity is too small to
significantly change the direction or velocity of photons, so they
maintain that velocity in the absence of any friction or collisions. Even
collisions, which can only be with other photons, preserve this velocity,
but change the direction of the photons...in some sense the photon
probably does reach an instant 0 velcity for an instant [this is a major
question of physics too...is there a delay in photon-photon collisions?]
and then completely reverse directions, the simple description is that
each photon exchanges velocit (and it is a perfectly elastic collision, no
velocity is lost at all). These ideas are still being developed in my
mind, and I don't doubt they will change over time.
In my view relativity is an epidemic of "crystal math" as opposed to math
which describes the actual universe.
This is interesting: I just got one of Michelson's books "Studies in
Optics", published by the U of Chicago Press in 1927 with reprints in 1962
and 1968. In this book, there is an asterisk to a note in the beginning of
the book on the chapter titled "Relativity". The asterisk leads to the
very first page of the book where a note from Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
explains "Michelson adopts a cautious attitude, sometimes giving the
impression of skepticism. Such an attitude was justifiable at the time in
view of the revolutionary character of the theory. However, at the present
time the experimental basis for special relativity is so wide and the
theoretical ramifications so many that there can no longer be any doubt
about its validity." and I think that is amazing. I mean that is really
unusual. Why would people go to such trouble to remove doubt about the
theory of relativity? You might have thought you were getting a book by
Michelson, as it turns out, that is not entirely true. To any decent
historian of science this brings memories of the story of Copernicus, how
his publisher inserted a statement about how the sun-centered theory was
only a mathematical convenience and doesn't apply to reality.
Chandrasekhar was also at the University of Chicago, where Michelson
taught, and maybe that explains why he was selected by ? some person to
insert this note before Michelson's work. Chandrasekhar won a Nobel prize
for his theory of the Chandrasekhar limit, a theory I highly question.
Eddington opposed this Chandrasekhar theory. So many theories have been
tainted by the inaccurate theory of space-dilation (relativity), and this
Chandrasekhar limit, I think, is one of them. To me, first, I think we can
rule out the existence of black holes, because they are a prediction based
on space-dilation. Beyond that, I even question the idea of red giant and
neutron stars (I am not saying they are absolutely false, but I am
skeptical). This also involves Michelson's size measurement of Betelguese,
which I want to learn more about, being much of the basis for the belief
in red giant stars. But the Chandrasekhar limit, black-holes and any
theory descended from space-dilation, which is, in effect, the ether
theory, I think is very doubtful. What happens, I think, is that, a
majority believes some theory, and many times, wealth has an influence,
and all opposition is crushed. What we have had in physics has been 100
years of a completely inaccurate basis, in my humble view. It is so
interesting that people can not just let Michelson's views and criticisms
stand as they are, they actively try to squash them. I am sure there are
other examples of mistakes Michelson made which have since been
corrected...where are the notes explaining them? After reading this
chapter, there is no clear objection to relativity. It is unusual to me
that Michelson echos the same proofs of relativity: the perihelon of
mercury, the displacement of light from a distant star around the eclipsed
sun, and electrons gaining mass as they are accelerated, and the
displacement of solar spectral lines, although Michelson, unlike most
other people, indicate that the "copuscular" theory of Newton predicted
different values (to this day, I have yet to see the math behind these two
examples, or the experimental images themselves. A theory that is thought
to be proven with only three reason experimentally tested once.). Perhaps
because there is no other alternative theory, Michelson appears to lend
support to the theory of relativity. But here again is this shocking view
that space dilation created to explain the presence of an ether is the
main component of relativity, but that relativity removes the theory of an
ether. It is interesting that the view Michelson gives is a common view,
that, for example, the displacement of solar spectral lines comes after
the theory of relativity...but wait...isn't the Doppler shift for light
already known by then? Maybe I am wrong, but this is an important point.
Because I have the feeling that people took known phenomena and then
claimed that relativity predicted them before they were known. All the
science historians take this view, and it is doubtful in my view, but how
could they all be wrong? Reading more from Michelson's "Light Waves and
Their Theories", it seems like much of what Michelson does is to try and
disprove the ether theory, in this book, he rejects the corpuscular (or
particle) theory of light. It's amazing to me, when and why did the
particle theory of light fall out of favor? I think it was with Thomas
Young, but it did supposedly come back, some claim with Einstein, but I
think that is hard to believe, because space-dilation is an ether theory
that was adapted to a non-ether theory. Michelson appears to take a
position supportive of relativity, as opposed to what I thought, that he
was part of a an opposing school, at least publically, it would be
interesting to see and hear his thoughts recorded before his death
perhaps...he died in 1931. Michelson does indicate that as a counter to
the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of matter, they tried substituting a
support of wood for one of stone and get the same result saying "Such a
hypothesis seems rather artificial, and it of course implies that such
contractions are independent of the elastic properties of the material.".
This is a new one to me...that all matter from a thick stone to a porous
sponge contract the same amount because of a velocity of a light source
relative to an observer (or possibly to the rest of matter in the
universe, which is an interesting issue: we only know something has a
velocity because we see it compared to some other object...perhaps even
ourselves. For example I think there might be a basic mistake if people
are measuring proper motions of stars without comparing to distant
galaxies, because they would all be based relative to the earth, and not
some distant comparably unmoving point. How do we know how much velocity
[relative to we observing here on earth] of star1 is the earth's, and then
how much of star2's velocity is that same quantity?). So Michelson came up
with another criticism, that it seems unlikely that contraction of matter
would be the same for all matter no matter how dense. This is not entirely
removed if Einstein claims that it is space that contracts. Some of my own
criticisms of the aether theory: what is the composition of aether if not
atoms or photons? It seems unlikely that there is any other matter in the
universe besides photons. It seems unlikely to me that just the space that
has matter moving with velocity would contract, leaving the space without
matter (having thus no velocity) uncontracted. I feel good that at least
publically and on record, Michelson openly expresses doubts about the
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction in 1927.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
in 1920 Einstein said:
"...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general
theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." So I think it is very
logical to think that Einstein believed in an ether in the universe at
least up until 1920, and that includes the entire time of creation of the
theory of relativity. This also implies that Einstein viewed light as a
wave which is transmitted by latitudinal vibrations in an ether. I think
the key thing is to do more experiments to show that the perihelon of
Mercury can result from Newtonian physics (again the only difference
between the two being space-time dilation), that clocks and other objects
move at their usual speed no matter what velocity relative to the earth or
some other reference point. The experiments that we all can see are going
to be the most convincing I think, while theoretical proofs are probably
less convincing. One point of these light experiments is that, light is so
small, and so fast, that I can't imagine there can be real precision and
certainty in any experiment done, until perhaps more time, and the natural
progression of development of engineering/invention as we move to live on
other planets and the planets of other stars. For example, new
experiments will be possible once we have people and robots on even a
single different planet...we can then measure a larger parallax of the
stars. Then when we are talking between two stars, an even larger
parallax, in addition to a larger collective telescope the effective size
of 4 light years for example.
12/20/06
I want to just add more notes about Michelson. Asimov ends his paragraph
on an "F" word which may mean that Michelson voted against the public
knowing about hearing thought. (Those in favor usually get words beginning
with A, S, Y, while those against words begining in N, and F), althought,
as I say, this may not have been Asimov's intention, but I can imagine
those included, as Asimov must have been, would not hesitate to hint a
little more of the story as revealed by archived survalience video and
thought images to the excluded public...those images add tremendously to
the story of a person, although in the current nazistic order they are
forbidden from explicitly stating. In 1920 Michelson opens his book with a
statement about how some science has had a deep impact on "my own mind",
and I think this is his acknowledging that he hears and sees thought,
being a professor at the University of Chicago, it seems likely he would
learn quickly about Pupin's work although kept secret (It is intersting to
see if any news stories, or any writing, perhaps in Pupin's archive reveal
more info about his seeing and hearing thought accomplishments...if they
did exist they probably have gone the way of so many other valuable
documents - through our criminal FBI and CIA. Michelson clearly was not
the hero I had hoped for, also apparently showing some bias towards male
supremecy (neutral hypothetical people, for example "for the person that
wants to experiment" are put in the male gender, ie "he that may want to
experiment", etc. This was around the time, women were just finally
winning the right to vote in the USA (1920).
One thing that is really a terrible aspect of these years is, although
perhaps many people may not realize it, antisexuality (and maybe more
appropriately anti-pleasure) has wide-spread popularity and serves as the
single most strong unifying factor among people of today. Even stronger
than anti-violence, anti-sexuality reigns unquestionably supreme. How else
could so many people care so little about the 9/11 mass murders? The
murders in Iraq, murders in the USA, the killers of Bonnie Bakely, Jam J,
JFK, MLK, RFK, Chandra Levy, (the list is in the millions of unsolved
unpunished homicides in the US alone) etc? One key example that is hard to
refute is the fact that there is a sex offender registry but no violent
offender registry. What this says clearly is that sex offending people are
far more hated and feared than violent offenders, such as non-sexual
assaulters, even murderers. Even murderers! Even murderers released from
prison are not required to have their current information made public for
all to see. No "murderer registry" is shocking, but even no "non-sexual
violent-crime"...even a simple "assaulter registry" is also an indication
that the laws against violent are not as popular as the laws against
sex-related crimes. It says that people are more afraid of their child
being sexually fondled than violently assaulted. Maybe people will
disagree with me, but I think the logic is hard to argue with. And I think
people should ask themselves about some of these comparisons: "which is
worse, unconsensual genital fondling or unconsensual violent assault?".
And there are a series of questions I think people should answer for
themselves. If given a choice, would they rather:
have their genitals fondled or be punched hard enough to leave a lasting
bruise?
genitals fondled or be stabbed?
genitals fondled or be shot nonfatally with no permanent damage?
etc.
and then even among the violent crime something as brutal as anal rape
sounds not as bad as other non-sexual assaults:
if you have only a choice between the two would you rather be:
anally raped or punched in a way that causes pain but no bruise
anally raped or punched with sufficient force to get a bruise (for example
a black eye)
anally raped or stabbed, but nonfatally, with only scarring and no other
permanent damage?
anally raped or an ulna bone fractured?
anally raped or an ulna bone broken?
anally raped or an finger bone bone fractured?
anally raped or an finger bone bone broken?
for me, the answer to almost every question is overwhelmingly and most
certainly that I would rather have genitals touched or anal rape (in
particular if there was the option of vaseline, or something to remove any
aspect of serious pain...I mean in a protology exam the doctor puts their
fingers in people's rectum...mostly the fear is embarrasment and loss of
sexual purity, not from actual pain) instead of any kind of violence that
gives lasting pain and/or damage. I mean there are some minor assults
where I probably would prefer the assault to anal rape, for example a tiny
laser burn or something, so long as there is no lasting mark on the skin
or any permanent damage. And clearly, any assault must be stopped, and all
assaulters punished with some kind of jail time, and I offer the idea of
small amounts of jail for small assaults, such as hours and days.
But the majority of society have the exact opposite view, apparently. I
think a very important service needs to be done by somebody and when I am
older maybe I will do some of this. This service is to report to the
public what crimes are being prosecuted and how many, and then what the
various jail sentences that are being handed out are. For example, this
person Vesches in Newport Beach was sentenced by an Orange County judge to
100 years for sucking the toes of children, but assaulters and even
murderers go free. 70+% voted this latest law that sex offenders must be
permanently manicled with GPS tracking, while murderers and non-sexual
assaulters do not need to be. It's something that blows my mind, honestly.
And this antisexuality is a powerhouse victory for republicans
conservative violent murdering criminals. This antisexuality is the ticket
to freedom for the 9/11 murders, and all murderers and assaulters. I think
there needs to be a registry of "violent nonsexual offenders", "violent
sexual offenders", "nonviolent sexual offenders". Maybe later people may
vote for "abduction offenders" (those who have abducted a person),
"restraining offenders" (those who have restrained a person, or confined
them to an unreasonably small or limited volume of space). Beyond this, we
live in a society filled with child assaulters. Both my parents assaulted
me (although only once or twice by spanking, one slap, etc...very minor
assaults and much less than most parents). My mom was brutally assaulted
with a belt on at least one occassion by her father. I routinely ask
people if they were spanked and if they spank, and the answer is almost
always yes...well...that is assault of a child...it is plain and
simple....there is no law protecting those who assault children to my
knowledge, in this ultra-violent society, the public simply chooses to
allow it...there is an unwritten law defending an adults right to assault
(in particular slapping their buttocks) any child born from their ovum or
sperm. Perhaps one should be enacted because there are so many child
assaulters out there who feel no hesitation to openly confess that they do
or did assault their child in the form of "spanking" or "belting". In my
view, no nonviolent child deserves to be assaulted, and for a violent
child, some kind of safe, violence and torture-free no-involuntary-work
imprisonment punishment is a better answer in my view. But just knowing
that people routinely assault children shows how barbaric and backward
this group of adults in the USA and on earth is. They send their kids
strapped up into head to head crunching pee-wee football, but children
kissing and touching is a no-no. Then to realize that young people, mostly
males, spend age 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, ...7 or 8 solid years where
they desparately crave the nude females they see in magazines, for whom it
is absolutely illegal upon vicious imprisonment and public ostrification
for any adult female to allow them to touch. It's a recipe for young male
violence, for young males to suffer hyper embarassment, confusion and
deparation about sexuality. And it's all in the name of religion, marriage
and tradition. Nobody can break the vicious cycle of antisexuality because
it is too embarassing to talk about, and those who do are ostricized as
perverts simply for even mentioning such simple facts.
What explains people's backwards views putting sex crimes as more
important than violent crimes? I don't know, but I think there is an
obsession with sex that violence cannot match. Humans are secretly
obsessed with sex and even pleasure. Maybe it's hormones...I don't
know...but people are absolutely obsessed with everything sexual. Sex gets
way more attention than even murder and certainly violent brutal assault.
Nothing make a heart pound and blood flow more than hearing about
sex-related things...not even stories about violence. But yet, sex is, to
an educated person, a biological process that is common-place, a regular
part of life for many species...something that almost all people will do
at some time in their lives...by all accounts, it should not be such a big
deal...where murder...murder is shocking...murder is terrible...nothing
changes a person's life like murder...a friend, a sibling, a child, a
parent...nothing is more upsetting than losing a friend to murder, but
yet....sex and pleasure seem to dominate when it comes to people's sense
of right and wrong. People seem disproporionately obsessed with genitals
and sex. Perhaps it is a latent sexual frustration, sexual jealousy
(against those getting more than they or getting sex in a way that they
will not permit themselves to, such as in an extra-marrital affair), some
kind of unfulfilled feeling inside them, a view of people having sex and
genital touching as being an endless source of mystery?
I think there may be scientific evidence to support the idea that males
may have more of a driving urgency in obtaining an orgasm than females,
but I don't know. In other words, are the two genders equally desparate
for orgasm or is one more desparate than the other. It seems like common
logic that males are traditionally at least the initiaters of sex, at
least for the human species, it is rare to hear about a female raping a
male, for example. If this is true, I think it is important for people to
realize that males on average are going to experience a stronger urge and
necessity to orgasm/ejaculate than females, and so maybe the feeling and
urgency for orgasm for most females may not apply as equally to the
feeling in most males. Maybe this is incorrect or inaccurate, but I think
if true, it might be helpful for society to realize that most males, in
particular young males, experience a very strong urge, almost requirement
to ejaculate, where females may not feel such an urgent urge. Maybe
females do feel an equivalent desperation or requirement, either way, it
is foolish to ignore, reject, or postpone that natural urge.
I think a person with a more tolerant mind than myself, although I am
entertaining this approach, could easily talk openly to those who wear
crosses about how they found the light of science, and do you believe
evolution? and have you ever heard about evolution? and what an amazing
story it is...and you should check it out...it's better than the stories
about Jesus...etc...but I can't being myself to use that approach, in
particular when the religious are rude (which is usually) to which I
usually throw out the idea of gentle attempts at conversion, and simply
express a vote that they should be let go, not supported, as rude people,
etc. which is also logical...that is a form of education...let them see
the power of those who are against rudeness. I am interested in total free
information, speaking of public registries, as I have said before, I want
a registry of the religious, the church-going, let us know who these
people are, because I don't want to support that Jones-town, cultish,
idiocy. But also the "rude registry", I certainly don't want to support
the rude, in particular the rude for money. Perhaps these are not as
important as the "violent registry" but still it's within the realm of the
first ammendment and free information.
It's amazing to me that Orange County is a lot like Fox television,
because all conversations are conservatives spewing their idiotic hateful
lies and liberals firing back at them. It's so unpleasant, it's like a
constant political warfare. It's so opposite mine, and I would have
guessed most mellow people's philosophy or life-style, but maybe I am
wrong about that. Always, whereever I go there are some agressive people,
many times males, with their "oh gay" (instead of "ok"), always pushing
their backwards intolerant views at me, and generally, I feel oblidged to
respond with "not see you later!" or "thane you! thane you very
much!"...over the years I have taken it upon myself to work together some
responses for common insults such as "freak!" (many times in place of
"free"), "perv", "ped", "retard", "psycho" (in place of "so I go"), "sane"
(instead of saying), etc...but who likes such a method of communication?
It is so unpleasant...it's like on Bill O'Reilly's show...or those two
guys...when they have a liberal...they constantly say "I think yer a nut."
(in particular those who tell the truth about 9/11), and it's on the guest
to defend the truth and go up against the nazi regime with "now that Jesus
cult...now that is sanity!...I mean Jesus brings 'em up from the
dead...Jesus splits the loaves into ten...sounds sane to me", etc. It's
just a shouting match...the nazis on Fox (or at the supermarket...many
times the nazis behind the scenes pay the kids in the supermarkets to spew
their nazi lies and propaganda, mostly along the lines of antigay,
psychology, threats of violence, orders to shutup, etc.) shout out their
filthy lies and then the liberals have to shout back the truth (in
particular that they all watch people in their houses, and have routinely
hear people's thoughts for decades, sturgis killed jfk, thane cesar killed
rfk, 9/11 was an inside job, no building falls to dust like that without
explosives and they know it, they are nazis, they lie for money, they
oppose full democracy, they support murderers, etc.).
Maybe I have noted this before, but let the record clearly reflect openly
and for all times: what is a popular nazi defense to justify homicide? to
justify dishonesty? to support lies and murderers? why none other than
good ol' psychology, and here is one of the most clear and open examples:
"Screw Loose Change". Yes, the reason it's ok to cover up the murder by
republicans of 3000 innocent people, and lie about the truth of
9/11...why? because those people that made "Loose Change" are
insane...that's why. Yes, we can reject the truth about mass murder, all
the clear evidence of an inside job....because...the makers of "Loose
Change" have a mental disease. And as obvious and ridiculously empty as
this claim is, that is the method they are choosing, and they choose this
for a very good reason: because people believe psychology more than
anything else...it's unbelievable. A person being "nuts", "a nut" (this is
commonly used on Fox...as if wiring up and demolishing two skyscrapers
with the employees and rescue workers still inside is a sane idea! and
then to defend such a crime for money or for free...still...sane or
no..it's purely evil...albeit nonviolently evil), "a psycho", on an
on...never "a goddamn killer! hello!", like that woman in Fahrenheit 9/11
"he's a butcher by god!". This time they didn't chose "gay", the hideous
"gay" offensive, nor the "heretic" offensive...the public simply doesn't
buy into heresy...it's going to have to be psycho or gay...yes, they have
not opted for the "perverts!...perverts! wild perverts on the loose!
running wild!"...the antisexuality, psychology...those are the two popular
claims in order to stop the truth, surpringly violence is not one of those
claims, I mean it could be if it relates to sexuality. So isn't that
interesting that the defense against the truth about 9/11 is that the
authors are insane, not any refuting of the claims or evidence (although
some of these nazi swine, like popular mechanics and others do actually
lie about the evidence, the biggest example being their description of the
hole in the pentagon being 40 or something feet wide, when anybody can see
it is no more than 20'...and other bold faced lies...they are banking on
being able to cry for mercy on the court floor....puuuuhleeesszzz....I had
no choice....dont ya see?....). In other 9/11 sell-out news NBC cozied up
to Penn and Teller for more of those Reichstag lies. A white guy sports
caster on NBC news in LA (channel 4, who are total vicious violent nazi
scum as far as I can gleen from what garbage talk they are paid to spew)
said "pull the trigger", and I think this goes to show the violent,
irresponsible, chaos loving nature of those in the major media who watch
the public in their houses and apartments. I think there is a growing
number of people who are ready to punish the major media, and I hope it
happens soon. Mainly, I hope even the individual people are sent to the
economic bottom, and that is definitely what they deserve for all their
lies and violence making abuse with advanced secret technology, but for
sure, that they a fined out of business, and that those they victimized
and violated the privacy, copyrights and minds of are compensated from
whatever remains from their assets and personal holdings. Beyond that,
they they should be never hired, and all video to their mind should be
permanently ended until dead. And even that, will not be fair enough.
Throw in all the record companies and people too, what a bunch of
hypocrite scum those people are.
One interesting theory is that being nice to all people may actually be
the most successful sexual stratagy for a person. It's an interesting
theory, but possibly the person who endures the most verbal abuse without
retaliating or becoming angry may actually sustain the most friends. I
don't know if it is true, but I think on a planet where so many are mean,
a nice person may provide a kind of relief to a person...a nice person
might look very good next to a mean person who is many times automatically
ruled out (there are examples of attraction to mean people, in kind of a
masochistic feeling, but I think these may be somewhat less common). I
just would not be surprised when all thought images and sounds are
analyzed that the most friendly people receive the most thoughts of
arousal, although much has to do with physical beauty, I don't think the
mind inside can be denied. There are many times where a person may be
physically pretty, but they are so mean, rude, and/or so stupid, that it
works against any physical beauty that may have. In some way friendliness
may actually progress into physical pleasure, it may be some kind of a
starting point to a physical friendship, it is just that there is so much
negativity, repression and backwardness around people living now that this
pattern is rarely expressed. I don't think any person can ever be nice all
the time, there is no way I can, it's simply not in my nature to take too
much abuse without sending insults and put-downs back to the source, but
some times I look upon rude people with a kind of curiosity...to try and
understand how their neurons are configured, where society went wrong,
what makes them feel the way they do, why do they strike out at other
people, etc. My advice to those who want pleasure is to try to sustain
friendliness as long as possible...it may work to your advantage in terms
of hooking up for love. It could be simple...some people keep pushing
hate, you can keep pushing love...and eventually...you may find another
person pushing love...but seriously...the probability is against it, in
particular if you are excluded from the camera-thought net, you can rule
out love with included, for them it's like loving a blind person, or a
person with a disability, they would not be able to think to each other
and it is frustrating, even for casual love, but there is no casual love
because of the rigid climate and secrecy in these decades, but even so,
there are excluded pushing love too, but many are unknowingly the victims
of the republican hate image sending machines, still, your work in
spreading love may have an effect, and it certainly is the best method
available as far as I know.
12/21/06
I support the "swarm defense", where violent people are overpowered by
stop violence people, captured, and jailed for their violence. Whereever
there is a bully, thug or aggressor using violence (with fists, knives,
guns, lasers, etc.) to push around innocent citizens they are to be
identified, swarmed upon, taken down, captured, cuffed, and their sentence
decided by the public on the Internet while the violent person is on their
way to jail.
The FBI released the "last" documents on John Lennon, now how about the
kilometers of hidden video and audio recordings including thought images
and sounds, in fact, why not just open up the public's "FBI video library"
to those who fund it. Why does the FOI law have to be constantly defended
and re-defended in the courts? Perhaps because autocratic presidents try
to control what the FBI director does. Why not elect the FBI director and
all their minions of cover-up? As it is the FBI is nothing more than a
vicious pit-bullian extension of the sitting president. Did you ever
wonder why the FBI does arrest for violence? They only arrest for theft
and similar powder-puff crimes. The federal police ought to have the
ability to arrest for murder in my opinion, once they are elected, I am
sure the state's right people disagree, but murder should be a federal
law, I have a tough time believing that there would be a state that
rejects a uniform law to punish homicide.
Has anybody ever noticed that jury duty pays $15 a day, far below minimum
wage, I may not necessarily agree with minimum wage laws, but if we have a
minimum wage law, why does the government not have to obey it?
I want to take a second to explain the basics between the two theories of
light as a particle and light as a wave, because I think I can express
this in a simple way.
In the wave theory of light, light is similar to sound in that a medium
(for sound this is atoms in air or other material) moves, in this view,
just as there is no sound particle, there is no light particle. In this
wave view, light moves as a transverse sine wave (sound is longitudinal,
the medium moves back in forth in the direction of the sound movement, not
transverse where the medium moves at 90 degree angles to the direction of
motion ), so that, just like sound, a wave peak and a wave trough (the
lowest part in the sine wave) will cancel each other out and leave a dark
area.
[Notes: Some people hypothesize that an ether is the medium for light,
although the ether theory is not popular, the concept lives on in
relativity, but the medium is the geometry of space itself (Einstein in
1920 claimed that there was still an ether in some sense, and a
fundamental requirement for the theory of relativity, space-contraction,
is descended directly from a theory by Fitzgerald and Lorentz to try and
support the ether theory after the Michelson-Morley null result
experiment.). There is a large amount of confusion about whether the
theory of relativity represents a particle or wave theory for light. In my
view it is mostly in line with a wave theory, descending from the
length-contraction, ether-based theory. However, even if defined as a
particle theory, a photon is viewed as massless, and different from other
matter, not part of all matter.]
The particle theory of light, in the form I see it, theorizes that light
is a particle, is a piece of matter (therefore obeying the law of
gravitation), and is the basis of all matter. In this way a photon may
never be created or destroyed. Light beams have wavelength, but are
straight lines, wavelength determined by space between photons. In an
interference pattern where dark areas are observed any light going into
such an interference device has to be conserved, and no photons are being
detroyed as is the case for the wave theory, photons are either reflected,
refracted (direction changed), or absorbed.
It seems unusual that there are almost no people in science trying to
adapt Newton's "corpuscular theory" (as Michelson referred to it, being
less accurate in comparison with relativity for the bending of light
beams) to observed phenomena, even simply to explore the idea. For
example, what if we want to express Newton's gravitational constant in
terms of photonmasses? The current theoretical gravitational constant (GC)
is 0.000000000066742, 6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s2. But what is this expressed in
photonmasses? If a photonmass is 10e-20kg, then perhaps the GC would be
6.67e-31 m3/photonmasses-s2. If this is true, then a single photon will
not bend until it sees a mass of around 10e30photonmasses (or 10e10kg).
But this seems wrong to me, because, according to the one known experiment
photons barely bend at all even for the mass of a star (10e30kg). It seems
more likely that the GC is much lower when viewing everything as photons.
For example, if a photonmass is 10e-20kg, it should take a mass of a star
10e30kg/10e-20kg/pm 10e50 photons to even bend a beam of photons slightly.
So when a photon, with mass of 1, will bend is around 10e50 photonmasses
(or fotonmasses fm), and that gives a GC of more like 1e-50 m3/pm-s2, much
lower. It is all speculation, but when applying the force of gravity to
photons, knowing that the bending is very small, it has to change the GC.
As an aside, I read that Newton also believed in an aether, but I want to
do more research, it is important to understand what Newton thought about
particles of light as relates to gravity.
Another EX: experiment when we have robots and humans on Mars is beaming
light and other stuff back and forth to each other past the sun to see how
much it bends or changes ever-loving velocity.
12/22/06
Well humans once again I am a day late in typing happy winter soltice, the
shortest day of the year for those of us in the northern hemisphere of
earth. One thing that is on my mind this morning is how the public, most
of which are excluded from seeing and hearing thought, are really treated
like 10th class citizens, and total scum by those powerful elite that see
and hear thought, whom they trust so much. People in the excluded are so
trusting, they very much truth the major media, and history will show that
this was a classic and major mistake of the highest order. The public
completely trusts the info from television and newspapers, and the
unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of it is paid for, and untrue.
In particular if you consider the truth about how they routinely watch
people in their houses, and have a completely different way of life, far
different from the excluded, their routine is to watch and listen to all
the popular thought images from the people whose thoughts they routinely
monitor, where most excluded's routine is to turn on the television, or
read news from major media (the big business propaganda and paid for ad
machine the "AP") on the Internet and these discusting people will not
even trickle out crumbs of truth to the excluded public who they treat
like dirt, in particular compare to the lavish information (I mean
people's thoughts!) they get. Just to know that thought was seen in 1910
and these evil people kept it from the public, and there grew this
separate system of the included abusing the excluded, feeding them the
tiniest crumbs, while they sat back and watched any person's thoughts they
wanted to. Then how they never bothered to tell the public about Frank
Fiorini, Thane Cesar, and most shockingly even the truth about
9/11...total scum...totally evil, although a few are nonviolent. But then,
what amazes me, again is how trusting the excluded public is, those that
do not routinely hear the thoughts of those around them (for those who may
not know you are in the excluded with me and many many others). They tend
to support the liars, and reject those tiny few telling the truth. It
really is a dream come true for the liars in the included...people reject
their enemies...those who are exposing them as frauds and liars, and
shower money and support on them. It truly is one of the biggest mistakes
the excluded will ever make in the history of exclusia. Why don't they
throw out those supporting the official 9/11 story? Why don't they throw
out those who support the official Oswald story (those who claim
conspiracy theorists are "grassy knollers", etc)? Why don't they throw out
any limits on information? in particular when it comes to the government.
For example, when Reagan and Bush say...it is illegal to show pictures of
people wounded or killed in Iraq...why not reject that? If the excluded
public is not even allowed to see picture of dead people, how on earth do
you think you are eventually going to see the images from inside people's
houses and heads that these insider scumbag routinely watch and abuse
every day? Why don't the excluded ever even get the tiniest realization of
what is going on? Why don't they even say...'hey we want at least street
cameras that we are allowed to routinely get images from', or 'hey we want
at least to know that thought can be seen and heard, and see the machines
demonstrated.', etc. and 'no we reject copyright...not until we all get to
see what the included wealthy artists get to see and hear, which is
people's thoughts', etc...they appear not to even have the tiniest idea
that they are viewed as scum, that they are living in an 1800s society
that has just invented the telephone, unaware of the massive advance in
technology that frees up the lives of only 1% of the population, the elite
insider evil. I hope the public gets smart some time soon, but there
appears to be not even a glimmer of hope to be found. Most of the
whistle-blowers of 9/11 of hearing thought of Sturgis and Thane Cesar live
in poverty and obscurity, while the official story liars live lavish lives
where the cup runneth over of money, property, job opportunities, and in
particular information, and any information you can possibly imagine
including from the far past, inside people's houses and apartments, and
ofcourse from inside their minds...the sounds they think, the images they
remember, even people's dreams. It's shocking that those who tell the
truth are many times despised by the excluded society...like the 9/11
people. What a perfect situation for the included elites to maintain
control over the excluded...they want to be controlled...they appear to
enjoy being left in total and complete ignorance, while their masters in
the included, who never even throw them a crumb, take care to oversee
their thoughts and the thoughts of the public. There is more than enough
info out there should the public decide to one day wake up and understand
even a fraction of the truth and start to promote and support the people
telling the truth about seeing and hearing thought, Sturgis, Cesar, 9/11,
etc. and demoting those who persistently lie about these truths.
I am thinking that it would be a fun idea to make an Atheist food drive,
or Atheist feed the starving group, or maybe a "Science drive against
hunger", to provide food for those who are going hungry (I'm not sure how
those people could be identified). But then it shows that the religious
aren't the only people who feed the starving. Also a "Science clothes
drive", and "Atheist clothing for the poor" group. In addition, it is nice
to provide starving people with clothes and food. For each science-lover,
and/or atheist (and agnostic), if everybody either gave $5, a piece of
clothes, or canned food, it might amount to thousands of even hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Maybe science-lovers and atheists-agnostics can
sponser free "history of atheism", "history of evolution", "history of
science" "the probable future of life on earth", "full democracy and total
free info", books for the poor.
Check out my webpage tedhuntington.com to hear my music and my theories
about the universe. It's a wonderful universe eh? Let hope they keep sex
legal hm? the puritans probably would like to stop all sex and even just
pleasure for that matter, bastards!
The murder of those 5 women in England raises again the question that
always seems to be asked among educated excluded: Since there can't
possibly be a murder without the people in the secret camera-thought net
knowing, what is the purpose of allowing the latest murder(s) or
scheduling those murders for those in power that see and hear everybody's
thoughts? I think this can only be to counter a pro-sexual movement of
some kind, maybe a pro-prostitution feeling that might have been in
England. Perhaps this is all Blair and the murderers of 9/11 could come up
with to scare the public. Because, I can imagine a person murdered in
maybe...like the Gobi desert...maybe the thought images of the murderer
might not be seen by this insideous network, but nowhere in England,
certainly not in Ipswitch, not in any square centimeter of England could a
human go without what their eyes see being seen and recorded by these
elites that control the government and every aspect of the media in the
secret camera thought (Pupin invented in 1910, but secret recording
started with the invention of Edison's grammophone) network.
Any trivial points, arguments, or delays in the truth about pupin,
sturgis, cesar, and 9/11 are only going to be a minor delay in the
inevitable motion forward of the big tractor that is going to expose it
all to the public and right so many wrongs of the last century and really
even the last thousands of years.
The fabric of society probably would not fall apart if all of the property
thefts were not stopped. Things would be chaotic, people would buy locks
for their bikes and cars, but being nonviolent, it would be a nuisance and
the fabric of society would not fall to complete chaos. I even advise not
stopping any copyright violation, privacy violation, drug use or
prostitution, neglecting to punish those activities is not going to tear
apart the fabric of society. But when society stops punishing for homicide
and assault of innocent humans, the violent laws (some might argue, unless
they actually start to punish for homicide and assault), I think it is
obvious that the fabric of society will fall apart. Because the murder law
is the foundation of law and orderly society, when this law is not obeyed,
as is the case for Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, and 9/11, I think that kind
of philosophy leads to total chaos and definitely will rip apart any
foundation of order that may have existed, and that is how many violent
conflicts and wars are started, simply because none of the violent laws
are enforced, in particular the homicide laws, society understands that
the system is different since the rule of law doesn't apply any more.
After the camera-thought net is exposed and public, let the rule be "no
included need apply" in reverse of the "no excluded need apply" that
exists now.
There really is an interesting phenomenon that most people in the
camera-thought network are rude to me right from the start...not even an
initial period to become angry, they start off rude. Perhaps even some
who are excluded, but hear rumors or have seen my web page, but generally
rudeness from a person I have never seen before is a strong indicator for
a person in the camera-thought net. They figure out in the camera-thought
network that they don't like you or disagree with you, then decide to be
rude to you in person (no doubt this system of rude put-downs is how most
people in the cam net communicate). Rude put-downs are viewed as cool by
many people I think. Many times, people think the simplicity of a rude
put-down tells a simple eternal truth, but the truth I think is that it
usually reflects a mistaken belief, but one held by a majority of people.
Rudeness, I think is also a symptom of conservatism. For whatever reason,
the conservatives are traditionally negative, nasty, angry, rude, etc. But
even many liberals, in particular if in the camera-thought net, are always
rude and hate everything. I think it's either the sourpussedness of
religion, a life without physical pleasure, and without logic, science,
etc. or the transference of negativity and rudeness from those who are
like that all the time. For me, it really is unusual, because I can't
imagine myself being nasty and rude 24 hours a day, these people have to
enjoy that, and I think that hating stuff and putting things down is there
favorite mode. I can't understand how these people are successful though.
Probably simply from connections, because eventually when a person is rude
to everybody, who would ever support them for a job, or a relationship,
etc.? Who wants to hear that rude stupid crap all day? It's annoying, and
it's stupid, it's almost always the same recycled crap, somebody is gay,
is insane, is perverted, is ... never does the issue of violence rear it's
ugly head...as I like to say 'their a g'dam killa!' That is one of my main
criticisms, but I save it for the web, I don't constantly go head to head
with the people around me, it's too much effort and work to constantly
come up with snappy comebacks and total verbal ideological combat every
minute of the day. I save my philosophy for my web notes and videos, I
speak out for the record once and for all, publically, clearly, perhaps I
should refer people to those comments instead of echo them, but ofcourse I
will keep trying to come up with new quick snappy comebacks. The views
expressed by those in the cam net, in particular the conservatives are so
far from the truth and decency that coming up with comebacks (although
completely new in history) is many times not difficult. (Who came up with
"thanes! (thanks!)"? you probably heard it from me.) A person would think
that in all this time, with all those resources they would have learned
something, but a person would be sadly mistaken.
12-12-06 to 12-18-06
12/12/06
One interesting thing I may have forgotten to report about "iceland spar",
a so-called "double-refraction" rock, is that when held against an LCD
screen, no double image is seen, indicating that the double image comes
from light from the other side which is reflected and moves back through
the crystal a second time. Perhaps the light from behind is washing out
the second image? A second image appears very clearly when putting the
stone against text on a paper, and clearly that example is where light of
the double image can only be from the opposite side of the page, and
passes through the stone twice, once on the way in, reflects off the page,
and then a second time through the stone on its way back in the direction
of the eye. I think people should measure to see if the angle of the image
is similar to the angle of the cleavage of the rock, which would imply
reflection instead of refraction. But it appears that the two images do
not separate the farther away the viewer is, and so any angle change
appears to be restored back, so the resulting two beams have the same
angle (but are separated by a fixed amount of space no matter how far or
near the viewer), which is typical of refraction. The double image appears
in the same direction as the cleavage as the stone is turned (if the
cleavage is tilted to the left, the second image will appear on the left,
if tilted above, the image appears above), which is characteristic of
reflection. I think possibly photons are reflecting off of tiny cracks
within the rock that act as tiny mirrors. Some of the photons go straight
through and reflect as if it was glass, while others may reflect back and
forth between these planes within the rock. There may be tilted "columns"
with side similar to mirrors, formed by the cleavage (the molecular and/or
atomic structure) that photons reflect down like a ping pong ball in a
small tunnel. The photons travel down this tunnel at an angle (while
others go straight through the stone and back where there are no
microscopic fractures, although many of the fractures a visible with the
naked eye) and so they arrive at the paper at a different location than if
they had gone straight in, simply from a series of reflections along
planes in the stone. Then the photons travel back up the tunnel and in the
direction of the viewer. If this was true, then the distance between the
two images probably relates to the depth of the stone. The taller the
stone, the longer the tunnel, and so the farther apart the two images. If
that is not true then I would doubt that this theory is true.
Revisiting the photon bounces or 180 degree orbits when reaching a mirror.
I think that the weight in my mind is moving more towards photons
colliding reflecting off each other, which would prove inaccurate a firmly
held belief, backed by all experimental data (although measuring evidence
for variable velocity for photons may be difficult to prove), that photons
are always the same velocity. I think there is an aspect of this concept
that needs to be addressed and that is that probably is a finite force to
gravity at the base level of photons. In other words, when two photons
collide, even if the space between them goes to 0, the force of gravity
must not reach infinity. There must be some limit on how high the force of
gravity gets when the distance between two masses is zero. ANd to me, it
seems that this finite gravitational force results in giving a photon a
velocity of 3e8 m/s, although how does it accelerate up to that velocity?
How long does that take? Clearly the acceleration ends or is so small that
it can't be measured (but then we have not measure the velocity of a
photon at two different distances, because individual photons are so small
and move so fast). It seems like when two photons collide, the photons
would come to a complete stop for an instant in time, and then reflect
back in their direction of origin, each with the velocity of the other.
And I think most probably that this collision is perfectly elastic without
any loss whatsoever because of friction (and in fact friction can probably
be explained as the perfectly elastic distribution of a velocity [since
the mass of a photon can be viewed as 1 at some scale, momentum {mv} can
be reduced to velocity] among many other particles).
I think for sure there are people recording each homicide and assault in
the thought camera net, waiting for a time in the future when all these
videos can be shown and hopefully the murderers and assaulters jailed.
12/13/06
I think the center of spiral galaxies are probably filled with stars and
star residue, and not any kind of black hole or singularity in space-time.
Maybe there are many stars, and by nature of their being close, they
collide and smash. Perhaps there are so many collisions that there is no
time to accumulate stars again. It seems to me it probably is a messy
place, it is doubtful that there is any one absolute center of mass for
any spiral galaxy, and so, the center shifts, and that pull apart matter.
More modeling of many billions of points will possibly shed light on this.
I was thinking more about the idea that time can be dependent on location
(space) and I think it is interesting to try and learn about this idea.
For example, according to one book I found, x^2+y^2+z^2-ct=0 is supposed
to be the space-time geometry that photons obey (<0 is for so-called other
matter [space-like] , they view photons as immaterial, >0 is time-like). I
don't know exactly how this theory is described in equations, but I may
search again for more info, now with the Internet there is probably more
good info on how to model something as simple as two photons since the
last time I checked. Where is the matter or mass in the equation? Isn't
mass part of the geometry of space-time? It's interesting that point
(1,1,1,1e-8) is one point of many solutions to this equation. 3=ct 3/3e8=t
1e-8s=t, that is given x=1,y=1,z=1 and solving for t. And likewise we
could solve for x given y=1,z=1,t=1e-8s. I don't really have any strong
final opinion yet about general relativity other than those expressed
before, that they missed the idea of photons as matter and the basic
component of all matter, and time-dilation is probably false. The
remaining question is: How does the GToR relate to Newton's equation? I
think we would be talking clearly about a changed GToR, which does not
include time or space dilation, in which photons are the (perhaps only but
certainly) base level of all matter. The main question in my mind (beyond
how do people use the GToR to model matter?) is, is a changed/or new GToR
(still maintaining a space-time geometry, and one question is: is this
possible?), a distinct new way of looking at, modeling, understanding the
universe, while being equivalent to Newton's equation for gravitation? I
think I may conclude that a new GToR based on the original (-time+space
dilation,+photons as matter), may be a geometrical interpretation of
Newton's equation, and is a different method, but the same basic paradigm
(the force of gravitation still basically determining the velocity of
matter). But perhaps a new GToR will only result in using 4 dimensional
points instead of 3 dimensional points and a time variable which is not
attached to any piece of matter. And this to me is a simple and clear
truth...that time, the variable t, can be attached to all pieces of
matter, but in my opinion, that value of time, (t) is always the same for
all matter in the universe. In other words, the current time here on
earth, is the same exact time as in the center of the Milky Way 30,000
light years away, and is exactly the same time as in any part of the
Andromeda Galaxy, millions of light years away. In this view, time is not
dependent on any individual piece of matter. So to assign a group of
points with quadordinates (coordinates) (x,y,z,t), the t must always be
the same for all points of matter at any given time presuming the model is
a real-time representation of any part of the universe. When t=4 seconds,
any point with t=3 is in the past and would not be a part of the current
image of the universe. I think the basic idea of the original GToR is that
time depends on the speed of a piece of matter, and the view I think is
more likely is that time is a constant throughout the universe, whatever
time it is here, is the same time it is everywhere, with no dependence on
velocity, space, matter, or location. But I think I want to thoroughly
explore the GToR and see how it is alleged to work. If the idea that time
is constant throughout the universe is true, then I think even a changed
or new GToR is going to be useless and inaccurate. We certainly can model
matter using 4 dimensional points (and any 3D model that exists for more
than 1 frame is a 4D model), (x,y,z,t), but given that t is always the
same (equal to the current frame of the model, however much time that may
represent), it is in some way, useless to even keep track of it for each
point, and in my view, it is not a completely new or different way of
modeling the universe; it's the same Newtonian method, but simply adding t
to each point, and the t is the same for all points and increments with
each frame (femtosecond, or whatever the time unit hypothesized) of the
model. Modeling points with different t values at any frame would be a new
paradigm, and certainly a new method of modeling the universe, but such a
system seems to me to be inaccurate, since time is probably the same
through the universe. One point is that, when a person models 3
dimensional points for any given time, using the tradition method, we see
all the objects at the same time, and this would not be accurate if these
represented photons traveling towards the screen or some other location.
For example any photon that we model, technically we would only see the
instant it collides with the screen at location z=0. When we see some 3D
object off in the distance, we should understand that we are seeing where
the points are, and not necessary photons reflecting off of them. We model
photons as points of light in order to see them, although if in theory we
would only ever see them when they are in the z=0 plane, but to see how
they move we draw them as projected into 3D space. It's a minor point in
my view. So again, a final opinion is forming in my mind, and it is helped
greatly by the "time is the same everywhere" hypothesis. Given this
hypothesis, a person can conclude that any General Theory of Relativity,
is not only not a new paradigm, but not even a new method of modeling the
universe, and is simply inaccurate (basing this conclusion, mainly on the
theory that time in any part of the universe does not depend at all on the
velocity of matter). Still, I do want to explore the General Theory of
Relativity, and see how the modeling is done. There are some strong
claims, in particular, one that even I think needs to be fully
investigated is the claim that mechanical clocks slow down the faster they
move (is this relative to the rest of the clock's own matter [inertial]?,
or maybe relative to all the matter in the rest of the universe?). I have
heard the claim that a watch ticks more slowly in an airplane than on the
earth. It's interesting that, relative to each other the plane and earth
are moving at the same velocity at any given time, as is the case when
comparing the velocity of any 2 points, the faster you move away from an
object, the faster it moves away from you (I guess in theory you are the
one with the velocity though, or certainly the origin of the velocity).
But perhaps we can compare the movement of the plane and person on earth
with a point in the center of the earth. Then the plane is moving faster
than the person on the surface. We could compare the velocity of the plane
a person on the surface relative to the position of the sun, in this view,
I guess it would matter if the plane was flying away from the sun, even
so, the plane would have a faster velocity, moving faster than the earth
is turning relative to a point in the center of the sun. Clearly the plane
covers more space in a shorter time than a human on the surface. Perhaps
most importantly, this claim should be verified many times in video, by
reputable honest people (this rules out the major media, the republican
party, and most of those in the camera-thought network). Honestly I may
not believe it unless I perform the experiment myself. And even if true,
which I have a lot of doubt about, there are other explanations besides
"time slowed down for the matter in the clock", friction with photons and
other particles of matter being one explanation. This can easily be done
with a variety of different clocks on the ground and on a plane, perhaps
100 at each location, even digital clocks, but by all means mechanical
clocks. Then let's see if there is any measurable change in time counting
by the clocks. It may be difficult, because all clocks, because of
mechanical microscopic differences (in machining and battery power among
other things) all click at different times, some may be slower and others
faster. I doubt after many tries that we would see any real trend either
faster or slower, but it's a strong claim, strongly believed, and it
should be properly and publically verified many times for all to see and
watch.
12/14/06
It's really amazing what Richard Dawkins has done with "The God Delusion".
Other people have written books explaining the truth about religion, James
Haught, for example, has written wonderful books critical of religion in
particular explaining religious atrocity of the past the powerful
religious establishment would rather delete from recorded history and
forget alltogether, Helen Ellerbee has "The Dark Side of Christianity",
and there are others (perhaps Sam Harris, to whom we should also be
grateful and who has very clear and intelligent arguments, is a notable
exception, also having books critical of religion which are popular), but
I don't think any have ever sold in such quantity. Clearly Dawkins is a
highly popular figure and his words and works are highly esteemed by the
public. I don't think there is any question about that, judging simply
from the sales of "The God Delusion" and his other books. Currently TGD is
ranked as the 11th best selling book at Amazon.com, ranking even higher
than such quality material as Bill O'Reilly's "Culture Warrior", Jim
Cramer's "Mad Money", and Steven Levitt's "Freakonomics", although it
appears Dawkins' book can not oust Grisham and Crichton (the entire
phenomenon of fiction books in this age of people seeing and hearing
thought seems to me like using a horse-drawn carriage to commute to work,
but I suppose if you had never seen a modern automobile you would think
the horse-drawn carriage modern technology, perhaps a better analogy is
those who restrict themselves to using the postal service to communicate
who have never seen a telephone). And then to see Dawkin's giving readings
from his book at universities and talking about it in interviews. It's
really amazing, and I think, this book is going to help many people
realize that religion is stupid, and science a much better idea to support
and believe in. I think there are people here on earth that honestly have
never ever heard even a single criticism of religion, and once they do
hear such criticisms, instantly wake up and see the light as if they
simply had never realized that the stories of the religions could possibly
be false. I think we all own Richard Dawkins a debt of gratitude for
opening people's minds about religion.
For my own online book and videos "Photon Yes, Religion No", I was
thinking this morning that, it is not my intent to make people feel bad,
sad, or that they are second class citizens for believing in religion. I
don't want to "hurt people's feelings", and I care deeply for people, the
other species, and life on earth. I simply have to tell the truth, in
particular about religion, and I'm sorry if that is upsetting, but the
truth is the more important thing to me. Promoting and continuing these
lies about religion, people who claim to speak as a mouthpiece for a god,
now those things are upsetting to me. Beyond that, I want to express my
opinions about religion, whether people chose to accept them as accurate
or not. I think many people are basically nonviolent, honest people
inside, but have been infected with the lies and tradition of religion,
and I view religion as a kind of virus attacking life on earth. Right now
this disease of religion has infected many innocent people and is causing
chaos on the earth, but it has not ended life on earth all together, so it
is diffult to know if religion will ultimately end life on earth. And the
cure, in my view, is the truth, telling people the truth. In some way,
those who speak the truth about the universe and religion, history, etc,
really are providing a medicine to those infected with religion, and it is
a medicine of talk, of moving air, that is helping people to start knowing
the truth about so many lies.
I think an important point I was thinking about is that, you know, look at
the current conservative/republican leaders, now this is a group who tell
many many lies and are very dishonest. They lie about 9/11, about Frank
Sturgis, about hearing thought, about WMD's in Iraq, about many many
things, and they are very deceptive, versus the other side (at least as I
see it, which is not necessarily the current group of democrats, but
certainly some democrats want the truth about 9/11, Sturgis and Cesar,
hearing thought, to be shown to the public) who wants the public to know
the truth and to let them decide what is good and bad, the side that wants
the public to know the truth about 9/11...that it was done by the neocons
and was an inside job, about hearing thought, about sending images to
brains and all that was found by Michael Pupin and others at the beginning
of the 1900s. Now think about that, and think about this: how honorable is
it to support Bush jr and this group of republican leaders? Is that an
honorable philosophy; to lie to the public for a secret cause which the
public supposedly cannot possibly understand? Or is it more honorable,
noble, decent, etc. to support telling the public the truth and the
opposition? I mean, clearly, in my mind, all the honor is on the side of
telling the truth about 9/11, who would feel a strong amount of support
for misleading the public in an elite secret society which tries
desparately to mislead those not members in their group? And in my novice
view, this is one reason why the Nazi empire collapsed once they were
seriously challanged for the first time, because simply, their goals were
dishonest, they constantly and obviously lied to the public, they were
violently criminal murdering and jailing those who fall out of favor and
innocent civilians, ... Nazism was a brutal system, the leaders were
brutal violent criminals, and I think the poor people enslaved as soldiers
in the military society under Nazism knew this, felt there was no honor in
supporting such a violent and dishonest plan, and surrendered in the hope
of a better existence for themselves, unwilling to murder or die for such
a terrible cause.
Speaking of the telephone, I am currently at the time in the history of
science where Alexander Graham Bell has invented the telephone. This is
1876, and the phone is exhibited at a celebration of the centennial of the
founding of the USA in Philadelphia. And it occurs to me that, something
very sinister happened between 1876 and 1910, something very evil infected
the people of earth at some time. Because, the telephone, which was a
shocking invention, to hear an object "talk", was very unusual to people,
was not supressed as "seeing eyes and thought" would be in only 34 short
years. What happened in those 34 years? Perhaps the roots of the disease
were already well formed in people's minds, from religion, from
anti-science and anti-sexual tradition. But it is clear that the telephone
was released on the open market, and this involved many powerful people,
Edison, Joseph Henry, all were involved in the development of the
telephone. Maybe there were people that said "the telephone must be kept
secret", but I doubt it, and I think it may be that, only with the rise of
an early survalience society did this disease of insiders manipulating
outsiders take shape. This process of included people misleading excluded
people is now a major industry (all the major media are nothing but paid
for advertisements designed to steer an uninformed excluded society), but
we should trace this back to it's origins which must have taken shape
after 1876. In 1876, there probably were very few people if any that were
watching Alexander Bell in his house, but that was soon to change. By the
time of Pupin in 1910, there must have been time to stop the spread of the
technology. This time the wealthy people in power were much more prepared
and seized on the invention of seeing and hearing thought. I don't know,
because I am not included, but clearly, these scientists at Columbia,
Pupin, the university president, probably very quickly the president of
the USA, miltary, police, the media leaders in particular (who in theory
wanted to print the story, but yet perhaps were inticed by the power such
technology to hear people's thoughts could give them over the public), all
were in discussions about the invention. There must have been those who
very forcefully argued that the invention must be announced publically,
and were disappointed and perhaps even somewhat shocked that it was not.
Probably, the president of the USA, the wealthy and powerful people, the
military and police leaders, all gave the best sounding arguement for
secrecy, arguing only a "small delay", they probably just wanted "a little
more time" to invetigate the technology, ofcourse, the argument came
forward that this powerful tool "can be used against our enemies". And so
the argument must have happened, and clearly, the result is known even to
some excluded: the conservatives won out and seeing and hearing thought
was kept a secret industry, Asimov hints that Edison "made it practical"
(MIP). Edison was the first in the USA to provide electrical power to
people, and so it seems likely that his company also would develop,
produce, and install many of the thought-hearing machines (perhaps their
customers were also their survalience subjects... but clearly at some
point all the major wealthy people were enjoying the past-time of
listening and watching the public in their houses). And what a terrible
story it is, how this powerful group kept Pupin's findings to themselves,
and how a secret industry arose and has grown into the monster were
experience now.
In some way religion is similar to any typical fraud. There is a
similarity in those who try to sell drugs based on fraudulent or
unimportant psychological theory, just like those who tried to sell snake
oil. Nobody should be jailed for trying to sell stuff to anybody, since
that is free speech and the free market, people have the right not to buy,
but it is sad to see so many people believing and propagating these
obvious lies, about santa claus, about jesus bringing dead people back to
life, about miracle wonder drugs that claim to but fail to cure diseases
real or not, the claims of horoscopes, psychics, fortune cookies, etc. But
I do think people are getting smarter in the long run, although not damn
fast enough for my liking!
We are living through a reichstag fire event, it's really an interesting
moment in the history of life of earth, although a terrible moment. What
is going to happen with this 9/11 inside job? I mean, eventually like the
first reichstag fire, people are ultimately going to find out, but when?
And then what will happen when they do? Already 40% of the public are
suspicious of the official story. I kind of think that, perhaps in 60 or
70 years, there may be one member of the 9/11 plotters and executers still
alive that might be actually prosecuted, perhaps a 90 year old guy who was
one of those who planted the explosives in the WTC buildings. That is how
fast the public catches on to stuff like this. One person in Germany who
exposes the truth about 9/11 being an inside job was saying in a video on
google a very good point, and that is that in 1963 when JFK was murdered
there was no Internet video, and things are different now. And I was
thinking that, possibly those in the camera-thought net may not have
realized that. They are probably used to the unquestionable power of
manipulating the excluded public by ownership and control of the
mainstream media (all television and newspapers) they enjoyed in the past.
Even in a best case scenario, the public slowly finds out and eventually
stops electing republicans and 9/11 official story supporters, and that
will take decades. Maybe there is some other path, video on the Internet
forcing the existing politicians to act, but it seems a long way away.
12/15/06
I have found many interesting things in looking at the story of the
universe, evolution, science and the probable future. I can't list them
all, it would take too long, but some are:
1) There is a controversy over the origin of cyanobacteria, one group
holding that the oldest fossils of life are cyanobacteria and are 3.5
billion years old, the other based on genetic evidence that cyanobacteria
are only 2.7 billion years old. I mean this is a difference of 1 billion
years, and is a major disagreement among those few people interested in
science. Clearly 67% (at least in the USA) reject the theory of evolution.
2) Fruit trees are actually flowers. In fact any tree with a fruit is a
flower to my intermediate knowledge. It seems like a tree is simply a
large plant.
3) Globular clusters are probably made or formed by advanced life, life
far more advanced than life stuck on earth. * see bottom notes
4) In the globular clusters, if we could see up close, we mights see large
spheres of matter orbiting around stars, pushing them around into
desireable positions.
5) That the ancestor of all humans may have gone back into africa from asia
6) that human language may have evolved in africa before humans left to
settle asia and europe, because all humans use the same sounds but
different words (except for "mama" and a few other words), if they don't
all use the same words, it shows that they probably would evolve different
sounds had language evolved in different locations separately. So human
language, with all major sounds probably came out of Africa at the time
the ancestor of all humans left Africa.
7) That new world monkies probably reached America accidentally on fallen
trees or other objects which formed rafts. (This is a conclusion Dawkins
makes in "Ancestor's Tale", based on the magnetic evidence that America
has already broken far apart of Africa by the time of the evolution of
primates 35 million years ago, and the mystery of how any primates could
have then reached America.)
8) Clearly in the transition from ocean to land, reptiles and subsequent
birds and mammals evolved to be dependent on fresh water only, unable to
survive on the salt-filled ocean water (as presumably reptiles, birds and
most mammals currently cannot-I guess whales, dolphins, and seals are an
exception? That seems like a basic question...seals must drink ocean water
and are able to extract the fresh water they need from that in a way most
mammals are not able to do). So, life on land was dependent on fresh water
sources, only where there were lakes or rivers could there be chordata
(invertebrates and vertebrates) (or possibly underground water, or living
objects that can survive on occassional rains that result in temporary
puddles).
9) The universe is probably infinitely large and old since there are
probably galaxies so far away that not one particle of light from them can
reach even our largest detecters. (Ofcourse, yes I have said this many
times). For this to be true, it requires that the red shifted light of the
most distant galaxies be due to some other effect besides Doppler shift,
for example from stretching from bending around large masses.
I can't remember all the interesting facts, but hopefully ULSF5 will
include every little detail of even the remotest importance to the story
of evolution science and the future. Some of these questions and issues
are basic, but it's no surprise that people have missed such basic
questions in this era of only 33% even believing evolution is true.
3) extended:
And what I just realized this morning is that, those advanced societies
could easily send tiny low cost probes around each of the 300 billion
stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, certainly around many of them. And
ofcourse, it seems very obvious that advanced life would be interested in
seeing close images of planets around the stars. The devices I am
envisioning are probably made of metal or some advanced molecules. They
probably don't store images, but only use photons from a star, process
them and transmit them back to the globular cluster, or a local station
the society from the globular cluster has established close to the plane
of the galaxy. Like the "Encyclopedia Galactica" Carl Sagan describes in
"Cosmos", it seems to me that possibly the only way to collect an
encyclopedia of planets around stars is to send probe devices/ships to
each star or as many as possible. It seems obvious that an advanced life
in a globular cluster would be very interested in watching all the planets
that have evolved over millions of years around all the stars in this
galaxy, think of our own interest in this matter. It would take millions
of years for the images from the plane of the galaxy to reach them, but
even so, very quickly after deploying such probes, they would be receiving
images from the probes, and eventually when the probes were in position
they would start to see what they had waited for many years to see, and
even if the show is a million years old, it is still very informative and
the info is ofcourse, new to them. For example, for 2.3 billion years at
least on earth, there was not even multicellular life, nothing larger than
a single celled bacteria, and stromatolites. And that would give an
advanced society plenty of time to put probes in place. In fact, when we
start to move between the planets, maybe we will start to find these probe
objects. Perhaps the probes are designed to be smart enough to avoid
detection, and the space around stars is very large. One issue is, how far
can you be to get a good image of the surface of a planet? For us, we need
to go very close, we have not figured out how to detect tiny quantities of
photons yet, and maybe it is impossible. My feeling is that probes would
have to be relatively close to detect photons, perhaps in orbit of each
star. It would be amazing to find some of these probes and analyze their
composition (although it would be a major issue for the members of our
advanced life society as to whether to even disturb the device at all. But
I think we might thinking that perhaps other life might expect us to, and
then perhaps even duplicating the design and restoring it to function
correctly. And there are not just a few globular clusters in this and
other galaxies, there are hundreds. In fact, we may be able to estimate
the age of the Milky Way from the number of advanced clusters that have
been developed. There are something like 300 at last count, and that to
me, says, the Milky Way has been around for a long time. If took at least
4 billion years to evolve life as advanced as we, able to visit a moon,
and send probes to other planets. Add to that the time needed to pull
stars together to form a multi-star civilization, of at least thousands of
years, and probably more like millions of years. Then the time it takes to
move themselves out of the plane of the Milky Way, which is probably more
millions of years. No doubt many globular clusters evolve together at the
same time, but some must come along later. The oldest globular cluster
societies must have a large amount of leverage in the galaxy having the
most time to learn about it. 300 seems a large number of globular clusters
(other galaxies must be at different stages and EXPERIMENT: we should
observe how many globular clusters each galaxy has. What stage of
evolution from nebula to globular are they in?). But clearly, there are
going to be more glbular clusters as the Milky Way continues to change
into a globular galaxy (hopefully including one of our own). We may form
one, but we may possibly be like many small clusters become part of a
larger cluster.
As I have said the wonderful big picture in my opinion is that nebuli
change into spiral galaxies, which change into globular galaxies and the
entire process may take on average 1e15 earth years from cloud to globular
galaxy, and there is never a shortage of new nebuli because photons
emitted from stars even in globular galaxies escape the galaxy and form
new clouds. It appears that most advanced life consumes photons, and
doesn't bother to try and capture every last one. If they did, things
would be different, but I think it is physically impossible to contain
photons, any container would always leak photons in the direction outside
the society. These are very interesting ideas and I don't understand why
most people on earth are not interested in talking about these ideas.
Finding these probes from advanced civilizations in globular clusters
would be a thrill for our descendents. Perhaps it would be like a game of
hide and go seek, or an easter egg hunt to find where the probes are,
inevitably we know, that there have to be some there. (It's similar to the
rise of the survalience society...each house has many listening and
imaging devices in them, place by groups of people with clearly more
advanced technology than those who live inside the house). I doubt there
will be stored images in the probe, although maybe there will be a few.
This is one reason why care would be extreme...knowing that we probably
may not understand their photon/information storage techniques if any. For
example, there might be a few images kept in the probe every ten thousand
years perhaps. It would be very valuable for us to see those and
understand the evolution of life around our own star (most of the images
would probably be sent on and not stored). Perhaps there might be a
message to anybody that finds it, describing their intent, how the object
works, instructions for the future. Images seems to me to be a uniform way
of relating that is not specific to life on earth, the same is true for
sound, recording the vibrations inside some mass (usually a gas or
liquid). Smell, on the other hand seems more specific, like something that
might be specific to life of earth, the process of detecting certain
molecules or parts of molecules is probably universal to all advanced life
(using technology, not their own body), but our own sensory cells
specifically evolved around specific molecules. But that is a minor point
of interest. Mainly, it seems clear that 2 dimensional photon captures,
basically, what we call images, and even sound information is probably
universal throughout the universe. I think we need to keep an open mind,
and allow that there may be technologies, particles, and methods of
observing particles we can not even imagine, ofcourse, but it seems likely
to me that this idea of a two dimensional grid of photon detecting is
probably very common, and may even serve as a primary form of
communication for advanced life. Although 2D image info can be encoded in
millions of different ways, they could be spread spectrum (like wireless
networks, a single beam with many different frequencies), but even
unencoded for single photon beams/streams/signals how do we know when a
row of pixels ends and the next row begins? Maybe they are being
transmitted in parallel as a square of pixels already formed into an
image. Scale is one issue too, what is a big picture for us might be like
a pixel for them, or on the other side, what is a pixel for us might be a
huge image for them. Sclae of life is an interesting thing, I am sure more
humans in their current scale (no doubt the size of average humans will
continue to change, in particular as we move out into empty [accept for
photons] space) would feel more comfortable with same-size other advanced
life, too large, and we would feel like insects, too small and we would
feel they they are insects. The issue of scale may be one reason why there
are different globular clusters, although I am sure there are strenuous
efforts to try and communicate at all scales to the largest and smallest
of advanced living objects. It's amazing to think that some insect sized
objects could be smart enough to conquer and move stars, and at the other
end that there could be an advanced life where individuals are as large as
a skyscraper or even larger. Perhaps like even we, large living objects
might be made of many smaller living objects all working together in a
symbiosis of mutual benefits. It's an amazing system, and I am sure people
will be interested in these ideas when this ULSF projects gets rolling out
onto the web.
For video player plugins on the web (Media Player, RealPlayer, Quicktime)?
Stream and seek already, damn! Flash may, but how about playing non flash
videos? We need an open source video player for all main formats and
browsers with streaming and ability to seek.
11-14-06 to 12-08-06
11/14/06
Think of how many of us are in the family of "assaulters", and can
rightfully be called "assaulters". Those who have ever slapped a person,
spanked a person, pushed a person, punched a person, elbowed a person,
scratched a person, kicked a person, or even a different species. I think
it would be difficult to come by a person that is not an assaulter. But
the important question is, how much of an assaulter? How many assaults?
What is the severity of the assault(s)? It must be a shock to people's
sense of perfection and superiority to know that the vast majority of them
are assaulters.
I think there is a phenomenon on earth, and it is hopeful, that the
violent, negative, rude, etc. eventually collapse on themselves...because
violent people are not just violent to one person, they are not mean to
individual people...usually, it's part of their inside...they are natually
angry, violent, rude...and eventually, it's like Nazism...they turn on
each other. And the positive are left behind. Mainly the friendly,
enlightened, nonviolent, don't retaliate, they don't respond to threats of
violence, but who does? Why the violent do. So, as has to happen,
eventually, violent threaten other violent and unlike nonviolent, the
violent accept the challange and generally one loses, many times their
life. Beyond that, even within the nonviolent realm, people who threaten
violence, are recognized by smart people as undesirable...problem people,
potential violent conflict starters, and so there is a natual selection
against those people too, in terms of them being hired, getting dates,
getting friends, etc. (although clearly this backward group on earth,
doesn't see threats of violence as being serious, while invitations for
pleasure are viewed as bad, in fact, threats of violence are viewed as
comedic...many times, it's presumed to be a joke...or a natural way of
communicating.)
It's interesting the roles of leadership on the two sides (as I see them).
On the one side are the violent, and they routinely assault people, they
are conservatives, republicans, christians, godders, very religious,
antisexuals (stop sexers), monarch/oligarch/rule by a special few,
secrecy, and on the other side are mostly their victims, sexuals,
nonviolent, atheists, agnostics, nonreligious, liberals,
democracy/majority rule, free info, etc. and so the leadership roles are
starkly different. On the liberals, there is no one leader, and many
times, individual people do not want to be seen as a single leader...if
somebody else wants to expose the camera network, to speak out against
violence, about the truth of 9/11 as a reichstag fire, it is seen as
relief,... it takes the pressure and risk off of those who feel compelled
to tell the truth, to speak out against violence, and again this side is
run by free will, most people only act willfully and are not forced into
decisions. On the other side, who is the leader is sharply defined, and
any body acting independently is seen as a threat to the leader and dealt
with harshly, this side is ruled by a very violent person generally who
the others fear. People are expected to follow the orders of the leader,
no matter if they want to or not, no matter how homicidal, suicidal or
simply stupid the order is. These people prefer a system where what they
are supposed to do is very clearly defined, and no thinking is needed. The
leadership of the two sides is like night and day. It can be simplified by
saying that the conservative side does violence and the liberal side stops
violence.
11/15/06
Perhaps, besides enjoying hearing my own voice, which keeps me company,
and reinforcing some idea in my mind by saying it out loud, I'm not used
to being secretive and deceptive like most people, so it's more natural
for me to talk out loud. And when I think about it, how wrong our society
is for locking up and ostracizing people who talk out loud any where they
go.
To continue the commentary on the proposition to make mandatory 2 year
hospital sentences for adults who genital touch minors, again I don't
advocate genital touching, and I warn people not to violate any law, to
obey all laws as best as possible. That being said, the entire issue of
minors having sexual activity with each other, I think is now on the table
for conservatives and antisexuals to seize upon. I am interesting in
seeing an opinion survey of people's feeling about the question: "Should
it be legal for minors to have sex with each other?", and "Should it be
illegal for a minor to touch the genital of a different minor?". This is
where the erroneous belief in a child as an unthinking piece of property
incapable of doing wrong may protect a minor versus the shocking wrong
bloodthirsty viciously violent hatred for sexuality and physical pleasure
go head to head. I kind of feel that the violent antisexuality might win
over the view that a person under 18 is incapable of making decisions and
can therefore do no wrong. Interestingly enough, in 1986 when I poked the
butt check of a different child, I myself was a minor at age 17, and so
this is an example of minors having sexual activity with themselves, and
is, to my knowledge, completely legal. And I can't help but think that
antisexuals, of which there is a shocking 70% or something majority (it
nearly perfectly coincides with those who are religious and wed, although
I am guessing), I can't help but think that antisexuals must view this as
some kind of a loop hole in the laws...I mean how can minors touch each
other's genitals, suck, rub, and screw all day and it not be illegal? It
seems, as I say to be some kind of loop hole in the laws, but yet it's
there. I think the feeling maybe that people don't want to see children
with their genitals out rubbing them with other children, kind of like
seeing the dog licking its balls. There is no harm done, but to these
sourpuss puritans, they prefer not to see such vulgar displays of anatomy,
and many times will invoke violent assault to stop such activity. So I can
see a "illegal child sex" law coming up in the future, that outlaws
children having sex with anybody other than themselves. It's interesting
that people have left open the door of a 16 or 17 year old male, who has
been probably masturbating for a solid 6 or 7 years, to have legal
consensual sex and genital touching with any human under the age of 18. I
kind of think prosecutors might somehow be able to pull some kind of
exception for these cases, so they can punish the older of the two minors
someway by hook or by crook. As another major point, forcing young males
into abstanence is so stupid, here these young males are sexually
frustrated, horny as they will ever be, and they can only have sex with
females under the age of 18, if that. And what happens? The female says
no, but the horny male many times forces the female against her choice, or
that rejected repressed need to ejaculate transfers into violence against
other people. Adults are expecting young horny males age 11-17 to be
abstinant, and it is unrealistic and asking for violence, and sure enough
these aggressive males, uninformed about sex, are viciously anti-gay,
embarassed about sex, desperate to get sex. Look how that person "Gwen"
was murdered in Northern California by the agressive males...to think that
people would murder somebody just because of sexuality, it shows that
there is a lot of hostility around sexuality. When I was young there were
not many bright spots, but one that I remember was a party that a girl had
in the 6th grade, when I must have been aged around 11 years old. At this
party were drinks, like soda, there wasn't any alcohol or smoking or
anything, and maybe some music, but eventually, they started playing some
form of "spin the bottle", and "five minutes in the closet", where each
person was supposed to kiss and fondle each other in the closet for some
time. It is funny, to look back on, and what a fun time, I got to kiss and
touch the breasts of a number of my female classmates. It gave me
confidence, before then, the first girl I asked to be my girlfriend (I
didn't know about asking out to the mall, or lunch, or anything, I think I
just asked if she wanted to "go steady", or to "be my girlfriend", there
was a pause on the phone...this was a year before when we were around age
10...then she came back to the phone with the message "my dad won't let
me", and that sunk my heart, and even the little friendship that existed
between us feel apart after that, no doubt from embarassment). To me, to
force children to go without kissing, touching, etc by anybody other than
pets and siblings is negligent, callous, brutal...its vicious, but
commonplace...it's the rule and far from the exception. Kissing all those
girls gave me such confidence, and that is such a good thing for children.
So many children, definitely including myself, feel so ugly, the few times
I tried to ask a female out always were rejected, and I wasn't good at
slowly working my way into a female's life, nobody told me anything, and
like most young males, I wanted so much to kiss and lay with females, but
I simply could not make the connection in between my own shyness, and my
inability to find the correct approach to successfully date a female. So
it just occurs to me that those kinds of things, like spin the bottle, 5
minutes in the closet (and I have put forward the more organized "touch
with consent" [computer and playing board versions] and "back rub club"
which I hope are helpful) are healthy, confidence building, pressure
relieving, friendship and relationship building kind of activities, but
can you imagine a parent organizing such a thing? I don't know, but
clearly, the girl who organized this party was advanced and put together a
smart idea, I doubt her parents knew, and no parents were there in her
basement with us. For me, it was a wonderful time, I remember another male
not participating...and I couldn't believe that...it was a mystery to me
as to how anybody could pass this kissing and groping our female
classmates up...but he explained, as I remember...that he felt the quality
of female was an issue...saying that it was not the act of kissing he
objects to but who there was to kiss, but of these females there were some
very pretty girls, two at least had overly large breasts for that age. But
beyond that...I just couldn't accept that even kissing an average looking
female was an opportunity to pass up, and interestingly enough, to my
memory all of the females participated, and there were no rejections,
which looking back seems unusual. That was funny, I wish I had taken a
path more like that instead of the idiotic path of celibacy [being even an
oral virgin until 18 and college, although again desparately not by
choice!], tobacco (my tobacco virginity I lost around 11), weed [although
I remain dedicated against jailing those who use drugs], sports, alcohol
(alcohol virginity lost around 11), male friends only, I fell into. I
wonder if this girl who made this party ever got in trouble for that, if
the parents knew they probably would have yelled at her parents. It
reminds me of the mother in California who was fined or maybe even jailed
for allowing a male stripper to perform at her underage daughter's
birthday party....oh the horror...
When talking about the 9/11 event, and other injustices, many people ask
"what should people do to solve these problems?", and typical answers are:
for example Barry Zwicker, an intreped canadian and clearly smart person,
echoed the age-old "write yer congressperson", but you know, in this time
where people see and hear thought...email is too slow...the congress
people all hear and see thought...they know what you think....they know
yer opinion...but we are stuck in a stalemate where everything is known
and nothing will change...one letter or email, even with 1000 signatures
is going to make 0% of difference, it's all done and known in the
camera-thought net. Jim Fetzer who is clearly a wise sage answered this
question with "vote down the encumbants", but you know the next batch is
going to be just as bad. What I am thinking may be the best answer to this
question that has many answers is: "vote for those who will guarentee full
and total free info". Ok, so who are those people, ok so there are none
right now. But I say this because we, as excluded (for those excluded out
there), are like in a line of millions of people...waiting to see a grand
movie....which many people are seeing and enjoying...but we are back here
in line....like in position 3 million...we can't even see, really, the
theater...from way back here. And to make matters worse, those inside the
theater are in no hurry to expand it, or let anybody else in to see this
grand movie. But the interesting thing is that, most excluded don't even
realize that there is such a movie to see. But to see these movies, is to
instantly answer all the questions of the last century, in particular the
last half century. Mainly who killed who, and who had sex with whom?
Clearly some of these images can be estimated by us back here in the crowd
of excluded who cannot even see the theater from where we are...clearly we
would see Sturgis killing JFK, we would see Bush senior's role in that
murder, we would see Thane Cesar killing RFK, we would see much of the
truth behind the MLK murder, we would see the more recent popular feature
of the planning and execution of 9/11 which the insiders have been
studying and assembling for 5 years now. And when I say see movies of
these people...I mean see their thoughts...see difinitive proof of their
dirty violent dishonest dealings. So I advocate vote for those people who
are talking about full free information, because don't you want to see
these movies? don't you want to see all the thoughts like so many insiders
already do? So I think, ofcourse, vote for those who speak out against
violence (when such people do appear on the scene if ever), those against
the drug war (and here, in the democrats is Kucinich...already we see that
this issue has penetrated the mainstream democratic party). Beyond that,
vote democrat (many people don't want to say "vote democrat" because they
don't want to scare off republicans, who they want to win over to their
cause, but the facts are clear, democrats haven't been murdering people
left and right, it's the republicans who have), the republicans killed
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, they have been a cancer on the USA since 1963
and probably before.
Here is an interesting point. There is a clear division in the government
of the USA, and here is one way of interpretting it (although I am sure
people may disagree): there are the people for a fully democratic
government, that is majority rule, therefore their name: the "democrats",
and those people for a republic government, which is rule by
representatives, or some form other than democracy, and therefore their
name "republicans". Initially "republican" was set in contrast to
"monarchy", "loyalists" and "royalists", and the history of both of these
parties is an interesting part of history. Clearly, people should know
that the republicans are the conservatives, they get support by the
strongly religious christians, mostly white males, while the democrats are
the liberals, the educated, non religious. This much, I think people can
agree with. A full democracy is the newer idea, while a republic is the
older idea. For myself, I see a "republic", whatever it is, as being
inferior to a "democracy". People might argue that democrats are not
necessarily democratists, and it seems clear that many are for
representative democracy, instead of full democracy. And maybe there will
be a "full democracy" party which is even more liberal than the old stodgy
democratic party, which is a defacto "representative democratic" party.
Within full democracy there are a variety of implementations. My own
recommendation is one where the majority opinion of a smaller group may
overrule the majority opinion of a larger group within the volume of space
of that smaller group's location. Here is a typical example: medical
marijuana. In the USA, hypothetically lets say that the majority is
against medical marijuana being legal (this appears to be untrue, but it
is the position of the current leaders of the federal government). So
then, a person can say "medical marijuana is illegal in the USA", but then
a majority in the state of California approved medical marijuana. Then in
my view, medical marijuana may be illegal in the USA, with the exception
of those in the state of California (since a local majority may overrule a
larger majority). And it is more logical, we wouldn't expect people in
Washington DC, or Uganda to enforce their majority opinion on people
halfway around the planet in California, or vice-versa. So then imagine,
that within California the city of San Diego votes against medical
marijuana. Then I would say that medical marijuana is illegal in the USA
and San Diego but legal in all other parts of California. And then, the
people of the city of Chula Vista vote to have legal medical marijuana.
Their majority should rule the city of Chula Vista, and the majority of
San Diego should not be able to enforce their opinion on the residents of
Chula Vista. So then medical marijuana would be illegal throught the
entire USA, except in all parts of California except San Diego, but within
San Diego, excluding Chula Vista, where medical marijuana has been decided
to be legal by the majority. It sounds complicated, but yet it is simple
and logical. Each city should be able to determine their own laws. The
planetary majority opinion may be a good guide for how to vote, but many
times, that view may be rejected by some state or city of people.
There are many aspects of the secret technology that we in the excluded
can only piece together. And here is one more piece. Ok so, some time I
will be sleeping, or just barely sleeping, and occassionally there will be
a thought, mostly audio, that feels exactly like I am consciously thinking
it, but in the few seconds immediately after, I realize that it is an
absurd statement, or one I firmly do not agree with. In other words,
somehow I was made to consciously think something that at the time felt
like I originated the idea, but milliseconds later, I realize was clearly
a foreign thought of external origin. It's difficult to describe but I
will try my best. Usually sounds, in our own voice, are beamed onto some
portion of our brain where we have a tiny few milliseconds to chose
whether we accept or reject the statement as being something we agree or
disagree with. But perhaps there is some location on our brain that the
audio can be beamed, and it seems as though we are consciously thinking
the audio...in other words that we originated the statement ourselves,
when in reality it is of an external origin (ie: some criminal in the
government with this secret advanced sound beaming technology developed
over a century). So it seems very clear that this technology can be used
to simply totally control a person's thoughts, making them absolutely
think and do anything that is wanted, however, for some reason, people
have currently chosen only to beam onto areas of the human brain that
allow the human to still retain control over this central point...giving
them the opportunity (albeit not much of an opportunity) to reject the
audio suggestions. Perhaps it is more convincing to discredit a person's
ethics if they themselves accept an evil suggestion from a camera-thought
net beamer human. For example, if they beamed some racist belief, in a
person's own voice, onto their brain at this one central point (for lack
of a better name), it would feel to that person as natural as one of their
own thoughts, in effect they would be taken over and their
thought's/opinions completely controlled by these people in the
camera-thought net, without them ever being able to stop it, or even
knowing that it is happening to them. Such is the nature of this area in
the brain, I am speculating. But this approach is not done, for some
reason...or only rarely done...for example...when a person is sleeping,
and then only for a second, perhaps to introduce the full capability of
this technology to the excluded. Because what they usually do is beam the
negative thought, in this example a racist thought, (but it could be a
genderist thought, or violent thought, etc), on a part of the brain that
allows a human to dismiss it as being something they don't believe it...in
other words, the individual is left to control their own mind (again,
although the suggestions are very powerful, in particular to those who
have never heard that sending sound onto brains is possible, which is
probably the majority of people on earth). So, it seems relatively clear
that this sound sending technology can be used to literally take over the
brain of any species with a brain. But maybe I am wrong, maybe a person
could somehow recognize that the opinions beamed on their brain are not
their own. It seems like our current thought pointer, like a current
program pointer, controls our current thought, but not the vast data bank
of memories and opinions that may be stored in our brains, which would
seem to me to be difficult to change. All I know is that these peculiar
thought beamings are very different from the common daily ones, like the
common ones a person has no choice but to hear them, but unlike the common
beamings, it truly feels like it is your own thought, and that you
absolutely agree with it...only seconds later do you understand that it
was a statement beamed onto your brain that you completely disagree with,
and feel the shock and embarrassment of feeling that you had thought it
(when in reality you had no choice as the thought was beamed there, and
unlike these common beamings where there is choice, in these currently
rare special-unknown-kind of beamings there is no choice).
11/16/06
The key to these voyeurs in the cam-thought net is that their victims
never know they are being watched. That is really the key to voyeurism, it
only works, there is only the thrill when the victim (all us excluded)
don't know they are being watched. That is the special kink for them. As
any person in police, it's much more fun to watch people that to be
watched. And part of that voyeuristic kink that the people in police and
conservatives have is watching people in their houses and their thoughts,
but the important thing...is that the victims can't ever know that they
are being watched...it is the all important critical point, and these
voyeurs will murder, assault, detroy info, you name it...to keep things
that way, to allow them to enjoy that secret pleasure of having power and
control over other people. Once a person knows they are being watched,
it's nowhere near as fun for the evil power hungry included.
William de Wiveleslie Abney was the first to invent a photographic
material that works for infrared light around 1887. This is a key point on
the development to Pupin seeing what a brain's eyes see in addition to the
thought screen that most species with brains have. Asimov has no less than
3 "mip" (Michael I Pupin) phrases in his paragraph on Abney. Interesting
how Pupin said "fight the eye net"...I mean that's an interesting
statement from the inventor of the technology. I think that is
saying...fight those who want to keep hearing thought for themselves and
away from the public. Have fun trying to find info on Abney, such as a
date for his infrared invention.
It seems clear that, for example, with the cathode ray tube that spews
photons in the xray, that there have been decades of progress in research,
development and production of these tools, cameras, in particular infrared
cameras and laser beams, but the only thing available to the public are
these huge clunky ultra-overpriced objects (cameras, lasers, cathode ray
tubes, etc) special bloated companies like Raytheon must have a secret
market where microscopic or tiny cameras are secretly sold, while the
consumer gets the huge box model, and then for thousands of dollars. Like
an infrared camera is such an expensive thing to build. It's gross, and it
has been happening since 1910 with Pupin's invention of seeing what eyes
see in the infrared, and seeing the thought screen in every brain (where a
person can draw a triangle in their mind, for example).
An included friend hinted to me that there are some big breasted women
reading my opinions, if so, definitely contact me because I would like to
suck (and/or maybe just squeeze) on those big boobs, but only with
permission of course. Even medium ones, that's ok. There is nothing wrong
with a little consensual pleasure, I am reading now that Epikouros
(Epicurus) was not the first to say pleasure is good and pain is bad. He
was a student of the Kurinikoi (Cyrenaic) school of philosophers that
include student of Socrates based in Cyrene (Cyrene was founded before
Alexander around 600BCE), the northern coast of Africa, modern Libya.
Aristippus was the founder. Although sadly, some of the Cyrenaic
philosophers saw no value in natural science (although at least one saw
natural science as a pleasure). Isn't it funny how humans like to squeeze
on soft round objects? That is interesting. Generally speaking, any brainy
female regardless of breast size should contact me to flush out these main
10 issues (svts, cfoai, fyrn, etc), and as always the rounder the ass, the
better, but first braininess, then nice breasts, then pretty face, then
round ass. Mainly when it comes to friends, all nonviolent are accepted
and tolerated and even the small-time only a few minor violent events
ofcourse, of the remaining nonviolent probably welcomed least will be
those that, "threaten first degree violence", then those who abduct or
contain nonviolent, nonabducter, noncontainer people, those who steal, the
rude, the antisexuals, the psychology-believers, the religious, the
secretive/antifreeinfo, the antidemocracy, liars will probably be welcomed
less. It's good to figure all this info out, because, look what has
happened, killers run the government and the innocent are slaughtered
without even being seen...so we need to start to identify and record who
is and who is not violent for example, and then by all means don't elect
them president, vp, into congress, into court, etc.
You should see this included system, such a large part of it is run by
money. For example there is a massive secret system of payments. One
person pays another to zap a person, clearly the zappers are low level
scum bags, poor people, who get money to: 1) zap people, 2) spread
propaganda ...and so on, everybody does something for money, and money is
the main motivation for most people. There are certainly lines that people
will not cross for money, one major one is doing violence because they
ethically disagree, or risk imprisonment, etc. But generally, poor people
will do a lot for money. And it's interesting that money is just a bunch
of paper, now even just electric information. Soon, money may be paperless
altogether. The rich people have all the electronic credits, and therefore
their opinions (and needless to say, the prevailing opinions of the
wealthy are shockingly immoral, illegal, violent, dishonest and
unethical). But I need to add $ lines to my images of the camera-thought
net. All those thugs who zap innocent people are paid, and perhaps even
paid per zap/itch/muscle move and paid by scummy wealthy people, without
educations, with only sourpuss anger and backwards midievil beliefs.
A new book about the Paul Wellston death is available:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Assassination-Strange-Senator-Wellstone/dp/0975276301/sr=8-1/qid=1163724631/ref=sr_1_1/104-4457624-4910361?ie=UTF8&s=books
and David Ray Griffen has given a good review of it. One thing they
mention is how the FBI arrived at the crash scene first within 2 hours of
the crash. There have to be teams of people dedicated to rounding up and
stopping any possible evidence from reaching the public. The FBI did the
very same thing for the Pentagon gas station video. The FBI must be the
main camera net go to for all the republican crime that needs to have
evidence stopped. If Wellstone was murdered, and I doubt a person like
Fetzer (most likely in the camera-thought net) would go to the trouble to
spend time on something that was not true, and then that Griffen (somewhat
clearly in the camera-thought net) would give it a positive review if it
was not true. Plus just looking at the info, it looks like a typical
murder...the camera-thought net control everything, all the media, even
the thoughts of the people...as I say the only way to combat this network
is by creating total free information...it's the only answer I can see
that is going to work. And its amazing when you see the FOI act of
1977...it doesn't even stick....people have to go to the supreme court to
make the government give up information, and then it's all blacked out,
and there is still not one audio or video that they have released to the
public in decades of secret recording. It really requires that the public
finally gets a whiff of the rottenness in the government and society,
starts to imagine that there might be people hearing their thought, starts
to understand the history of science, and of the USA. It's slow going.
Look at this reason number 10, I mean this stuff is shocking:
"The NTSB investigation was headed by Acting Director Carol Carmody, a
Bush appointee who had earlier ruled that there was no foul play in the
small airplane crash in 2000 that took the life of Governor Mel Carnahan
of Missouri, the Democratic candidate for the Senate who was killed 3
weeks before his expected victory (over John Ashcroft). "
Here the republicans killed two democrat senators and next to nothing
happens...that is so gross, what a bunch of lawless violent criminals. And
you know, it seems clear to me in my mind that violent criminal
organizations don't walk around with black cowboy hats and black bandanas
over their mouths...they look more like the Nazi elite...suits and ties,
military uniforms, thought to be upstanding members of society with
families...but yet they are involved in hundreds and thousands of first
degree murders of innocent people who hold any opposing philosophy and
then some that don't even, a number of victims in the WTC and no doubt the
Pentagon voted for Bush, they elected their own murderer and therefore
made it possible.
11/20/06
I wish I could close my eyes and wake up in a different century. One far
in the future.
With the person that was tasered at UCLA, to me the answer is simple, no
taser should ever be used accept in self defense. In other words a taser
should not be used to move a nonviolent person. In addition, I think the
taser is not a good tool to be using. Aren't hand cuffs enough? For
trespassing-type events, a person should be asked to leave, at least 2 or
3 times, warned that they will be forcibly removed at least twice, then I
think there needs to be focus on the method of moving a person. One method
is for two people to each take an arm, another is to use handcuffs (since
clearly the person refuses to leave despite at least 3 (recently within a
few minutes) requests by representatives of the property. For nonviolent
people no handcuff should even be used, but I think it should be decided
democratically for each city. I think a taser can be used only when the
person being removed from the property has (recently within a few minutes)
assaulted somebody besides themselves or is in the act of assaulting some
person besides themselves. To me that seems, looking at the video, and
eyewitnesses, it seems like the person was not violent. In addition, this
person shot a homeless person twice, definitely use of a metal bullet gun
against a person without a weapon should be forbidden and punished by
deemployment at the very least. I am glad for the cell phone video
cameras, it's nice knowing that people must accept that at any given
moment their actions might be recorded on video. I like that, other people
don't.
There was a conference "Beyond Belief" that is nice to see, with free
videos on the web, beyondbelief2006.org.
11/22
One reason I am not racist is because it allows me to grope and fondle a
more diverse group of women, but only consensually, ofcourse.
Things have really changed with the recent popularity of political
correctness. Now for example, it's "violenter american", instead of simply
"violenter", and "sexually challanged" instead of "antisexual", etc.
11/27/06
Kind of an informative video about the origin of Christmas:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7951618892821637153
A christian guy set this to me. Remeber that this is from christian
people, and is pro christianity (I am not religious), and so I would be
skeptical about the info presented, nobody confuses history and fact like
the religious. Here's a good expose on Cheney: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-410313931558811701
from the same person.
I think it would be interesting to see if there is some way of detecting
the pressure of any particle. If photons bounce and are elastic than even
the smallest particle may exert pressure on other particles that can be
measured electronically somehow. Who to hell knows?
I saw a wonderful movie "The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Files".
Garrison died (at age 70, perhaps murdered) the same year this film was
made in 1992. Garrison was awarded 30 minutes of air time on NBC, and one
clip shows this with Garrison saying (paraphased) "what's that? You say
you want to see the xrays of the President's brain?" which may be a hint
at seeing thought in the infrared. His closing statement in the Shaw trial
in 1969 starts with "May it please the court" which is "MIP" (Mihajlo
Idvorski Pupin, the first to see thought). There is video of the evil
Nicholas Katzenbach stating his opinion that Garrison was an "absolute
nut", clearly evil because they all know the truth. It reminds me of Bill
O'Reilly calling Fetzer a nut, here O'Reilly lies to the public about the
9/11 mass murder, he knows all about, that he has seen in the
camera-thought net with many others. It has to be a bizarres feeling in
their head to know the truth, but tell the exact opposite on television
for a living. O'Reilly and similar paid for liars for murdering
conservatives are the modern Goebbells. Many people ask how could so many
keep 9/11 a secret, how could so many be involved, and one example is the
Mahattan Project, but another are the gas chambers...the gas chambers was
such a well kept secret by many thousands of people that victims did not
even know until the very last few seconds they were going to be murdered,
and ofcourse, for those political prisoner guards who did know, telling
them only made matters worse. And the key principle of this mass secrecy
is the pupin camera thought net, ... the secret of hearing thought. It's
one of the main reasons that these secrets are kept, that many thousands
of people can organize 9/11 plots, without the majority of the public ever
knowing. As an aside, Fetzer put forward some very unlikely theories about
the JFK murder in a youtube video, sadly, but as an excluded I don't know
for sure, and have to remain open minded. Fetzer claimed that the fatal
shot came from above a sewer hole on the overpass (and a second from a
similar sewer hole on the other side), when it seems clear that the Mormon
photo shows even us excluded that Sturgis, Hunt, and Arnold were the three
behind the fence. Then Fetzer goes on to say that the Zupruter film was
recreated, which I find very doubtful, he then goes on to cover for Dan
Rather, who Robert Groden (definitely his "The Case for Conspiracy" is
worth seeing) says in this Garrison video, lied to the public saying that
JFK was thrown forward in the Zupruter film before the Zupruter film
disapeared from public view. Groden amusingly states that...JFK being
thrown back and to the left is one of the main and only things people that
see the Zapruter film walk away remembering. There is so much to the
credit of Fetzer it is a tiny point, for all his 9/11 work, and for
example Fetzer correctly identifies Posner as a total paid-for propaganda
puppet of the murders and supporters of the JFK murder. That type of
potentially purposely misleading info makes more honest people (although
clearly we all lie from time to time, in particular with the
camera-thought secret net) doubt the honesty of their other claims, but
ultimately, facts align together, for example a video is one piece of
evidence, the seismic data a second, eyewitness testimony another, etc.
and ultimately separate pieces of evidence tend to confirm a theory, and
so some amount of truth can be known. So far, I have not detected any even
remote sell-out/purposeful insider lie from David Ray Griffen, and Griffen
openly supports Fetzer's coauthored book about the probable murder of Paul
Wellstone, and so the Wellstone death still remains a probable murder.
My feeling on Garrison was that, there was evidence of Shaw's guilt, and
beyond that...look at what happened to David Ferrie...and others, like the
Dallas police officer, Roger Craig:
from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeaths.htm
"Craig was also with Seymour Weitzman when the rifle was found on the
sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. He insisted that the rifle was a
7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.
In 1967 Roger D. Craig went to New Orleans and was a prosecution witness
at the trial of Clay Shaw. Later that year he was shot at while walking to
a car park. The bullet only grazed his head. In 1973 a car forced Craig's
car off a mountain road. He was badly injured but he survived the
accident. In 1974 he surviving another shooting in Waxahachie, Texas. The
following year he was seriously wounded when his car engine exploded.
Craig told friends that the Mafia had decided to kill him. Craig was found
dead from on 15th May, 1975. It was later decided he had died as a result
of self-inflicted gunshot wounds."
Perry Russo is a credible witness. There was other evidence too. But, you
know, clearly Sturgis is the main person who should have been jailed for
first degree murder. Fletcher Proudly adds to the evidence against George
bush Senior's involvement (which is already well beyond any reasonable
doubt, the Hoover memo, Zapata Oil, his relationship with Hunt and
Sturgis, insiders like Josiah Thompson who said "saw a puff of smoke under
some bushes", etc), Prouty uses the phrase people are familiar with
for George Bush "Great Big", saying (paraphasing) "if Garrison had won,
the public would be confronted with that great big truth, spell it out,
W-H-Y". What if Garrison had really protected Ferrie? Maybe they would
have had more, but even the testimony of Perry Russo was apparently not
enough. In this video some nice things are: Groden saying how the Lincoln
was cleaned up, instead of preserved as a piece of physical evidence like
most cars would be, and even stored in the smithsonian. And that the photo
of Oswald holding the gun is definitely fake, I had seen this before, and
now it really sinks in, the heads on two photos are identical, one was
tilted, but the bodies are at different distances from the camera and so
the heads should be different sizes...another video explains how an exact
pixel-for-pixel match of the two heads would be a virtual impossibility.
And to think that that was on the cover of Life magazine...how like
Stalin's abuse of photographs that is, how Nazistic. I couple that with
the "drawn" autopsy photos as being one of the more Nazistic examples of
the events surrounding the JFK murder. But why does the public never
realize to vote democratic until the truth about JFK is fully uncovered?
The stories of Madeleine Duncan Brown are amazing...they show that LBJ had
many people murdered, and Malcolm Wallace.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6962062879996612313&q=madeleine+duncan+brown&hl=en.
It's an amazing set of stories Brown told. Clearly nobody doubts that her
son was the child of LBJ, and DNA tests would prove it. That story about
what happened to her son...and then her nanny...holy shit...that is
shocking. Put together with the truth about how Wallace only got 5 years
of probation for the first degree murder of a man who had sex with LBJ's
sister. Again this shows that our court system needs to be opened for full
democracy and not just the verdict of one easily corruptible person. Here
this guy Wallace was a college graduate.
We still live in the secret camera thought net society, but that time is
coming to a close, and we are entering the full free info society where
there are cameras on the street, but the images are available to the
public, and the public has their own cameras through-out their property
(houses, cars, etc.), and even personal robots that capture images and
sounds of their every move...murderers like those of Jam Jay, Anna
Politkovskaya, and thousands of others will never go unidentified as they
do now, but holy shit, lets hurry up already with that massive camera
coverage that we all can see before more of these murderers go free.
11/29
bravo and kudos to the history channel for their history of illegal drugs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJr7a7aqEvE&mode=related&search=
I see the Internet as being easier if only the MAC address (the unique 10
digit number every network device has) is used, and so a person can call a
MAC address like a phone number, everything can be ready to go just by
plugging the network cable in the wall. Where people can ping a Mac
address for example.
I think we are moving from an era of total free information for an elite
few to an era of total free information for all people. Currently for a
century a growing number of people have been seeing thoughts, and inside
houses, and this will continue maybe even for another century, but slowly
we see the public network growing too. Although now just a meager
Internet, with a few photos and videos, a tiny amount compared to the
voluminous secret net (it may shock people to know that the data on the
all the Internet is probably much smaller than all the secret data stored
in the secret camera thought net data which has been accumulating images
and audio of people's thoughts for 100 years...that is without question
terabytes upon terabytes of information). Slowly there are public cameras,
initially on the streets, in businesses, in residents...and eventually, in
particular for the street cameras the public will probably be able to see
the archived images when they finally come around and get smart. That
alone will change the structure of society...no longer will people wonder
who killed Anna Politkovskaya, Jam Jay, Nicole Simpson, Bonnie
Bakely...the public will see how a person and in particular a vehicle is
traced from street to street, and murderers will no longer roam free and
on the loose...which is the scary way things are now...I mean many of the
people around us are murderers and certainly multiple assaulters...just be
sheer probability, because most of them are not being jailed or even seen
by the public, and only if the public sees them is anything done.
12/01/06
kind of a far out idea, but nonetheless within the realm of free
information is the idea supernovi only being the result of advanced life.
A person can argue that, because most stars are liquid, that any kind of
fracture or instability is unlikely, and would quickly be filled in (as
opposed to a solid body where a fracture might break it apart). Another
interesting idea is that, possibly the true life cycle of stars is from
large and blue to small and red (although it seems clear that there are
large red stars too), because of the idea that clearly stars are losing
matter as they continue to burn, they give off far more matter than they
take in, and so ultimately over the millions of years, stars lose matter,
I don't think most people disagree with that. So similar to Plank's black
body radiation, the star cools down as it contains less and less matter,
and so the number of photons per second it releases becomes less, and so
it's color changes from blue to yellow and then to red, (although some
appear to be white colored, which is a conglomeration of different
frequencies). I question and doubt many of the modern theories.
quote: "The universe is not expanding, but is unending."
I think that the new view of the universe is more awesome than even the
earlier view. "The universe is not expanding, but is unending." and that,
to me, is more awe inspiring...that there simply appears to be no end to
the universe in terms of space, matter or time. Therefore, I think the
view that the red shift of light of distant galaxies is not only due to
Doppler shift, as was mistakenly believed (and continues to be mistakenly
believed) for close to a century, but that this red shift of distant
galaxies is due mainly to the stretching of light that occurs when light
is bent around gravitational objects. But, I want to keep an open mind,
and wait for the experimental evidence that light bent by gravity actually
does show a slowing of frequency.
Can you imagine if JFK had the ability to get down in the car after the
first shot to his throught? Things would have been entirely different.
History in the USA would have probably been vastly changed. JFK would
probably be left with a disability, leaving him with a changed voice,
perhaps a horse sounding voice. But, just knowing how JFK fired Dulles and
Cabal, it seems clear that JFK would have used his authority as president
to round up all those involved. Sturgis, Hunt, Arnold...all three would
have been quickly identified and jailed. Oswald might have lived, Marcello
would have probably been convicted that same day, Ruby, Ferrie,
Shaw...probably would have been jailed. George Bush Senior probably would
have been jailed. Dulles might have been jailed. LBJ probably would be
forced to resign. It's not clear, but I think JFK would have made serious
changes, even from the hospital bed perhaps.
12/04/06
I think a clear truth is that, the future is either going to be a pleasure
society or pain society, and because most people dislike pain, it will
probably become a pleasure society, where all pleasure is embraced and
tolerated. Some people are heading for that pleasure society in the
future, but many, and perhaps even most set limits on pleasure, and even
head towards a pain society (those who endorse and commit violence, for
example).
Because the laws are not supported democratically (by a constant
democratic majority, who gets to routinely vote on them), byt those who
have to live under them, people view our laws as if they are a joke, or as
if they don't really apply (or are applied selectively) to daily life.
Even the homicide law has been watered down by the republicans, for
example, who do 9/11, killed JFK, RFK, and others and the killers are
still free and on the loose. They routinely missile innocent people of
undeveloped nations, killing thousands of civilians in first degree murder
that ofcourse goes unpunished, and even unseen by most people. The right
to trial is removed for psychiatric and terrorism arrests. It's a terrible
thing, that because our laws are viewed as subject to those in power, we
live under a virtual anarchy, a lawless society. When you remove the
highest law, homicide, and apply it only selectively, any other laws are
only less important, and it's not the kind of society that should be.
After thinking more about the General Theory of relativity, Quantum
physics, and the standard model, I feel, for the most part, that all three
are probably not true, and that Newton's physics are probably still the
interpretation of the universe closest to truth. For the General Theory of
Relativity, as it stands, even without analyzing the equations, it can be
shown to be wrong on a theoretical basis, because time-dilation is most
probably false (a photon is the fastest moving piece of matter, and it
does not appear to gain mass, the physical phenomena people describe...the
mechanical motion of clocks slowing the faster [relative to the rest of
the universe] they move, I doubt, and has never been shown to be true to
my satisfaction, in addition, even if true, there are other
explanations...increased friction with photons for example, the other
example of particles gaining mass in particle accelerators I think can be
explaned as a phenomenon of electric fields accelerating charged
particles, in that the faster the particle is moving, the more force needs
to be applied to accelerate it any further.). The perihelon of Mercury...I
very much doubt cannot be explained by Newtonian physics, and you know, if
Newtonian physics does not explain the motion of Mercury, I would go back
and calculate more. It's not a simple model, and modeling planets as
points is far from accurate. The sun is billions upon billions of atoms in
liquid form, as are much of the terrestrial planets...it appears likely
that all planets have molten metal (perhaps mostly iron) in their centers.
Perhaps the distribution of matter in the sun effects the motion of
Mercury. I find it very hard to believe that Newton's laws do not work for
planet Mercury. Then the bending photons, this is simply photons
responding to the effect of gravity, because yes, I think photons are
matter, and the basis of all matter, and this idea...that light particles
are part of all matter, is absolutely, 100%, missing from relativitity, in
fact, a completely separate case is made for light. But even when using
just the light-like equation (x^2+y^2+z^2-ct^2=0) to describe all matter,
(which may remove the idea of time dilation, I don't know, but in any
event time-dilation [and matter-increasing] is most likely false) ... it's
difficult to know how to apply this equation for space on even one
particle of matter. For example with Newton's equations, a person can
easily explain the motion of two pieces of matter...this is one of the
most basic and simplest proofs of the theory of gravitation. But where is
the equivalent proof using relativity? I have never seen it in my entire
life...the simple modeling on computer or on paper of two pieces of matter
using the general theory of relativity. How does the matter fit into the
model of space-time? But as I said, even without knowing the equations,
you can show that the GToR is probably wrong simply because light is
treated differently from the rest of matter, is viewed as massless, and
that time dilation is probably false because all matter is made of photons
(I mean it is simple, when we light a match we see photons...photons emit
from every piece of matter in the form of heat...now isn't it only logical
that the photons were there, in the atoms, all the time? It seems highly
unintuitive that photons would be created at the time of lighting a match,
or being emited from a body). So, I think, it needs to be said, that the
GToR (General Theory of Relativity) has been, as is becoming clearer as
time continues, a completely inaccurate, useless, mistake, or even
outright fraud (since where is the public proof?, Why does nobody address
these issues I raise?). I still want to find more evidence that the GToR
is completely inaccurate. Then remember how the expanding universe theory
(which appears to be growing to be a 100 year mistake...as is the
GToR...which is now a 100 year mistake...like keeping pupin's finds a
secret...again a centurial mistake...and counting), was magically said to
apply perfectly to the GToR, as if the two had been made for each other...
and now the question about..."who doubted?", and strictly who doubted with
scientific objections? Where are they? Who were they? What arguments did
they use? They are lost comments buried behind the glaring domination of
the GToR, some of which were probably accurate. So, as I continue to
investigate the history of science, I am leaning more and more towards the
idea that the GToR, in it's current form, is completely inaccurate. But I
don't know, if some form of a space-time geometry, light-like only, or
minus time-dilation can be shown to be equivalent to Newton's gravity...my
feeling is that ultimately, the equations can be reduced to Newton's, and
therefore, time is viewed as not dependent on changes in space. Probably
by now, there is enough information and experiment within the
camera-thought net to show that time-dilation is false. In addition,
people have probably already figured out that the red-shift of light is
not only due to velocity, but due also to stretching from
gravity...probably a 100 year mistake...again that appears in my mind to
have nothing to do with the GToR, and is mostly a conclusions drawn from
Hubble's and other people's analysis of the spectra of stars and galaxies.
This theory, the General theory of relativity forms the basis of the
belief in black holes, in worm holes, and that is the basis of the work of
Steven Hawking, and most other physicists and astronomers...they all
believe it and espouse it. And what does that say? It's like the
earth-centered theory, or "vitalism", the "ether" theory, the "phlogiston"
theory theory of heat, the "caloric" theory of heat, ... each had it's
believers. And ofcourse, people will look back in 500 years on our
theories and understand them to be more primitive that theirs. (although
clearly the GToR was a step back, and Newton still stands, in my view,
even looking back 300 years later, as being the most accurate system).
Quickly onto quantum physics: first I reject the idea that any particle
exists only because we observe it (if that is a central tenet of qp),
clearly particles exist no matter if observed or not. I reject the idea
that a particle "appears" out of empty space. I view the universe as being
much more simple and straight forward...more like that of Newton's:
particles of matter moving in empty space and that is it...that's all
there is. All larger particles, atoms, molecules, planets...are basically
combinations of photons. So, I think, for example Heisenberg's equation,
and this is a simple point I am surprised has not been
recognized...applies to the limits of human technology, but not to the
actual universe...in other words, as we measure something, the smaller the
measurement, the less accurate, is simply a result of the physical
properties of the matter we are using in detection, ... the actual
particles at that scale move on as they always do without any change
whatsoever...their movements are real, and actual...it is simply our
measurement of those movements that are inaccurate, and ofcourse, yes, our
matter in measuring becomes part of the equation, but the universe of
particles moving in space remains intact and very simple.
Finally with the standard model, which I interpret as being "force
conveyed by particles", I have, again, many doubts. I doubt gravity is
conveyed by a particle, and although it is abstract, view gravity as more
of an intrinsic part of the universe. Perhaps gravity is in the nature of
the geometry of space, matter and time in the universe (similar to
Einstein's view, but minus the dependence of time on space, and therefore
any kind of time or space-dilation). I doubt that photons convey the
electric force. The electric force in my view is a combination of many
particles which results primarily from gravity. electricity (which is, I
think identical to magnetism...in other words that a current in permanent
magnets causes it's electric (magnetic) field, although what the field is
made of is still unknown to me...I think perhaps photons or electrons or
neither but some kind of collective system of atoms which causes the
attraction or repulsion of magnets). So, I reject the theory of quarks,
simply because there is no physical evidence, and it seems to me that any
number of particles can be created simply be combining photons. I reject
the idea of antimatter as being antimatter, and I think it is simply
electrical opposite matter. I reject the idea of a "quantum number"
(Infidel Guy, Reggie Finley also hints at this belief in one of his free
videos debunking the ancient theory of "souls"). But by all means, let
people explain this to the public, and prove me wrong. Those people in
particle physics believe all of these theories, and it's shocking to think
that they would so strongly accept theories that they cannot prove with
physical evidence. But this brings me to a point that I think is very
relevent. And this point is that, there appear to be very very few people
who criticize prevailing theories. In particular the theories of emminent,
welathy and powerful people (in particular those who routinely can afford
and are accepted for publication). Nobody appears willing to criticize the
General Theory of relativity, the nobel prize winning electroweak theory
(I reject the strong and weak nuclear forces and think the atom to be held
together and to separate by gravity only, but I think, you know, the atom
is small, and because we cannot directly observe it, we need to keep a
particularly open mind to it's composition), nobody is going to openly
question those theories in print besides a renegade person who is not
going to be published, and who will be ostracized by their peers. And
maybe it is upsetting to see a renegade view in print, but the alternative
is to accept and compound dogmatic inaccurate theories for centuries
without the truth ever heard or even hinted at.
I am a person who is simply interested in the truth, I prefer people to
back up (or dispute) these claims with physical evidence and new
explanations...I really do want to know the truth.
More commentary about "Beyond Belief 2006". There were some good comments,
but also, some disappointments and tough to accept truths. First I think
mainly, the interesting people were Dawkins, Harris, Porko, and Druyen
being openly atheist. Dawkins and Harris openly promote their criticism of
religion, while Porko and Druyen are not quite as vocal. Dawkins,
ofcourse, has some enjoyable commentary about religion, religion as child
abuse, a separate speaker quoted from Dawkins book (some video is on
video.google.com of Dawkins relating the "The God Delusion"), about how a
child will believe their parents lie about Santa Claus, and this is one of
the best and most clear examples of this terrible deception of children by
adults...while the speaker argued against this being wrong, I think this
is one of the best examples of why the lies of religion are so terrible.
Here young people have to eventually reach the conclusion that their
parents, for whom, they believe everything out of their mouth, and trust
so strongly, lied to them...lying is terrible, and in particular to young
people who look up to and trust parents so much...it just seems cruel to
me, spanking is worse, but lying can't possibly be good. Harris had a nice
quote that our conversation could be set in the year 200 CE, as it is in
religion, or our talk could be about this century. The point is a good
one, and one I raise in FYRN, that these people that religious people are
using as their guide to the universe, thought the sun went around the
earth, didn't have novacaine, had never traveled above the clouds, and
probably felt certain that nobody ever would get above the clouds, etc.
Porko, openly admited rejecting a belief in any gods, which was the first
time I heard about that, maybe she came out of the atheist closest
publicaly just then, and good for her and all of us, the more the better.
And then, surprisingly to me, sez that she "got off" on something...and I
can't accept that they cold blooded camera-thought net, wealthy elites
will openly admit to even a particle of sexuality...I mean we are all to
presume that they are celibates, both publically and privately, and
anything else is to be less than human...to show any remote appearance of
sexuality (despite being a biological mandate), is a shock and
surprise...I think we were all taken aback....humans...as something other
than asexual and frigid? hard to believe! But then Porko sez people should
"stick" something somewhere, and we quickly recognize the violent
antisexuality in all people coming back home. "Stick it!" is the rallying
cry of the antipleasurable. The violent tend to "punch" a key, while the
nonviolent tend to "press" them. Druyen told the story about how her
grandfather told her dad it was better not to pretend about being
religious, that there was a Carl Sagan high school opened in North
Carolina, and that she has a new book about Sagan. Druyen commented that
her hope is that people wake up and reject religion, which was nice, and
also an interesting comment, while she was promoting Porkoism, about all
these images that the public has paid for but has never seen...and my
thoughts go instantly to the secret 100 year pupin camera-thought net
image archives. And then I remember that Carl Sagan was one of the cloaked
camera-thought beam-it-to-our-eyes network, which includes virtually all
wealthy and powerful people (and even middle income and poor elitists!),
who drew back the hood to reveal his face for a second by saying that
hearing thought may one day be possible (and not big business for 90+
years), before slipping back under the cloak hood. From there it went
downhill. Although Druyen actually openly said "history of science", which
is violating a taboo...people in the cloaked eye-net society are not
supposed to openly endorse any good idea which has exited the mouth of Ted
Huntington. Some of these people are not strong speakers...many of their
voices quivered. Dawkins, Harris, Porko and the host all have strong
enough presentation, public speaking styles, but others Druyen included
don't have such strong public speaking voices. It takes time to overcome
the fear of public speaking, one way I do it is by realiing that the
people in the audience can't possible tell me about the universe, even if
they could...they chose not to. As a result, I feel more confident that I
do have some important information to tell people. But I understand shakey
voices...I mean this is an era of absolute chaos...people have been
secretly hearing thought for 100 years, people watch other people in their
houses...9/11 was an inside job but we are to accept that it was 13
hijackers...Sturgis was never arrested for the murder of JFK, Thane Cesar
is still free...and this is just scraping the surface...but yet we are to
carry on as if nothing is wrong or unusual? I thought it was low brow for
Druyen to refer to the "spirituality" of Porko's talk...there is no
spirit, and therefore no spirituality...that is total fraud, and perhaps
an appeal for money from those on the fence about spirits and religion,
but maybe I'm wrong. When people talk publically, we all get an
opportunity to see their beliefs, and that is nice, but it always seems to
be the same for me...they are antisexuals, they are believers in
psychology, they are religious, they are for secrecy, ... it is always a
dissapointment...I don't know why I both to even view one video, because I
know it's probably the camera-thought net antisexual religious violent
psychologers, who else could it possibly be? Are they going to tell me all
matter is made of photons, about full and constant democracy, make a plea
for full free info ending the copyrights, patents and privacy? no, to hear
that I need watch myself. For example, in a sentence Druyen makes the
point to loudly say "down!" (like a dog that humps a person's leg), and it
occured to me just how old-worldish some of Druyen's views are, aside from
her atheism. This antisexual view is really wrong in my opinion. I think
it's smart to promote and defend sexuality and pleasure, and I think
people that speak out against pleasure are flawed in that view...I think
it's stupid to speak out against physical pleasure, in particular when
physical pleasure feels so good, and nothing in science or common logic
tells us that there is anything remotely wrong with physical pleasure.
There is nothing wrong with nudity in public of private, nothing wrong
with sex for free and even for money. And this is an interesting
phenomenon: people who are smart enough to throw off the shackles of
religion, but not antisexuality, and many times not psychology. Sagan
crudely used the word "bonkers" in "Cosmos", and it's clear that Sagan
believed in the pseudoscience theories of psychology. Usually, in my
opinion, those who believe in psychology are those who don't know much
about the history of science, or science in general, and psychology serves
as their "science". Instead of talking about how a cell evolved, or how
machines work, they are more concerned with who is "nuts", or "psycho".
Dawkins is a believer in the very obscure theories of psychology and that
is amazing, for such a smart person. Harris refered to "sociopathic"
people, which is, I think close to meaningless...I guess "sociopathic"
people are those who cannot "fit" into society...perhaps like a homeless
person, or a hermit....well...you know...as long as they obey the laws,
and are nonviolent, I can't see any real problem with not wanting to
socialize, or with wanting to socialize...it seems a trivial choice. And
this is the funny aspect of psychology...here Jeff Daumer (the sociopathic
person Harris refers to)...it doesn't matter that the guy is a
murderer...killed people...the real issue is his social skills, and the
reasoning behind why a person kills and eats other humans. And this is
classically applied to Adolf Hitler, here this guy authorizes the murder
of 3 million people, but the real problem was that he had mental
problems...not that he advocated violence, had violentobia, had a serious
case of the violencia germ, was on a murderathon, I mean if I could say it
more clearly the bad people are the violent! violent! violent! damn!
halleluja, I want to pull the wool off of societies eyes. Yes, we can
analyze why humans (or others) are violent, but to me that is secondary.
But this entire conversation opens this issue that is forming in my mind I
refer to as "overvalued/undervalued", and this seems a clear principle.
Atheists generally are undervalued...they are genius level people, many of
them, but are treated like garbage by the majority. Celebrities generally
are highly overvalued, people stand in line to hear them to blow wind, but
most only have high school diplomas and a very unenlightened
interpretation of the universe and bad ethics...many endorse violence,
religion, psychology, horoscopes, antisexuality, secrecy, etc. very
low-brow ideas. Beautiful people are undervalued, people with nice bodies,
because the majority cares very little about physical beauty, women with
shockingly beautiful bodies go unknown, while women with average bodies
are paid millions, and the same is true for males. Although thinness is
very important and well rewarded, large breasts are of little value to the
sourpuss christian majority, and so those in modeling get the benefit of
being able to pay low amounts of money to fabulously beautiful women,
because they have no other offer (although no doubt many busty females get
money from wealthy people). Smart people are very undervalued. Wisdom
means very little in this age of religion, secrecy, greed and violence.
Very smart people probably have trouble getting hired, or finding even
minimum wage employment, while dumb people sail to the top, in this age
where telling the truth can only work against you. So, getting back to the
Druyen thing, I view many of these speakers, certainly all the supporters
of religion as being overvalued (the pope is highly overvalued, because
look at the lack of good info he provides...it's useless...highly
abstract, I prefer hearing about Pupin, how thought got heard, how these
people did transmutation of atoms, about the future for life on earth,
etc). Only really parts of the talk from the atheists do I find even
remotely entertaining or interesting. One point is that none of these
people took on psychology, nor did any of them take on antisexuality. And
these two tools are two of the major tools in the religious toolbox. As I
said Harris refered to "sociopaths" buying into psychology, Dawkin's books
are littered with psychology...the religious supporting people were
appearing to go for personal criticisms as opposed to taking on the
physical evidence. For example, one suggested that just the thought that I
might have put on women's clothes should be enough to reject any theories
I might express. Another refered to Dawkins as "bitchard", implying
perhaps that Dawkins' heterosexuality is at issue, instead of addressing
the actual truth of falsehoods of religions. This is a common claim by the
antisexuals...an appeal to anti-gay feelings, but most people (and perhaps
even other species) are primarily heterosexual, but show a rare
occassional consideration of homosexuality. Those that argue against
bisexuality, have only to masturbate once to same gender touching and they
are proven hypocrites, and that I think is very likely. But none of the
atheists took on antisexuality, and perhaps it is difficult to take on
openly, and needs to be addressed more subtley, but in any event, I think
the sexual and those for pleasure need to start revving up their
pro-pleasure propaganda, and this is what I have been saying for a long
time...that nothing in science indicates that there is anything wrong with
having as much sex as people want. This was an unusual part of "Cosmos",
when Sagan says "if we capitulate to superstition,
greed...sexuality"....wait a minute "sexuality"? If we capitulate to
sexuality? What can possibly be wrong with enjoying sexuality? It's like
capitulating to hunger for food, or knowledge...I don't see that as being
a good statement...yes we should not surrender to superstition, or
greed...but our sexual interests? No, we should pursue our sexual
interests, and to think there is something wrong with physical pleasure, I
think, is stupid, and backward...it reflects a religious tradition of
antisexuality. Some might argue that sexual assault is the result of
absolute physical pleasure, a full pleasure society, but this is obviously
wrong, because there is at least one person, the victim of sexual assault
that is feeling pain, and so clearly this is a violation of a pleasure
society. Only physical pleasure with full consent by all parties is what I
think the future is, and within that realm is a wide variety of physical
activities many that do not even involve genital touching. For example, I
think that making it illegal for humans under the age of 18 to touch an
adult's genitals is a form of child abuse, it's neglect, it's unfair, it's
callous, it forces them to live as untouching, unfeeling people, hardened
and made more brutal from a lack of physical pleasure. In particular males
under 18. They are forced to masturbate to images of females over age 18,
and the law requires that they stay celibate, and even that they are
forbidden to touch a breast, to have their penis touched, until age 18,
and that makes them vicious, angry, hostile, and violent. But the
antisexual will not bend, and cannot be swayed from their brutal walk into
the wall of nature and biology, as dictated by the traditions of religion
and marriage. I picked up a book by Druyen about Sagan's last days, and
leafed through it, and, without trying to be rude, but simply honest, I
found it to be very dull and was uninterested in reading it. One passage
caught my eye and I remember this even now, that Druyen describes when
Carl proposed marriage to her, and Druyen asked "this time it's for
keeps?", to which Carl replied "yeah, this time it's for keeps." And, I
have to be from a different planet, but this felt to me kind of funny. It
seemed like, you know, Druyen was some kind of piece of property to be
owned...that a person could keep or sell. But then I don't understand or
condone marriage at all. It's so formal. Then to show such pride in such a
statement seems unusual because, to me, as with every marriage, my feeling
is, that if two people really love each other, why the need for a formal
(and non-financial) agreement? I can see perhaps a financial agreement
with contractual obligations, but why a marriage certificate and trinket
such as ring? It's almost like a person that gives a confession on video
tape, but then decides to make it official by signing a written
confession...isn't the video enough? Well, no doubt the signed confession
helps too. I don't understand why a person would be excited over a
marriage agreement, as opposed to the birth of a child, or sex, for
example...people celebrate the marriage, not a birth as much, and
certainly not a new sexual encounter. Then there is the communal "mixing
of the assets", like all of the sudden, nobody knows where all this money
and property came from! Gee...was it hers or his?...well it's all a
communal property now. It's ironic that a people so opposed to communism
would embrace such a communistic idea of splitting marriage assets 50/50.
And there are numerous examples, Steven Spielberg is a good example, his
exwife took half of his money, but clearly Spielberg was the principle
earner of that money. And there are countless other cases of this unfair,
basically "theft". But wait...what about the children! Even without a
marriage agreement, I think it is understood legally that both parents
have an equal legal responsibility to care for their children. I have
never heard of a parent not having to legally pay for their child. So
there is nothing wrong with all the pleasure, sex, pregnancy, birth that
any and everybody wants, nothing at all wrong, in public, in private, for
free and even...yes...even for money. And we can absolutely expect never
to hear any appeal for decriminalizing prostitution from wealthy and
powerful people. There are numerous examples of antisexuality in atheists,
people smart enough to throw off the chains of religion, but not
antisexuality. Gloria Steinum is a good example. Here she is openly
atheist, and clearly that takes smarts, but apparently feels that
pornography and prostitution is anti-women, is a violation of human
rights, and that is stupid, in my view, because, touching genitals, sex,
etc. is just like any other job, like cleaning a toilet, cooking food for
money...perhaps it's not pleasant, many people don't like to work, but
yet, they consent to, and males do too. It's brutal to fill the prisons
and keep prostitution illegal. It helps to spread disease and violence
beyond that. So this view of Druyen's is very old-worldy and nun-like, in
my view, although somewhat surprisingly common (I am only slowly learning
the extent of people's hostility towards pleasure, which is ironic since
these are the biggest voyeurs on earth...who routinely watch kids in their
panties and then closely examine all their thoughts), maybe it's to win
money from antisexuals and not her own belief, but the "for keeps" quote,
to me says that this is a person who believes deeply in the tradition of
marriage. I find many religious to be rude, and the same is true for
antisexuals and supporters of marriage, rather than take on the issues
they resort to name calling and buzz words. Because I don't think they can
effectively win the debate against pleasure with logic, but have to resort
to labels like "slut", "ped" and "pervert", all of which are mistaken,
traditional, illogical beliefs. Their is nothing wrong with loving other
people in principle, even physically, as long as their is consent and no
objection as often as a person wants. And those labels are an example of
people working towads a pain-based or antisexual society...they are not
working towards a future where all people enjoy all the pleasure they want
consensually and openly. Some argue that too much pleasure is unhealthy,
but too much pleasure, for example, excessive rubbing of genitals leads to
pain and discomfort and then would be stopped...and we are talking about
trivial issues so long as nobody is hurt whatever it is is no serious
crime, despite the belief of many. there is simply nothing wrong with all
the pleasure anybody can do, and only sour puss "anti-pleasurists"...yes I
created a new word...reject that. One other aspect was that a religious
supporter said that the atheists all sell their books for money, and the
atheists took issue with that. I think people probably publish books to
promote their ideas, or perhaps just to entertain people, but clearly,
there is a point there. They could give their books away as I do, and many
give away free videos on the internet, in particular, it's ironic, that
here, they sell their books and get to watch our thoughts either for free
or for money (imagine the bastards who get all that money for those who
pay them to see popular people like me...and then we the watched don't get
a dime...fair eh!?), and then those of us who give away our books and
videos for free don't even get to see and hear their thoughts...how
backward is dat? 12/05 update: I mostly to focus on being positive,
stating my views honestly, and not being rude, or getting into personal
insults. To me saying "down!" or "stick!" is somewhat rude. I like to hear
about the future, about walking robots, about hearing thoughts, about the
history of science, about how sex is good, and pleasure is not bad as many
people believe, how religion is full of lies, etc...I'm not interested in
hearing the backward conservative elitist erroneous constantantly echoed.
But you have to realize with all these wealthy, powerful people...they are
all insiders, and they are never going to tell the excluded openly, and in
plain terms about hearing thoughts, and that is what is really needed, so
most of their talks are all corrupted. They are like cocaine addicts, the
cocaine being seeing and hearing thoughts, and the last thing they are
going to do is jeapordize the source of their drug addiction. And so the
second they are admited into the secret cloaked camera-thought 100 year
old Pupin secret net, they are morally corrupted, and corrupted to such a
degree that they are nearly useless, and anything out of their mouths of
less value...in particular anything from the movie that they are all
watching...what ever that might be...we excluded can only guess. So
shouldn't we have nothing but contempt for those in power? for those in
the camera-thought net? Why support them? Why listen to them, when we know
we will not hear the truth about seeing and hearing thought?
12/05/06
I mainly want to focus on the issues, I think I want to state my beliefs
clearly, without being rude, without being nasty, and I think that is
possible, and that is what I am striving towards.
My mind and life are mostly positive and happy, where I find most other
people bitter, angry, mean, rude, hostile most of the time. But then, I
don't watch tv, listen to radio, or really even interact with other people
that often, and when I do, they are usually rude, it pisses me off, it
angers me, but I soon enough return to my thoughts about the future, to
going to other stars, to the history of science...and everything in my
mind is positive again. But ofcourse, the animals with the camera thought
technology beam all kinds of idiotic shit on my mind, and I need to
constantly push their bogus images, sounds, and who knows what out of my
head.
I really have concluded that most people are vicious and terrible, in
particular those in the secret camera-thought network, ... I don't need
any more convincing of that, but yet...I am optomistic about the work I am
doing. I think there is a lot of positivity and good feelings in ULSF,
it's an interesting project, and I'm enjoying learning about this story,
and look forward to getting the video out on the web.
I want people, including myself, to ask all people these questions, and
record the answers, in particular major public figures, and scientists:
1) Do you believe in the big bang theory?
2) Do you think the universe is smaller than 50 billion light years?
3) Do you think that all matter is made of photons?
4) Do you believe the theory of time-dilation is true?
5) Do you believe there are black holes?
6) Do you believe globular clusters are not made by advanced life?
7) Do you think people figured out how to hear thoughts?
8) Do you think people figured out how to send images to human brains?
9) Are you against first strike violence?
10) Are you for people getting to quit the military?
11) Are you for full democracy?
12) Are you for full freedom of all information?
13) Do you support involuntary drugging of nonviolent people?
14) Do you support restraining nonviolent people to hospital beds with 4
point restraints?
15) Do you think Jesus rose from the dead and spoke to living humans?
Because let's get these people on record for history's sake, and to force
them to think about these issues, and take a position. Let's put together
more questions as time continues and start keeping track of who refuses to
answer, and of those who do answer and their answers. Give people time to
answer, and let them update and change their answers.
One thing in my mind that I want to share with the other excluded people
is that: When you are supporting people with your money...contributing to
their political campaigns, buying their books, watching their videos,
seeing their movies, watching their team play a sport, etc...think about
this: you are funding the included. You are basically pouring your money
into a group of people who are going to do nothing to help you to see and
hear thoughts. Those people are going to continue to take whatever ideas
are in your mind, and use them to their fullest extent, or simply throw
them away, but the last thing they are going to do is tell you about
hearing thought. If you fund them...you will live 100 years more of
secrecy, but...if on the other hand....you fund me....and nobody has yet
done this, beside the UC, my employer....if you fund me, you are funding
somebody that is going to tell the truth about seeing and hearing thought,
and even about sending images and sounds to brains, and the entire history
in full detail, as much as I understand, which I routinely type out here
and on my bim.htm page. By funding me, you are directly contributing to
you eventually getting to see the movie all the elite insiders are
secretly watching. Why fund any major person, any wealthy person? You know
they routinely hear and see thoughts and are not going to lift a finger to
tell you this. Why continue to fund people like that? I think the excluded
clearly don't realize that these people are seeing and hearing
thought...it is like Jewish people being murdered in gas chambers in Nazi
Germany...it's too shocking and outlandish to believe. But look at the
growing evidence. JFK hinted, Sagan hinted, many people have hinted, how
unbelievable is it that people could figure out how to see what our eyes
see from behind our head in the infrared? Not very. What about the people
you work with? First, do you see video in your eyes? if no, you are like
me, an excluded...an outsider in "out"land. If yes, who gives a shit about
you...or rather...how about coughing up the truth about how you see and
hear thought? But if you don't see and hear thought or get video in your
eyes hear me out. Let's work together...and I think these groups are on
the horizon. Although not one person has contacted me. Think about those
you work with, one woman I worked with repeated my thought "a brain like a
pidgeon", there must be similar occurances in your life. Let's talk about
them, let's share our evidence. I think we will see groups start to form,
like the abolishonist group, and the sufferagettes...but they will be the
people for seeing and hearing thought...the pupinists, or who knows?
It occurs to me that in this secret camera thought net, clearly people get
offers for money to say things, and they may not even know who is paying
the money...they just know it goes into their secret or public account
(this is still a mystery about how the money in the secret net is handled)
as I said, but here is something interesting: none of the consumers of the
secret camera thought net...the telephone that didn't reach the public for
100 years and counting...can ever own or produce a hard copy...that is a
paper copy of a thought image. And how could they? Perhaps they know how
by now, but...they absolutely cannot produce a paper copy of all the
voluminous video that is beamed in front of their eyes. They have to
simply remember whatever they have seen or heard, or perhaps they can
request to see or hear it again. So in some way, opening up the net, and
letting everybody know that such machines exist, will free up their
lives...they can enjoy hard copies of anything beamed in the net, and
publically. In addition, there probably are many people that are willing
to fund the cost to store many of these images, but instead the data gets
deleted, because of the paranoid people who control the net (I mean we own
the net, we are the unwitting owners...they prevent us from controlling it
though) don't want the images getting around. So the camera-thought net
consumers are like the "pets" of the camera-thought controllers, much like
a person addicted to cocaine, the consumers are powerless against their
monsterous service providers.
Funding the powerful, wealthy, and included, for the most part, is not
going to make public the story of pupin, hearing thought, the history of
science, the history of evolution, the story of the future, criticism of
religion, criticism of antisexuality, promoting full democracy, promoting
free info, while funding me, perhaps sounding selfish, but it is in all
honesty the truth, is going to make public the history of science, of
hearing thought, of the future, the end of secrecy, the promoting of full
free info and democracy where we vote directly on the laws we have to live
under. So lets stop giving our time and money to these wealthy insiders
and start to search around for those exposing the truth about 9/11, about
hearing thought, about Frank Fiorini, about Thane Cesar...they are out
there...nothing more for those who promote the official 9/11 story or say
nothing at all, we need to get smarter to bring down this stalinesqe wall
of secrecy and murder.
I have to keep reminding myself that when I turn on the television, or
radio, look in a magazine, or watch an Internet video...what do I expect
to see and hear? I have to remember a simple fact, there is no way I am
ever going to hear about Pupin and how he and others figured out how to
see and hear thought...the wealthy are never going to tell us the truth
about how they get video beamed directly in front of their eyes and how a
massive "desktop" kind of system of secret video retreival has evolved
over the last 100 years while the majority of the public lived with
virtual a "outhouse" for toilet in comparison, used as sheep and victims
by these greedy power-hungry secretive users.
We ought to be voting for people who are talking about total free
information. Look how the 1977 freedom of information act is viewed as a
joke by those we pay in the FBI. Most people don't even realize that...you
know...the FBI, CIA, and others have been collecting video and audio
recordings since the early 1900s...where are those movies and recordings?
what do they show? we paid for them, we ought to get to see them, and
those who stand in the way are some evil, albeit nonviolent on this
particular point, but evil nonetheless, it's wrong to not show the public
what they've paid for and own, to stnad above them as a human with special
rights not provided to every other citizen.
12/06/06
It's interesting to realize that most humans are dead. By far of all the
humans that have lived, the very vast majority are now dead. Looking at
photos, most of the people are already dead...Einstein, Lincoln, Stanton,
Edison, almost all of them lived and died in the past. Most people from
books, the pharohs, Socrates, Kaesar, Confutsu, many trillions of people
and other species, all dead, lived their very short youth, grew gray,
feeble and old, and then went the way of trillions before them. In fact,
this is really a planet of objects that live for a very short time and
then die. A huge number of living objects lived briefly and have been long
dead. Death is one thing all humans will do, given the current
configuration of our DNA. And I think this truth should show us that we
should really enjoy our short lives to the fullest.
With many people I have to see things like this: they take money to say
rude comments to me from the secret net (perhaps as I typed before, they
do not even know who is funding them, maybe they just see like little
green "$20" or "$50" symbols they must approve with their thoughts), and I
have to remember that it's some nazi err... I mean republican hidden
person talking through the person, and the person next to me is just
greedily taking payments to try and grate on my nerves for some other
master. Again the analogy of cocaine addicts and cocaine dealers is 100%
accurate for the secret camera-thought network. The customers of hearing
and seeing thought will give everything, bend over backward to support,
protect, defend their source of cocaine...er...I mean...camera-thought net
service. And the second a person is "included" they are "corrupted", and
any truth or information about the camera thought net will never exit
their mouth, they absolutely cannot jeapordize their drug source, even if
they murder, assault, anything.
I was watching a Dawkins reading of "The God Delusion", which is
enjoyable, everything is clear and true, although I would not use many of
the words such as "whoring" and "chink", but it's free info. But a more
important point was raised, and this is a common point...the religious
claim that people cannot be moral without belief in a god, and I find that
to be so ironically false. In fact, the opposite is true, they can only be
immoral with belief in a god, god is the only excuse a murderer can give
that will throw away secular law, and murder and assault for a diety is
what is being used to justify the reichstag 9/11 mass murder, the killing
of JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, you name it...people either excuse it with
"it's god's will", or "god commanded it", or "god forgives the murder",
like so many killings approved by the diety in religious literature.
Without a diety, we have the nonreligious law from which no excuses can be
found, clearly first degree murder is not in self defense, not in defense
of a human, not consensual...murder to defend an idea or ideal is simply
not accepted by those deciding the fate of a first degree murderer or
accessory to murder before the fact, there is not much forgiveness without
the authority of a diety to veto away any arrest and prison sentence that
would otherwise be enforced by nonreligious logic, and democratic law.
12/07/06
I am waiting for somebody to publically do the experiment, which is a
difficult, precise experiment that requires a major telescope and high
quality spectrometer, which determines if there is any red shift in light
when a massive object passes in front of another object, causing light
from the object to be bent. Perhaps this decrease in frequency, if any, is
too small to detect with anything we can detect the motion of, but I am
looking forward to even negative results, any results will be informative.
I think the main thing shifting to the red is going to be the faces of
those who supported the big bang, expanding 15-billion year old universe
theories.
I think it is very difficult to argue against the logicical theory that
our sun, and all suns pass through 2 stages: an accumulation stage and a
dispersal stage. In the accumulation stage, the star is built up by
condensing matter from a gas cloud, first it is a small red dwarf star,
slowly accumulating matter, the other planets proceed in exactly the same
way, although more slowly, not being the main mass in the center of the
spinning condensing cloud, so there are originally small spheres of molten
metal accumulating as centers of mass, slowly the matter in the center
grows from a smaller molten red sphere to a larger molten orange sphere as
more matter falls into it's sphere. Many stars continue to gain matter,
depending on the initial density and size of the nebula in this localized
collapsing region. Stars may gain enough matter to glow yellow, in
accordance with Plank's theory of black-body radiation, stars may continue
to grow into the largest blue stars if there is enough matter in the
accumulation phase. But eventually, all the matter is swept up, and the
second phase of every star starts, the phase where matter is slowly
dispersed in the form of photons. As this process continues over many
millions of rotations, the star starts to lose matter, and the main color
emitted by the star is lowered from blue, to yellow, to red (interesting
that there are no green stars...it seems unusual, but I think the reason
is that, the atoms, perhaps mostly iron and other metals emit photons with
highly specific frequencies. There is still a large amount to be learned
and understood about stars), and eventually, to blackened, crusted red
molten spheres such as the earth, venus, mercury, mars, the moons of
jupiter, basically all planets, and moons, comets being the acception
without a molten metal inside. I want to look again a what evidence there
is of the Oort cloud, and Kuiper belt. Here is a good link:
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/kboc.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud has a nice 3D image (wouldn't one
imagine that the matter would extend linearly or exponentially to other
stars and not just stop in the shape of a sphere?). The question for me
is, how many ice chunks are actually there? a few thousand? hundreds of
thousands? million? billions? I think, it will be interesting for the
first probes to really see how many there are. I kind of think people may
be overestimating the number. I'm not sure I would call this a belt or
cloud, but emphasize that this is simply a natural extension of matter
from the formation of the star system, in the form of ice chunks. Perhaps
the farther a ship travels away from a star the number of ice chunks
decreases until the next star where the amount of matter again, starts to
increase as a s hip moves closer to any star. So this main idea of every
star going through 2 major periods, one of accumulation, moving from red,
to orange, to yellow, possibly to blue if enough matter, and then back
down to yellow, orange, red, and then simply a crusted over molten sphere
like the earth. So perhaps our star was a blue star at one time. One
mistake I think people have made is in saying that a giant blue star burns
more rapidly. Clearly that is true, but once it has lost enough matter to
be a yellow star the rate of emission clearly slows down. Has that been
included in the simple equation? Where are these somewhat simple
equations? Ttoend=Moriginal/Rateofmassloss is the incorrect constantly
decreasing equation. I think this is like the opposite of a compounding
interest equation (F=P*(1+%)^Years), a compounding decrease equation. But
I don't know it off the top of my head. But in addition, this issue raises
questions about the evidence for red giant stars. I don't doubt that there
may be many intricate complexities in star formation, and duration (I
can't really say a star's lifetime, or a star is born or dies, because,
while I think the analogy is fine, I just think clearly stars are never
living as we understand living objects, but then perhaps all matter is
living in some sense), but the theory of red giants otherwises stands as
an anomaly in an intuitive theory of stars growing and dying in a two
stage process of accumulating and then dispersing mass in the form of
photons. It also draws doubts or an interest in verifying the physical
evidence for supernova events. Black holes (or so-called black-hole
stars) I have already ruled out for my own opinion, and potentially even
neutron stars. I think it is very difficult to talk about accurate numbers
in astronomy, and that is one reason why measuring red shift of bent light
might be very difficult, it has to be very precise, and measuring the
exact pixel or more of where a star is has to be exact. The supposed red
giant, Betelgeuse, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse, for which
wikipedia relates: "The distance to Betelgeuse is not precisely known" and
"The precise diameter is not easy to define". I guess the other
alternative is that Betelgeuse is a small star, smaller than our own star,
but just damn close. I don't know, probably people would have measured a
large parallax, a parallax larger than Centauri for sure. Even if
Betelgeuse is large and far, there are still many explanations why, could
be advanced life on the outside, maybe the popular and official theory of
stars exploding in size and vastly lowering their density to red giants as
a requirement of every star is true, people have been so wrong...about the
big bang, the expanding universe, time-dilation...I find it unlikely that
an official astronomy theory will be accurate, but it can't be ruled out.
I think the problem with many of the believers in time-dilation is not a
problem of crystal meth, but crystaline math, and that the universe is
probably much more simple, dull, and straightforward, containing only
space and matter in the form of photons, interacting mainly by gravity,
but with complexity because of the vast number of photons and space.
I just saw a propaganda big pharma funded "news" story in the BBC about
actual physical scientific evidence to prove the claim of
"schitzophrenia": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6211104.stm and I am
very doubtful over the claim. First, knowing that there simply is no
scientific basis for the claimed diseases of psychosis, neurosis, and
schitzophrenia, how can there possibly be physical evidence to prove
something which is so abstract and used to label people all over the
spectrum, with no actual description that can is more specific than simply
"delusional" or "most likely inaccurate interpretation of universe and/or
actual events on earth". So it is interesting to see what these big pharma
money people have done now to secure millions of dollars in psychology
drug sales at the expense of human suffering. The technique used in this
case is a classic, they identify the "schitzophreniacs" as having an
"ancestral history" of schitzophrenia. It's like having an ancestry of
"witchcraft" or other mythical claims...an ancestral history of "good
luck", or "rabel rousyness", etc. And then they proceed to find common
links in CAT scans and MRI images. I'm highly doubtful that they have
uncovered anything, but keeping an open mind, perhaps they have found some
specific link between certain kinds of people that has nothing to do with
"schitzophrenia", but more to do with some kind of "free thinking" gene or
brain pattern or some similar thing. I'm doubtful of the entire claim,
just knowing the history of the theories of psychology (the blood letting,
the tooth pulling, the spinning chair, treatments for "nymphomania",
lobotomy, shock therapy...and then all done with restraints and 99% of the
time against the will of the victim). I think we are edging into a time
when these greedy drug companies may get into trouble, not for consensual
trade of drugs, which I can see the value of...even if people are buying
drugs for made up non-existent diseases, like the classic "cure-all" meds,
as long as their is consent, I see no problem with an open unregulated
drug market where everybody can lie about the results of a drug....it's
all within free info, but where I think these greedy pharma companies are
going to get into trouble is when people are forced against their will to
buy and use drugs for fraudulent diseases, nonexistant diseases based on
fraudulent scientific claims, such as psychosis, neurosis, schitzophrenia.
I would even put "depression", "Attention-Deficit" in this group, since
these are trivial symptoms, if existent at all, to force drugs onto a
person (and in fact I feel the only time a drug may be used without
consent is in the case of sedating/tranquilizing a person in the act of
first degree violence). The explanation that these "diseases" are trivial
is simple and clear enough, it's like labeling crying a disease, overusing
computer games, and so on... using a certain phrase too often....just
trivial, nonviolent, completely legal phenomena. If "depression" why not
"overly happy"? if "attention deficit" why not "attention surplus"? And
you can see they are going for some middle ground of absolutely the most
rigid and dull humans, all alike, all the same, without any unusual or
unique or even natural and progressive differences.
On the political scene just some quick notes: recently Charles Rangel
(House D NY) again put forward the idea of the draft, to which Pelosi
verbally rejected. And my outsider view is that republicans pay Rangel to
put forward this. It's conservatives, republicans, these war mongers who
want the draft in my outsider opinion. They pay Rangel to put forward such
bills. Let me just say that the direction we need to be moving in, is not
only no draft, which I cannot believe was actually mentioned, but to
remove involuntary military service and all other forms of forced labor.
Again, this is a very simple point. No company can jail, fine or otherwise
penalize a person who choses to quit, Walmart can't do this, McDonalds,
etc...if a person wants to quit, there is and can be no punishment
whatsoever that may be brought against that employee simply for the act of
quitting. This coerced and forced labor in the US military needs to be
stopped, because it is a violation of the laws against forced labor and
the basic natural principle of consensual only labor. Perhaps exceptions
can be made if the USA is under attack (and not simply from an isolated
terrorist event), but even when under a sustained and constant invasion,
we should always adhere to our principle of consent-only activity and free
choice which is the basis of this and many other nations and all advanced
societies.
I was thinking that the total stud-girl and stud-boy might procede like
thais: get the phone/email of many many people they might want to make out
with, and then go through a long list of them, each day to find new people
to go out (maybe to dinner, something like that), then sift through the
"not at home", going in order of preference through the vast list, the
"busy", the "not interested", until inevitably...with enough phone numbers
and emails...you know...you are going to find somebody willing...and from
there work towards a smootch, and if not...save it for later...maybe jane
or joe cool will get another opportunity. Most people can't do this
because...you can't find an entrance to ask for a phone number or email,
even if that itself implies almost nothing other than you are a person
looking to make friends (but in reality, you should be focusing on people
that you want to kiss on...be careful to watch out for violent monogomous
partners...perhaps asking...'do you have a g'friend/b'friend?') that and
the embarrassment of rejection. The most successful will be that person
without the tiniest fear of rejection, that accepts rejection as a
statistical reality, and has a positive reply to lighten any anger or fear
that results around rejection. Finally, probably one of the largest snags
in this plan is that you have to dedicate time to going out with people.
But there are creative alternatives...you can find some special thing you
are interested in (science, robots, free info, etc) and make the "dates"
in the form of group meetings, etc. There are many varieties of this
formula. For some the goal will be smootching with as many different
people as possible, for others, collecting vast numbers of friends and
learning about people.
I think it's interesting closing in on the truth about the idea of
"energy". I think it was used to describe an abstract, collective
phenomenon, but one thing I can say for sure is that it seems clear to me
that energy cannot be converted into matter. This may sound shocking or
unusual, but it seems true to me, because of the theory that no matter can
be made from empty space and no photon can ever be destroyed into empty
space. I realize that people, for example Hawking argue that matter can be
created from empty space, and I disagree with that theory, but ofcourse
both theories are in the realm of speculation and free thought. Following
that line of thinking, that no matter can be made from empty space, it
seems logical to conclude that no matter can be made from velocity. In
other words, the velocity of a piece of matter in no way changes it's mass
(although perhaps it may change the distribution and direction of photons
within some collective piece of mass). Some people argue that photons are
energy and I reject that claim. Photons do represent mass in the view I
support. When hydrogen is combusted with oxygen I view the light and heat
that is emited as being responsible for the loss of some mass, although
very very small and perhaps so small that it is beyond measure with
current and even the best measuring equipment, and such a small quantity
that given the accepted amount of error and precision, it may difficult to
exactly quantitify...how many photons for example...how many grams of mass
are lost in hydrogen+oxygen combustion in the form of photons. As far as I
understand, this is the modern belief that...the more energy an object
has, the more mass it can produce...that somehow the creation and/or
conversion of mass relates to the energy of some matter. Some might claim
the argument of "potential energy" as being a form of energy. A ball at
the top of a hill has potential energy, because it can roll down a hill,
while the ball at the bottom of the hill has less potential energy. But,
clearly, the amount of matter in the ball on the top and on the bottom of
the hill remains the same at all times. A nuclear fission is, in this
view, simply a separate of matter that already exists in atoms. The matter
definitely changes direction, expands in many different directions, many
atoms, collectives of photons take on increased velocities, but I think it
can be argued that all velocities were already in the atoms but compacted,
as particles in orbit of each other, so in fact velocity is conserved,
momentum is conserved, at the photon level, even in an explosion of any
kind of material. Clearly, the idea of any kind of kinetic energy
resulting in matter, or being converted from matter is false, and I think
the same is true for the concept of potential energy. The origin of the
concept energy center around the 1800s, when people saw that mechanical
movement translated into heat, the classic example, was boring cannons
with metal bits. Drilling the cannon hole produces an enormous amount of
heat. The explanation eventually came to be that the mechanical energy was
converted to heat energy. And this is an interesting and, in my mind,
somewhat complex issue. I think that in drilling metal, we feel heat, and
that heat is from photons with infrared spacing emitted from the drilled
metal. So clearly, the metal is releasing particles and therefore losing
mass (although immeasurable small) in the form of photons that are not
present with a cold undrilled cannon. I think the generation of heat has
more to do with friction causing atoms to move faster...the added
complexity comes from explaining the energy of human muscle movement,
which is electrical and chemical. It's a tough issue in my mind, maybe
somebody can simplify it, and I hope to simplify it more as time continues
and I learn more about the history of science. But the starting point I
have is that, it seems unlikely that energy can be converted into matter
or matter into energy, and therefore the "energy" concept is potentially
dying, but I still use the word energy to describe matter, including
myself, for example, "I don't have the energy I need to do this". The
concept that "energy" involves, again, seems to me, to include many
particles, many velocities, many collective movements, and so is therefore
somewhat complex, hopefully somebody can make it simple and cast it into
the can of inaccurate ideas as I think will probably happen.
I am saying that light is matter and has mass, but that light is not
heavy, in other words, that light is also, yes, light (in weight). Simply
put, light (noun) is very light (adj).
One thing that is interesting about modeling the universe, and in
particular the star system (from nebula to stars), is that the model takes
a long time to settle down into regular movement. Clearly it takes a long
long time, many millions of years for gravity to form star(s) and planets,
and so clearly any model would have to reproduce the same amount of time.
No matter what advanced life in the universe models it it would take
billions of years to have 1 completed simulation. Perhaps there is a way
to speed it up, but I doubt it. There certainly are ways to generalize it,
and we can view planets as points and give them an initial velocity. This
initial velocity is something no physicist (of those who model with
computers) talks about publically in my experience. A person needs to give
each planet an initial x,y,z velocity, rotation, etc. starting each planet
at some recorded starting positions.
I think a cool question is: is there a limit on the velocity that can be
achieved from gravity? Certainly this applies to gravitational assist for
intersteller and interplanetary vehicles, but it also may apply to photons
colliding. Is there a finite amount of gravitational force that can exist
between two colliding photons? At that time, in theory the distance=0, and
therefore the force of gravity=infinity, infinitely strong to create an
infinitely high velocity, but in reality, it seems more likely to me that
there is a limit as to the minimum distance between two photons, and a
maximum limit on the force of gravity between two photons, or any other
particles or objects. It seems logical that no particle would gain a
velocity higher after a collision that the velocity it had before the
collision, even though, as I said, if the distance is less than 1.0
(whatever units of space are used, presumably the smallest for all
practical purposes would be one space the size of a photon occupies [or
is, and this is another debate, does space move with matter, of matter
fill an unmoving space? my vote is for 2, the nonmoving space]), the
velocity would increase, but maybe that is not the class. And it seems
likely that there may be a top velocity for particles accelerated by
gravity and that it could be the speed of light 3e8m/s. But we should keep
an open mind. This implies that when two photons collide, at 3e8m/s (or
perhaps even much less for all I know), the resulting opposite velocity of
a perfectly elastic collision can only reach 3e8m/s. But I must tell you,
the idea of a photon accelerating seems highly unlikely, but we need to
keep open minds. The current approach to a Grand Unified Theory of the
Universe (GUT) in my opinion, has not been adequately proven or even
described. In my opinion, it is taking on 3 potential possible branches,
1) photons do infact obey Newton's equations for gravity (again photons
may acclerate, change velocity...mainly that the photons bounce off the
mirror) 2) photons do not obey Newton's equations, but maintain a constant
velocity without acceleration (the photons orbit other photons in the
mirror, or potentially could bounce back too) or 3) some other idea that
proves Newton's equation for gravity, and any equations for 2) inaccurate.
We should not claim there is an answer if there really is not clearly an
answer, no matter how much we would like to. I kind of lean towards 1)
which would tend to prove that Newton's (with help from Halley and others)
equation for gravity may even apply to light particles, and is therefore
very visionary although perhaps by coincidence, because the question still
is unanswered to my knowledge of if Newton realized that particles of
light (which clearly he understood) 1) are matter and 2) are the basis of
all matter, and perhaps 3) obey his equation for gravity.
As I age, I kind of think that the real pleasure of physical pleasure, is
partially physical beauty, but some part of it, in my novice view is
novelty, in other words, touching some person you have never touched, and
less interesting or exciting kissing, for example, the same person you
have kissed for a longer amount of time. Maybe I am wrong, and probably
everybody is different, and maybe even there are different kinds of love
phenomena, but it seems, as I age, that novelty (in other words some body
new) is a major part of arousal. I am interested to see what those who
have study pleasure have found as to what each species is aroused by.
Clearly, there are a variety of phenomena.
12/08/06
On the seeing what our eyes see from behind our head front, I tried using
my Sony video camera with "Night Shot" and an infrared filter to see the
light from a flashlight beamed into my eyes. This experiment was not
really overwhelmingly successful if at all, I am sad to report. I was
hoping to really see the light clearly beaming from behind my head. While
it was almost impossible to detect any light eminating in the infrared
from behind my head, I think I do see something, there is a very small and
subtle change in lighting in the video. I can see how, it may be, that the
image is projected from our eyes to a very wide image as a person moves
away from the back of the head. In other words, the lens in our eye may
cause the light to spread out in a cone shape, like a projector, the
farther away, the larger the image we see. If this is true, perhaps it
takes a wall of sensors to record what a person sees. Pupin specifically
uses the word "microscopic", and I presume he is refering to the size of
the detectors and transmitters, but maybe he is (perhaps also) refering to
the size of the image coming from the back of the head...perhaps it is
very small, or microscopic. I conclude that the infrared detector (which
is a grid of detectors in a video camera) is not sufficient to detect the
infrared frequency necessary to see light from the eyes behind the head.
For example, there are "thermal imaging" cameras that are much better at
clearly and strongly detecting infrared light...the cameras that are sold
starting at $10,000 dollars by Raytheon and other specific companies,
surprisingly, since, I can't imagine building such a camera could possibly
be that expensive. Those cameras, there is one, for example, in the San
Francisco science museum, can see clearly a living object walking many
meters away, the heat of an animal on a person's lawn for example. People
in police use these cameras to scan for heat sources, and it is very easy
to see heat emitting objects. The engine of a car after running shows up
in bright white while the rest of the car is dark. So, I don't doubt at
all that these Sony "nightshot" cameras are purposely not equipped with
such infrared detection, although I feel strongly that they easily could
for almost no difference in price...it's mainly control by the
administrators (again they are clearly not the owners, just the
controllers) of the technology to see and hear thought that grew from the
1910 work of Michael Pupin. So I don't know where to proceed from here,
with these experiments. I think I might need to try to put together some
home-built photon detectors, and that can't be incredibly easy. Perhaps
some light sensor (CCD) can be adapted to detect photon beams with larger
spacing between photons. That doesn't sound incredibly easy either. Simply
working with wireless communication, and wireless video is going to be a
good start for average people working to try and figure out how to see and
hear thought on their own, to reproduce Pupin's 1910 and after
experiments. It seems like what would be a basic tool, is a grid that
detects light in any variety of spacing, so some objects can be looked at
at every frequency of light from low radio to gamma. I can see using a
fast computer to periodically sample some sensors once every 10 seconds, 1
second, .1 second, 1ms, 1us, 1ns, ... after that computers are not fast
enough yet, but eventually perhaps 1 picosecond, 1 femtosecond, etc.
One question in my mind about the Hydrogen fusing in the center of every
star theory is: if Hydrogen is a light atom...and the center of stars is
most likely dense molten metal, how can Hydrogen atoms...so light...be
found in the center of something do dense? Maybe they are bonded to some
other atoms? Even so, I somewhat doubt that Hydrogen in the center fusing
to Helium is the source of all the photons in stars. I think it has to do
more with a burning ball of liquid metal, heated from friction, perhaps,
from the constant rotation, or from from pressure that results from
gravity...whatever it is, there is a major problem with other theories,
because the center of the earth is an exact duplicate. As far as I can
see, the center of earth is nearly identical to a star in being a red hot
liquid metal, which we see sometimes spewing or simply dribbling out of
volcanos. What could be more simple and logical? Why would matter
coalesce, accumulate differently for a planet then a star, why would the
anatomy of a star be radically different from that of a planet? What
explains the molten metal core of the planets? Is Hydrogen to Helium
fusion happening in the core there too?
More about this Betelgeuse being close idea. I want to explain, that I am
interested in believing the red giant theory, but I want to entertain
other theories too. Something just occurs to me that probably does not
effect a parallax measurement significantly (I have found in wikipedia
that alpha centarui has a parallx of 747 mas [milliarcseconds] and
Betelgeuse only 7.63 mas, so a difference of 100x, 2 magnitudes of base
10, a significant difference. But what about the 3D direction and velocity
of a star? How do we know, how can we know, what the direction of a star
is? Perhaps from Doppler shift, but then, we are only seeing the "z"
component of it's velocity from us, there are x and y components too.
Clearly, to calculate parallax correctly, the velocity of a star, the
so-called "proper motion" must be substracted. We must subtract any
movement the star makes in the time it takes for the earth to be in two
positions far enough apart for a parallax measurement (perhaps there are
two locations on earth where a parallax measurement can be instantly
made...this makes me what to learn more about how modern parallax
measurements are made. Eventually, the best parallax will be from 2
telescopes in different parts of the star system, one near earth and one
near Jupiter perhaps). An instant parallax measurement (in particular one
measured between earth and Jupiter) would probably remove the issue of
star velocity. It seems clear that star velocity, can only be known from
measurements (from the same exact location...which is another issue...the
movement of the earth and star system alltogether relative to other stars)
over time. This is the problem of extrapolating a 3D motion from only 2D
images. And this relates also to human and robot vision, we are able to
detemine 3D movement from 2D images in our eyes, although it's not
perfect, this is how we can catch a ball thrown to us for example. I guess
we can use the Doppler shift to determine Z velocity, and visual position
changes to determine X and Y, then put that all together to make a 3D
vector with velocity (magnitude) for each star. However it is done, I am
interested in seeing how these star motions are measaured, mapped and
tracked. How can we measure our movement in the Milky Way? I think this
needs to be done using distant galaxies as a fixed point reference, or
perhaps some stars in or near the Milky Way center, and then over a period
of time. Parallax is a precise measurement, and according to one page, and
Asimov relates this too: "William Herschel looked for it (steller
parallax) in vain. Not until 1838 was parallax finally found." In fact,
the lack of an observed parallax of stars was actually used as an argument
for the earth centered universe, since people were sure that if the earth
moved around the sun a parallax of the stars would be observed...the
argument for the sun centered universe was that the stars are so far that
parallax cannot be measured, which must have felt like a weak argument,
but yet was true. This person
(http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm) goes on to write: "The
introduction of photography made it much easier to measure parallaxes. It
was only necessary to compare plates taken 6 months apart, and special
intstruments were developed to facilitate the task. When the two plates
were presented alternately to the eye, nearby stars would jump back and
forth, while the distant ones remained unmoved." and "the parallax of
Betelgeuse, a Orionis, was taken as 0.018" in 1920, but now a figure of
0.0055" is accepted. ". I think definitely, it is difficult to argue with
the idea that a telescope near Jupiter (or Saturn would be even more
precise), even a low cost quickly telescope, could provide more accurate,
and instantaneous parallax measurements of the nearest stars. Maybe I
should call up NASA or some university astronomers and propose this
experiment. It probably has been done, but in secret, soz the enemy won't
be able to know which star is where.
One thing that is interesting is that there are collisions of matter (or
at least according to one theory), perhaps even photons collide. Newton,
to my knowledge, never mentioned anything about collisions, other than
saying that particles travel with the same velocity unless changed
(presumably by a collision, or gravitational force). Collisions may play
an important role in understanding how matter groups together. I mentioned
that a simulation of matter accumulating into a star system might take a
million years to simulate, but by adding a loss of velocity because of
"friction" (much as large ice chunks of matter when colliding distribute
much of the collective velocity to individual particles, and appear to
lose velocity), the models fall to "star systems" very readily. I put more
videos on my web page to show this. What happens is that most particles,
which start with 0 velocity, quickly accumulate an initial velocity
because of a gravitational attraction to the center of the mass. It seems
clear that a gas might have the same phenomenon. Another point is that I
speed up time by using a much higher gravitational constant...but it seems
to me that you can use any variation of the gravitational constant 667000,
6.67, .667, .0000667, an interpret the results as being viewed at a
certain scale, presuming the constant of gravity remains the same no
matter what scale. In other words, we might think of viewing particles of
mass 1g, moving 1 m/s with a gravitational constant of .667, and at the
same time we could actually be looking at 1000g particles moving with a
gravitational constant of .000667. The velocity and models are identical.
So these, in my view, are valid models of the actual effect of
gravitation. Perhaps I should change it to have the big masses and actual
constant (I find simply working with mass=1 easier but since I am modeling
star systems, and view these particles as big ice chunks and planets no
doubt larger masses are a better way of viewing it). In any event, the
gravititational model of planets, supposedly is identical to that of
particles. One idea is that the gravitational constant changes depending
on the scale, I find that hard to accept. If the gc was a constant and not
variable, we would see almost no gravitational effect on small particles
although it would exist, and slowly be accumulating over time. The
equivalent view is that each point represents 10 billion kg of mass with
the unscaled gravitational constant. By comparison the moon is 7 trillion
times more massive. Even at 10 billion kg, these points are comparatively
small, 10 million metric tons, a big-ass ice chunk if even there were.
It's interesting to conclude, and perhaps wrongly, that the orbit of
planets may be the result of a velocity that was directly the result of
particles collpasing to the center. In other words, initially atoms of gas
have very little velocity, but as they fall to the center of mass in the
cloud, that velocity ultimately results in the orbits (and velocity) the
planets have today. That is a theory I have never heard before although it
is implied by the gas cloud collapse theory, but it's interesting anyway.
Ofcourse, those individual gas atoms with the velocity perhaps from the
initial collapse, accumulate with other particles, and take on a
collective velocity. In these simulation videos, loss of velocity due to
friction only happens with collisions, otherwise there is no loss of
velocity due to friction, so the objects that collide the least will
retain the highest velocity over time, although gravity can accelerate or
decelerate objects and therefore change velocity. It's interesting how
planet-like many of the points are, in many simulations two points find
orbits in the same plane. One interesting simulation resulted in precisely
3 objects that remained orbiting the center, one for each dimension, all
whose orbits are perfectly 90 degrees from each other (collisionfriction500pt.avi. In
theory people might expect there to be 3 planes of planets around stars,
but perhaps over the long spans of time, perhaps they collapse to only
one, as we understand our star system. And then, mainly from collisions.
Through collision and successful position, the final direction and plane
may be determined. If the gravitational constant really is a constant and
not a variable then people might probably not expect little planetary
systems in atoms, nor I suppose galaxies to be like huge planetary
systems, but in addition, how matter is distributed has an effect. In
these models so far, I have not seen any two points clump together. Only
in the center do they clump together. I would like to run this simulation
larger and larger, for example, I am doing 1000 points now, but what about
doing billions of points? It would take days to calculate, but what might
we see? It's kind of interesting to think that very matter-filled models
might produce some interesting effects, I doubt we would see images of DNA
or cell shaped matter that engulf other cell shaped matter rising up over
the centuries of modeling, like the surviving/remaining planets that
happened to have the best velocity, location, gravitational events, and
collisions to be the one we see after hundreds of frames (or milliseconds)
of modeling, but how can we rule that out without trying?
=======
end 11/14-12/08/06
========
11-18-2006
11/06/06
It should be clear to those who observe that most if not all of the
current republicans, and much of those in the pupin camera-thought net are
basically immersed in the practice of evil, and evil, as I define evil, in
very simple terms, which has nothing to do with being religious, but put
simply that they murder, study murder, immerse themselves in murder,
assault, lies, theft, etc. They plan murders like 9/11, they routinely
assault innocent people using lasers, they sabotage children's milk, lead
people off cliffs and buildings by sending images onto their brains, etc.
and the list goes on and on. Most of us are not immersed in this study of
evil, again as simply defined mainly as violence, dishonesty, theft. But
it should be clear to even those who are excluded, but certainly to those
that see and hear thought, that these conservatives are immersed in this
study and practice of the art of evil, how to commit crime and get away
with it. But this appears to be an old tradition, and an old rivalry,
because, the foundation of excusing it all is there, for example, they
somehow claim that murder, property destruction, lying, theft is moral due
to religious grounds, in the interest of national defense, and other
reasons. And typically, other conservatives accept this line of reasoning,
and ironically, view those interested in exposing the murders, assaults,
lies, thefts, as being the evil-doers. And so this two sided battle
continues on, the liberals, generally as stop violence, pro-honesty,
anti-theft people, and the conservatives as pro-violence, pro-lies, and
pro-theft, ... but each side sees themselves as the good side, as the
ethical ones, as the upright and moral, and sees the other side as evil,
generally speaking. Although I honestly think that if many excluded
conservatives could see they would most likely be opposed to the violence,
lies and theft, and then ofcourse, it would be very difficult to do
violence, lie or steal in the first place.
11/07/06
Today is the day many people vote in the USA. I wish our votes were
counted every day. Maybe sometime soon. I hope the democrats win, and
honestly, I hope we never see the republican party ever again, after the
murder of JFK, the Warren Commission, RFK and they way they still protect
Thane Cesar, now 9/11...I can only imagine the other murders, not to
mention their support for secrecy and the continuing injustice of the
pupin thought network. I was thinking last night when going to sleep and
this morning when waking up: Imagine a nation where the people in the
government assault the citizens. What kind of a government is that?
Because all you need to do is feel the laser assaults coming from above
you to know that somebody in our government is assaulting innocent
civilians using this secret laser technology. James Fetzer says it nicely
at the end of one video: (paraphasing) "It seems clear that the government
has been practicing acts of terrorism against the american people." TAP is
clearly someone or something, others echo this same letter combination.
Possibly it's just "AP" Associated Press who must have many many videos
that would expose many many murderers, which they chose not to show or
release. But still, the AP does not have any television network or
newspaper, so I'm not sure how they would release those vids. Many times
the letter combinations take on multiple meanings, and that is why they
are so useful. Maybe its also ATA P, that ATTA is being held in some place
that begins with P, Pennsylvania, Pensacola, Paris, Paraguay, ... The
passangers and alledged hijackers have to be being jailed somewhere, in
some camp. Its a tiny glimmer that remains from 9/11...perhaps those
people on the planes are still alive. It's one of the biggest unsolved
questions for excluded, and so it would be no wonder if included were
hinting to them about it.
Another wonderful video by Robert Greenwald. Unconstitutional:
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6582099850410121223&q=%22Robert+Greenwald%22&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6582099850410121223&q=%22Robert+Greenwald%22&hl=en
Here Greenwald and others make some excellent points. Tarpley argues that
Bush is more like a communist than other leaders, and I have argued that
the republicans, and in particular Bush are more like communists than
liberals. I think it's because the conservatives have traditionally
claimed to be so anti-communism that many people reject this comparison.
But many people are anti-communism, but not to the point of initiating
violence, and infact, I argue that initiating violence against people in
communist nations is exactly like a communist, oppressive, illegal,
monarch, criminal group. I say that, the cam-net is like communists
because they have these communal groups that determine the fates of all
the excluded. Or in any event, only the included's votes count. Beyond
that communism almost always collapses into monarchy or oligarchy (and in
fact democracies can too, as was the case for Germany around 1935). But in
this movie, I think a crystal clear example is given, and it has to do
with the prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. The point is clear, that the
conservatives like to use Cuba for their prison, because there, they are
not subject to the laws of the USA forged by years of democracy and
popular opinion. They want to step outside of the US democratic system
(what exists of it)...and so clearly, this is communist behavior...they
don't want to adhere to the laws of a democratic society. You tell me, how
anybody can explain this stepping around democracy. In addition, here
people are not even allowed to visit Cuba, but they are paying Castro to
keep a camp there? It boggles the mind that such an arrangement has been
made. It shows that somehow, these people are working together with
Castro. I can see opening trade on all info and non-weapon products with
Cuba, and allowing everybody to visit (perhaps with a clear warning and
policy on what happens to people who experience violence, are imprisoned,
stolen from, etc), but doesn't seem unusual for conservatives to be
working so closely with Castro, adopting the ideal of working around
democratic law? To me, it shows how similar the conservatives
are...whether they are Islamic, or Christian...they all want power, to
rule forever as a monarch or oligarch, they seek to violently supress
opposition, free speech, and on and on...where democratic leaders are much
more humble...much more interested in letter popular opinion rule, more
than happy to step down as a representative so long as a more popular
representative is replacing them (and not some dictator, king, etc.). In
fact, what we see with true, full and constant democracy (not
representative with elections every 4 years) is that popular leaders rise
and fall all the time. No one person can ever stay on the top forever.
There is a constant and rapid fluctuation, and I think that is
wonderful...you know...from my own view...if I am wrong...let the people
with the better idea win, etc. If you think about it, you can see...even
the smartest person can never come up with a continuous stream of the best
ideas...the best ideas many times come from unknown people, from less
popular people...no doubt a popular person comes up with some good
ideas...but the majority of time a popular leader is embracing the better
ideas of others, improving their original view.
Some news I found out earlier: "Cirrus" is the only plane manufacturer to
install parachutes, and the planes they sell with parachutes are
comparable in price to all other equivalent parachute-less planes. The one
plane the yankee pitcher was flying was a cirrus, but I think that was
done by neocons, and was only some kind of small snack for them, but we
should keep an open mind, and in addition, compare safety ratings of all
planes. I hope the heliplane becomes a practical low-cost vehicle soon.
Perhaps the change to Hydrogen combustion engine will happen first, or
electric engine, who knows?
11/08/06
I can see value in a molecular detector of photons, because the smaller
the photon detector, the more detail that can be seen of distant stars,
galaxies, in addition to microscopic objects.
I am at the part in the history of science where Maxwell views heat and
temperature as being related to the average velocity of molecules of
matter (for example in a gas). In other words, Maxwell put forward the
idea that as the average velocity of molecules of gas increase the
temperature increases, and as the velocity of molecules decreases the
temperature decreases. And as far as I know, most people accept this, but
I think there is at least one other theory that I want to put forward, and
probably some person in the secret camera thought net has already figured
this out, perhaps even years ago, since this find of Maxwell's happened
around 1850, around the time of the first photograph. This other theory is
that temperature is measured only at a point the size of a photon, and the
value of that temperature measure is determined by the number of photons
that collide with (or go through) a photon detector (which is then a
thermometer), the temperature being the number of photons per second
colliding with the detector. In this way temperature is not a measure of
velocity as much as a measure of quantity or density of matter. This
presumes that photons maintain a constant velocity with perfectly elastic
collisions. (Maxwell had also imagined perfectly elastic collisions, but
for gas molecules, he rejected the particle theory for light and
electricity.) So I think we need to keep an open mind about what
temperature and heat might actually be: is it related to velocity or
quantity? or both or neither? I think one phenomenon of interest is that
the temperature of a gas increases when the volume is reduced, and
decreases with the volume is increased. As a container of gas is made
smaller, the temperature of the gas increases (to my knowledge, its
Charles' Law V1/T1=V2/T2, a subset of the ideal gas law P1*V1/T1=P2*V2/T2,
but somehow this looks wrong...how could temperature increase when volume
increases?) and this is the basis of refridgeration (the pressure is made
less on a gas, the same effect happens when a gas is released into a
larger container: it's temperature decreases). So does the velocity of
molecules increase when the container size of a gas is descreased or is
there simply more molecules (maintaining their velocity) in a smaller
space which results in a higher temperature? Does molecule velocity change
effect temperature? One aspect of this is true if temperature is how many
particles move past a single space every second (or some duration of time,
temperature is a measurement over time usually, and in fact, the
temperature of a single point is either 0 or 1 depending on if a photon is
there. The temperature of some finite volume of space [or the universe] at
a single instant in time is also meaningless, or would be perhaps
determined by the ratio of matter to space in the volume of space at that
instant in my view). So as molecules increase velocity, the change a
molecule would move past some space (where the thermometer is) is higher
(more often) over time, and so indirectly a higher molecule velocity would
also result in a higher temperature reading (but is that actually
happening?). How does this apply to liquids and solids? A good example is
boring a cannon, how the metal heats up. Are the molecules (of atoms) of
metal increasing their velocity or are more pieces of matter passing some
point in space (and velocity is not important)? I guess in theory a gamma
beam would be hotter than an infrared beam, and that is not observed to my
knowledge. Part of the issue is how atoms accept and emit photons. Atoms
only accept photons in specific frequency. So, for example, when we feel
the heat over a bored cannon, we are feeling photons with infrared
spacing, when the cannon is cold there are less photons with infrared
spacing emitting from the cannon. When we use a flame to heat something,
are we increasing the velocity of the matter (for example water), or are
we adding photons to the atoms of the matter? Is it's velocity increasing
or is its density (and with it, its mass) increasing? (or perhaps even
both?) It's an idea I need to think about more.
Maxwell created an experiment with two containers filled with gas at equal
temperature, in the center there is a door, faster molecules go to the
left while slower molecules go to the right, and so after time, the left
side would heat up and the right side cool down, as explained by his
temperature is the average velocity of molecules theory. There are other
experiment ideas: in a linear particle accelerator, is the temperature of
the charged particle beam more at a part where the particles have higher
velocity or is it the same there? If the temperature of the beam is hotter
where it has a higher velocity than that is evidence that the velocity of
matter determines temperature (although, the argument can also be made
that particles are passing the thermometer each second, meaning that it is
an issue of quantity and less of velocity). I guess one way to look at it,
is this: is the temperature of two beams of electrons more than a single
beam? If yes, it shows that particle velocity is less important that
particle quantity. The idea of temperature and heat still needs to be
flushed out I think. Is it the velocity of matter passing some point, the
frequency of matter passing some point, or both? I suppose with a
theoretical single point in space (the size of a photon the smallest known
piece of matter), velocity would in theory be irrelevant. So I think that
is a better definition, that temperature is the frequency of matter
passing some point. But it seems clear that how a human feels heat, and
how atoms heat up, has more to do with specific freqeuencies of light in
the infrared. I need to think about it more.
government has to make monthly payments? I just thought of such a simple
idea, but yet it has never been mentioned to my knowledge. How does the
government take on and pay off debt? Do they have to make monthly
payments? Who do they make those monthly payments to? It is interesting,
for example this issue of issuing bonds. All the ballot measures that
create a new tax failed, while those that create a bond succeeded, and I
can't help but think that it has to do with the wording. People understand
a tax, and they reject it for the most part, but they don't quite
understand a bond...or at least...that it is basically the equivalent of a
new tax. Because, ultimately the government needs to pay for the bond and
interest, and that money can only come from their income, which is our
taxes. What happens when there is no money in the government bank
account(?) to cover the monthly payments it has to make on its debt? I
suppose the lender might seize government assets in order to recover the
missing monthly payment. My view, and I am open to other ideas, is that we
should be looking at the existing income each year, and determining how
that is going to be divided. I can see possibly charging up debt, but I
think there is something to be said for restricting any use of debt
(usually a natural disaster ruins this plan, unless people could actually
save for such an event). I think we ought to be using and voting to
partition the existing income, not creating more debt which ultimately
will have to be paid with (to my knowledge) monthly payments...and to
cover those monthly payments...if they can't and the lender is going to
seize property...they will have to raise taxes to get more income...it's
that or sell off government property.
11/09/06
Good news for Democrats to win majority of House and Senate.
The president said the republicans got "thumped", which is a nick name for
me, and I can't figure it out. Maybe it's because I am the champion of
champions, but perhaps more likely because he is holding me up to the
people as an example of what unrestrained liberalism will result in...in
other words I am the worst or most extreme example of the liberals. I
don't know, but look how many other liberals there are that are probably
much more popular and active than I am. He could have said that:
"we needed Moore republicans"
"the republicans must have been in the John and I'm aPauled"
"I have only Stern words for those who voted against us and will have to
Dawk their pay."
"We were Loose Jane'd!"
"I'm going to need a Hankey if we keep losing like this"
"Next the Greenwald party is going to take over!"
"We ran outta Flynt and could start a fire under the voters"
"I guess this shows that even republicans Ken a die"
(ok look, I'm not incredibly good at this, maybe you people can produce
some of these phrases, and not necessarily in this order that just occurs
in my mind.)
"I guess the infidels have won"
"I'm making out my Will, and none of you bastards that voted against us
are going to receive all that juicy defense industry money we took from
yih."
"This is going to Marr my Jesus day"
but no instead they got thumped...and that is such a violent word...it's
slang for "assault" too, as if they were beat, and fist fights are common
place ... you know they should be stopping people who get "thumped". I
hate to see what the repubs are saying because I know it aint going to be
good to sound rednecky for a minute. I thought...oh great, I'll probably
be punched on my way to work, gladly that did not happen. But also the
"ped" of "thumped" is a victory for conservatives, in California something
like 72% of the people approved the ballot measure against all kinds of
"sex offenders", even those who were 18 and had sex with a 17 year old 30
years ago, I could go on for hours about how poorly formed that bill and
now law is, and I will go on with that later if time permits. And the
shocking truth is that republicans support murder and assault of
children...they did 9/11, they kill and torture kids in Iraq and
Afghanistan, they don't stop assault and have no "stop violence" program,
cruse the idea and any who request stopping violence as "pussies", so for
republicans, violence, assault, murder is ok, ... their language is filled
with nothing but allusions to violence as far as I can tell, but
consensual pleasure is the big crime...yes pleasure is the big evil,
people get out of jail for cold blooded first degree murder in 20 years
(presuming they get jailed unlike Frank Sturgis, Thane Cesar, killers of
Nicole Simpson, Jam Jay, Bonnie Blake...it's in the millions, millions of
"unsolved" murders), and they don't need to wear a GPS bracelet and can
live anywhere in the USA, violent non-sex offenders are protected from
even being in a public registry. I could go on for days about this
terrible phenomenon. But there are many other liberals out there, and
people appear to reject whatever I say anyway...I spent hours typing
against the republicans in 2004 and it made little to no difference. I
still am pessimistic, after all this nation re-elected Bush jr, and that
to me is shocking, but I am certainly glad for the democrats taking the
majority in the Senate and House. Unlike many other people, my views are
clear and simple, so clear and simple I can express them in a few
sentences. So if people are worried that electing democrats will result in
so-called "extremists" like me, I want to reiterate my main goals which
are 1) stopping violence (lowering homicide and assault in the USA by 50%
in 10 years, jailing Thane Cesar, and all other murderers) 2) working
towards full democracy where the public gets to vote on the government
decisions 3) working towards more freedom of info (exposing the truth
about Pupin, hearing, seeing and sending thought, about Frank Sturgis,
Thane Cesar, all the secret unpunished homicides) 4) stopping arrests of
those for drugs and prost 5) a free history of science video 6) a free
history of evolution video 7) free history of the probable future video 8)
a moon station (we should be conquering the moon and mars, not other
nations on earth, the real future valuable property is on those other
moons and planets, which should be colonized by democratic science loving
people) 9) assistant walking robots 10) stopping involuntary treatment
11) integrating all prisons, hospitals, military courts into one legal
system which includes a right to trial 12) ending starvation in the USA
(free food to low income people) possibly: 13) free minimum health care
14) free bathrooms 15) free showers 16) free soap 17) free clothes 18)
free rooms 19) voting down US military spending by 50% 20) voting down
wasteful spending... and so you can see basically what I am interested
in...mainly making a violence free society with advanced science and
technology, working towards total free info and full democracy. Most of
these idea I think should be decided by the majority. Majority rule is
the most fair system, so I reject the idea of imposing my beliefs on the
majority and it wouldn't suprise me if a system decided by popular opinion
is the most popular. This direction of the republicans is clearly a bad
direction, doing a 9/11, then using that to start 2 pointless bloody
wars...spending trillions in overpriced defense industry costs...I can't
believe the public would vote for that, but clearly there are problems in
the USA, there is so much violence, secrecy, lack of science,
antisexuality, fanatical religion...it is going to take decades for this
group to stumble into a forward direction...to expose the truth about
Pupin, about the JFK murder and so many others...for that...I can't see
that taking anything other than decades...just remembering that this group
re-elected Bush jr, ... I mean, I don't think the people in the USA are
incredibly wise...but perhaps they are simply vastly underinformed. I
can't possibly be optimistic just knowing the history of the USA since
1910 and in particular since the murders of the Kennedy's and I can only
guess how many others. The biggest light of hope has come from the
increasing speed and popularity of the Internet (which is ending a very
long tradition of control of what the public sees and hears), and perhaps
with the coming of walking robots. I'm glad for this election, and look
forward to progress and the 2008 election. I think it shows that this
group in the USA, however bad in decision making, is not going to take us
into a total nazi fascist government yet, they came into the fires but
then backed away. One person said it so clearly, the republicans are for
constant and total war, and that is a terrible philosophy. With Bill
Clinton, for example, I wish we had much more, but at least we lived in
peace and had a budget surplus. When we are living in peace, we can take
advantage of that by using money to improve the standard of living in the
USA, increasing democratic voting, lowering violent crime, and start to
work towards expanding the US empire onto the moon, mars, into orbit, and
eventually to the Alpha Centauri system.
You know, but as far as that 9/11 thing to me, in my honest opinion, its
as phony as a 3 dollar bill, a 5-leaf clover, a 7-wheel bus, a rubber
nickel, .. ok I'm out of phrases.
Its interesting there are not many females that are outspoken liberals
that I can think of. Maybe because of not having the same money or access
as males. In the 9/11 truth there is Judy Brown, Ellen Johnson is the prez
of American Atheists, there are actors, comedians and musicians like
Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Streisand. It's tough to come up with many
female liberal leaders and that is so wrong. I'm sure they are out there,
but perhaps just not making as many videos or gaining access to the
public.
With this sex offender proposition, I can go on for hours, first I need to
issue a 30 minute preamble: I don't support molestation, I don't engage in
molestation, I don't engage in child pornography, and I tell people not to
get involved with genital touching of people under age 18, owning images
of people touching genitals under age 18, or even owning, downloading, or
viewing images of nude children, including your own children. The
hysteria is shockingly violent and dangerous. A guy here in Orange County
got 100 years from a judge for sucking the toes of a child, people who
murder and assault children get less time. All over California 70+%
supported this sex offender bill. My arguments are: why don't they
separate violent from nonviolent? Why not a public registry for violent
offenders? I mean murder and assault are worse than nonviolent
molestation. I mean I hope people can understand that, but if no, we
should open up the debate and see where people are at. One interesting
aspect is that the psychologers got in on this one...they are going to get
a cut of government money from this law. Now, sex offenders, and there are
millions...the 40 year old guy who got a blow job from a 17 year old
female when he was 18, but hasn't touched a child since, etc. (I mean you
have to look at these people and really see what they did and do, have
they ever done violence? abduction?) in particular nonviolent people who
are no violent threat to children, are not going to jail, but into
psychiatric hospitals, where they do not get a trial, and no sentence,
they can be held there indefinitely. So clearly, people in their mind are
saying...rubbing genitals of children is a psychiatric disorder. Many
people might agree with that, but then, is beating a child a psychiatric
disorder? What about beating an adult? What about theft? Can't they all be
thought of as psychiatric disorders? I'm sure the psychologers would like
that, it means much more money and authority over human lives and freedom
for them. When there is no sentence, the included don't have to bribe the
judges for freedom, they have to bribe the doctors instead. I think this
shows how limitless the antisexuality is on earth. Perhaps a 'mutilate a
molestor's genitals' law might be passed, and that is wrong, because
somebody simply touching a genital, even of a child, in particular with no
clear objection, is not equal to genital mutilation, say with a sledge
hammer as probably many antisexuals would like...so clearly the punishment
would far outweigh the crime. And what is interesting is that the public
is really overwhelmingly saying (except in SF where only 50% approved this
bill), we don't want adults teaching sex to children. Perhaps they want
children finding about sex on their own. 70% don't want humans under age
18 entering into genital touching with anybody over 18. So this leaves
people under age 18, no matter how much they want to, denied from the
right to touch the genitals of those 18 or older. This law makes no
restriction about 2 people under the age of 18 touching each others
genitals, but that is probably soon to come. Probably there will be an all
out ban on all genital touching under age 18, except perhaps your own
genitals, but not publically. I think a counter law, would try to
guarentee an adult's right to show nude images to a child for the purpose
of sexual education and explanation. I think a good law is to legalize
child pornography on any object older than 100 years old (otherwise
ancient Greek vases and paintings might be smashed by the nazistic
antisexual hypocrite pupin thought eye net thugs that watch nude children
and their thoughts in their homes). Much of this law, is 70% of the people
saying, we want to control the rights of children, we want to control the
bodies of children. And a useful comparison can be made to similar past
occurances. For example, the Nazis restricting the rights of Jewish people
in Nazi Germany (maybe next, no mixing of adults and children, curfews for
children, special restrooms, etc), the restrictions placed on women and
black people, etc. They want to stop children from being able to vote,
from being able to work, from being able to touch a genital, from seeing
nudity, from seeing violence, from buying cigarettes, from buying drugs,
from buying alcohol, from owning property, from having a bank account, on
and on and on....it is a terrible approach, to draw a line between child
and adult in my view, and it creates a terrible unnatural class system of
the adults having full rights, while those under 18, no matter how smart,
and independent having very little rights. And this group, unlike adult
african americans, and female humans cannot defend themselves as well as
adults can, because they don't have much experience, and it is sad to see
the adult majority stripping them of their natural universe given rights.
Another fine law is one that allows a child to touch adult genitals if
they provide a written consent stating that touching a genital is what
they want to do, that they deserve the right to touch a genital, etc.
People can still keep unconsensual touching illegal, and even adult
instigated touching of genitals illegal, but why not give the child some
freedom to learn about genitals, human anatomy, and sexual reproduction?
Then, and I can go on for hours about this because nobody has ever talked
about it, and perhaps next, and I swear this is probably coming, even
talking about molestation or child pornography is going to be illegal. As
it is already, those who do, are probably viewed with hostility, and
people make plans for jailing them on made-up charges using their
outspoken views as evidence of their involvement in child abuse rings.
(Just like 9/11 truth people could be labeled terrorists for rejecting the
official story, and defenders of "witches" would be next to be dunked and
accused of sorcery). Maybe children will have to wear a special badge or
something. This law does not address those who assault children non
sexually, those people do not have to wear a GPS bracelet, and are not
restricted in any way. It's an interesting idea, banning any person with a
violent conviction from the earth, a nation or city. One thing is the
phenomenon of people who, like nazis, generally play the role of accusers,
and never see themselves in the role of the accused. Because there is an
important aspect of molestation law that people don't think much about,
and that is that there is usually no physical evidence of molestation,
unlike violent crime, nonviolent molestation is usually convicted on
eyewitness testimony. Video of a molestation would be physical evidence,
but that is, I am sure, rare. So now, I would not doubt that this hysteria
is going to continue to serve as a useful tool against enemies. All you
need to do is convince some person's poor child to make an accusation of
gential touching, and probably the person accused will be jailed, and
certainly their reputation will be ruined. So like locking people in
psychiatric hospitals, no person can recover from that kind of damage to
their reputation...they will not be able to find a job, people will put
them down at every turn with rude insider insults, even when they know the
accusation is false...it's a shocking phenomenon of conformity. People
still to this day say "bug" for money at republican's request even though
I have never buggered any human...the myth is enough for them to think I
did, even when they know I didn't. One psychologer once screamed out "but
you wanted to!". Well,...if a person does or does not want to, I vote that
those thoughts should not be illegal..I mean those are just thoughts,
nobody is directly hurt from a thought (in particular a nonviolent
thought). It's like the even worse (at least in my unusual mind) thoughts
of permanent damage causing violence, maybe they are reason to monitor a
person and their thoughts, but it's not enough for arrest. And this is a
separate issue, but one that interests me...I want to ask the most ardent
free speechers and free information people, "The people that orchestrated
the 9/11 mass murder, the republicans and those in the US
military,...and/or funded it...should those people be allowed and go
unpunished as protected by free speech and thought or should those
plotters and funders be locked in jail?". That is a tough one, currently,
the majority view is that not only should those people go to jail, but
that they should be executed, anybody with foreknowledge and active
participation (what the true democratic opinion is I don't know, but that
is what the law and legal precedent has been). I think in the future
people will probably not even be jailed for plotting violence, protected
under free speech and thought, but probably not for a long time, and it's
probably best that way...violence is out of control on the earth, and even
plotting an assault or murder should be enough reason to expose those
people and maybe some small jail time, unless successful then more jail
time. But you know, 70% of California, probably the USA, and no doubt the
rest of earth, have a very backward view of physical pleasure. I wonder
where the antisexuals will go next...since there appears to be no bottom
to people's violent hostility towards sexuality....I think stopping
children from having sex and jailing children who engage in sex
perhaps...raising the consensual sex age to 21, making sex without
marriage illegal, back to illegal anal sex, back to illegal seduction,...
I don't know, perhaps this is a special feeling of children adults and
sexuality...there need to be certain ingredients for the public to bite
into it. Many times the real charm is having a word like "molestor" that
strikes fear into people's minds, which they equate with a murderer of
children (but not like those with missiles in Iraq, for example). The word
"molestor" really, in my view, is not completely accurate, because many of
these genital touchings are not "bothersome" or a "nuisance" as the word
"molest" implies. Instead a child may be indifferent, unbothered, or even
approve of or request such touching. So "molest" doesn't really accurately
describe the crime. And I think the real hatred is the idea that a child
might lose their sexual purity. I guess in theory, we don't mind if adults
consensually shake the hand of as many children as they want to, it's when
they touch genitals that is the big deal. It says, and I think people
should be clear about this, that they don't want anybody over the age of
18 touching the genitals of any person under the age of 18, whether it
bothers the person under 18 or not, even if they request such touching, it
is to be illegal. As a final note, I think young people should be allowed
to touch genitals (although again, I encourage people over 18 to obey all
laws, and not to let their genitals be touched by humans under the age of
18, and not to touch any genitals of people under the age of 18) if they
want to (and maybe if their parents do not object too), I know for myself,
I dreamed of touching busty women and masted about that as early as age
11, how I would have loved to have even oral sex with the women in nude
magazines, what a denial and trajedy to deny young males that opportunity.
I don't know the average age for females but again, as I have said before,
there really is a physical difference when it comes to sex for females and
males (although I think in the future ultimately clear consent at any age
will be the eventual law), for example sex for a male is not painful,
while for a female it may be (the first few times). Males are ready for
sex around age 11, while female (and I am not the expert) are not until
around age 16 (as a time when they can enjoy sexual pleasure without
pain). To me it seems clear that the current view, and a very popular view
at 70% is that children cannot and should not make decisions for
themselves, and should be viewed as not responsible for their actions,
etc. I see the future as giving full rights to all citizens with no regard
to age.
11/18/06
Since the belief in many gods came before the belief in one god, so why would the belief in one god be any more accurate than the belief in many?
11-05-2006
10/23/06
An excellent video examining 9/11 is
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&hl=en
In this video, how a spool emits from the reinforced "sky lobby" is shown
(the WTC buildings were 3 buildings in 1 separated by 2 reinforced sky
lobbies. The chances of this happening by chance are remote. In addition,
another video interview with Steven Jones and the usual crew of 9/11 truth
tellers, explains another important point: what are the chances of the 47
core columns, each 4 inch thick steel, all breaking at the same time? And
then, perhaps more importantly, breaking symmetrically all the way down to
the ground level? Falling, as the above video narrator states, in the path
of most resistance. Another important point is that, the basement filled
with much of the molten metal from the thermate and explosives, without
the basement, that molten metal would have rolled out into the streets
potentially.
But thinking more about 9/11/01, it seems clear that Bush jr and the
neocons didn't just wake up one morning and say "you know, I think I
wouldn't mind having a few thousand murders on my record.", which implies
that plotting the 9/11 murders was not that big of a deal to them...they
probably didn't feel alot of moral uncertainty about having thousands of
murders on their record, and how could that be? It can only be if they
were already involved in many murders before 9/11. Can you imagine a
person with a clean record of no murders, feeling completely comfortable
with allowing a mass murder like 9/11 to go forward? No, they would never
brave such a thing. The 9/11 mass murder has to be preceded by a life of
watching and probably even participating in many murders. For sure, the
wealthy neocon children grew up watching the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK so
clearly orchestrated by all their friends and fathers. As an aside, it's
an interesting point about the wonderful movie "Loose Change", the song
lyric the person says "how many thrills?", and it seems clear that 9/11
and other murders done by republicans are "thrill kills". in other words,
they are stimulated by murder. They are fascinated, as many people are, at
watching people last thoughts before jumping of the WTC towers, before
being blown to pieces. They are fascinated by murder, death, pain, humans
being tortured, etc. Perhaps they feel their own mortality, or the thrill
of power in ending a human life. Different from the millions of people who
are naturally fascinated by watching humans murdered, the republicans have
the added fascination that they are directly responsible for those
murders. They didn't detonate the wired up explosives in the WTC
buildings, but they authorized it, and ordered it. Everybody that sees
understands that they are the people with the main responsibility for the
9/11 mass murder, plotting it from the ground up, assembling the
resources, funding it, shielding it from being exposed or stopped,
executing it, and now working and funding to cover up the truth about it.
So it just occured to me this morning, that you know, as an excluded, I
have to do a lot of theorizing about included life, that Bush jr, probably
didn't just out of nowhere take on 3000 murders onto his record, but there
must have been thousands of secret murders he was involved with before
hand, and the same is true for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Robertson,
McCain, and all the other republicans. They view it like war probably,
that it's ok to kill people viewed as the enemy. This is a common
phenomenon, Castro did and no doubt does it too, it seems to be the status
quo (although the republicans in the USA have probably murdered more
people than any other nation, but it's debatable), for example, Castro
killed his way into power, and then probably kills (or jails) anybody that
disagrees with him, or challanges his rule with full democracy, and other
similar systems. And the same is true for the republicans in the USA, they
viewed JFK as an enemy (like all democrats, liberals, intellectuals,
educated) and they murdered him, the same for MLK, and RFK, and the proof
is in the way they protect Sturgis and Cesar to this very day. The proof
is in the 9/11 books they publish, the lies they tell about 9/11, etc. You
have to see things the way they do, inside people's houses and heads. For
me, I will be glad for murderers to be stopped, exposed, jailed, etc...but
you know...these people want their enemies murdered, and then care nothing
about the murder of innocent civilians. The republicans under Bush jr
represent probably the largest group of murderers ever to be free on earth
since the reign of the Nazi people. Viewing images of violence, or
anything is not a serious thing to me, looking at images even repeatedly
of violent murder, 9/11, anything like that, is no crime. One of the big
mistakes of this time is the belief that simply looking at or owning
images should be a crime, when looking at an image is no crime, it's those
in the image that are doing the crime. People have to be able to separate
those simply looking at a crime, versus those in the images actually doing
the crime, and I don't think they will be able to understand this
distinction anytime soon. So where these conservative murderers are so
evil is that they enjoy plotting murder and then watching it over and
over. Simply watching it over and over is no serious thing, it's the
enjoyment of doing a murder (and then watching it over and over) that is
evil. The watching is not evil, it's the murder that is obviously to me,
but not to the public. The last frontiers of information secrecy, images
people can be actually jailed for owning are images that violate:
copyright, privacy, child pornography (although owning violent images of a
nonsexual nature are apparently legal to my limited legal knowledge, and
then there is the debate about ancient art that depicts child
pornography), government information (for some reason the service body of
the public has a special priviledge of privacy, which should not exist in
my humble opinion. They work as a public body and therefore should not
have any private parts, and should be completely open to public scrutiny).
All other images are legal to own. But I think the time will come when the
public supports total free information, where people cannot be jailed or
even fined for any image owned. This entire 9/11 thing currently makes me
think about a CourtTV show I saw about the college kid killer Danny
Rollins who is supposed to be killed by lethal injection sometime soon,
who wrote that song "Mystery Rider", but I would substitute "Mystery 9/11
killers, what's yer name? Yer criminals, with controlled demolition gone
insane". Who knows what makes people kill, I think it's a selfish desire.
Perhaps a desire to be feared. I dunno. For Rollins, maybe he is like most
people highly suggestible when images are beamed on his head and he didn't
know that people might be sending images, and some practical jokers beamed
images of him killing onto his head, and he follow those suggestions much
to their (and no doubt other insiders) amusement. But another point is that he wanted sex, and the only way he could get any was to take it without permission. Free market prost might have provided an alternative, but puritans have everything figured out I guess. Clearly these 9/11
killers were no virgin first time killers, to just up and kill 3000 people
one day, and then 10,000 more in Afghan and Iraq.
For those people who program on both Windows and UNIX I found a cool
"gedit" like editor that allows tabbed editing, and allows to save in UNIX
[only chr(10) carriage return] format for Windows: Notepad++ at
sourceforge.net.
10/24/06
This was fast, like a Bush into Hell.
I think the Democrats, liberals and intellectuals need to organize and
communicate better. For example clearly we should vote down the Dems, like
Feinstein and Clinton who vote in favor of invading Iraq, but then who to
vote for? My advice? In the primary vote the the openly anti-war democrat
contender, but as usual when the encumbant war monger wins the primary,
vote for the Green candidate (or Libertarian...whoever gets the most
votes, which I think is Green), because you know both of those people are
going to be antiwar. You know how would Feinstein, Clinton, Lieberman, Kerry, and
all the other Dems who voted to invade Iraq, when they all knew that Bush
jr and the neocons did 9/11, like it if a helmet was put on them and they
were shipped out to Iraq since they are so gung-ho for US children to
murder Iraqi people, and live a life holding loaded guns all day. Maybe
some of those kids forced to be in Iraq, which is the new Russian
roulette, it's Iraq-roulette, have the choice to come back to the USA if
they are there against their choice, and then without being jailed,
declared AWOL, a deserter, dishonorably discharged, etc. just like
McDonalds, Sears and Walmart if they had the right to quit working, quit
their job whenever they want to. Isn't that a basic human right? To be
able to quit your job? Most people may not even know that Feinstein,
Clinton, Kerry and Lieberman all voted to send US youngsters to kill Iraqi
people. But wouldn't true democrats oppose the republicans in this
murderous act? Boxer did and I support her. Wouldn't those war mongering
murderous conservatives parading as democrats seek to allow the young
people taken to Iraq the right to quit the US military? no, I guess not.
So when, as many times happens, a war monger is the Democratic encumbant,
I think the antiwar people need to organize and vote for the Green
candidate. We need to have a liberal to fall back onto. I think we should
be looking for a party that is going to be more liberal than the
democrats, like "full democrats", or "free info democrats", something that
is going to take it to the next level. For example, the current group of
Dems is fine, Angelides, etc. but we need somebody ultimately beyond that,
somebody that is really going to openly be shutting down violence, maybe
the "antiviolence democratic party", or the "expose violence democratic
party", beyond this group of popular democrats, beyond into the future,
for example an outspoken proponent of total free information, of copyright
restriction, or of ending jail terms for information violaters,
introducing "no illegal images" legislation, of decriminalizing
recreational drugs and consensual prost for adults, some person that is
going to increase the democracy by recording the public's votes...isn't
that nice how Feinstein and others vote for us, so we don't have to
trouble? Isn't that such a wonderful system? We don't have to hurt our
finger muscles by voting...ok yes I am being sarcastic...I am more than
happy to take the time to vote against the Iraq invasion and other life
and death decisions. For people as old as me, 37, sending poor
youngsters to kill in Iraq (no doubt Feinstein and other religious
fanatics [opposed Newdow, and supports children in the USA echoing the
mind numbing pledge and marching in unthinking lock step to the Neocon
nationalistic machinery] are more concerned that those being blow up in
Iraq and not experiencing any sensual pleasure, being blown up is fine,
but being blown is high crime) is not a life and death decision that
fossilized Feinstein and lying Lieberman make for us, but it is a life or death
decision for many poor young people who joined the army not knowing that
they would be hauled off to kill and be killed so Bush and Cheney can stuff their
pockets with defense contract money.
http://www.vote-smart.org/ has a lot of the voting records of people in
the senate. The vote I think is most murderous is:
"Use of Military Force Against Iraq"
Feinstein, Lieberman, Biden, Harkin, Landrieu, Kerry, Reid, Schumer,
Clinton, among others voted for this atrocity and criminal homicide. They
all should be voted out of congress for such a violation of law, ethics,
and basic human right to life. And it's nothing personal, I simply think
condoning first degree homicide is a bad idea, is illegal and rightly so
in my opinion, is wreckless, is immoral, etc. It doesn't matter who does
it, it is just wrong in my opinion.
I found a relatively old reichstag event in 560 BCE in a book by Diogenes
Laertius (~200s CE). Solon accused Pisistratos of harming himself, then
claiming he was attacked and is then granted 400 young men with clubs for
protection (by the archons presumably) which he uses to take over and end
the representative democracy in Athens (my history may not be perfect, but
this is the story as I understand it). Solon was an archon (an elected
representative), and he fled, although, Pisistratos sent Solon a nice
letter allowing him to return and guarenteeing his safety, but Solon sends
a letter back respectfully rejecting the invitation writing that he would
be going against the principle of democracy which he believes in if he
returned.
Just as I said "it's ok to have differences in opinions about religion,
drugs, sex, and government but let's be damn sure that people who kill
other people are locked in jail!" (this can be commemorated with "darn
sure"), so now I am saying "We could have two sides battling it out in a
nasty secret violent battle of the bulk, and perhaps that may already be
happening behind the Pupin curtain, but it would be a hell of a lot easier
to simply nonviolently show all the people what the other side has been
doing, how Pupin saw the thought screen in brains using infrared, how
Sturgis killed JFK and millions of thought-hearing Republicans cover it
up, how Cesar killed RFK and those that helped, how 9/11 was done and
covered up, in winning the fight for truth, justice and decency, and then
all without a single scratch, done by a properly informed majority of both
sides." (this phrase can be commemorated with simply "heck of a lot
(easier)").
10/26/06
my view on gods: To believe in a god is not a very offensive position or
claim in my opinion, although I think a good examination of history would
provide enough evidence to show that the claim or theory of the existence
of gods is useless and most likely untrue. Simply believing there is a god
is less offensive in my view, than going a step further and claiming to
know what a god wants, which I view as very arrogant and similar to the
claim that a person is a god. How could a person know what a god wants?
Because to claim that a person knows what a god wants or prefers implies
that they themselves are god-like, or are a god, since to know the mind of
a god, a person would have to be a god, or to somehow have a different
relationship to a god than other humans. This is what we see in so many
televangelists, this claim that they know exactly what God wants, and they
can reveal what God wants, etc, and to me it's the height of arrogance to
claim to know what a god wants. So for example, I see no reason for
churches, temples, synogogues or mosques, although ofcourse they must be
allowed to exist, but in my view attendance should not be mandatory,
should not be viewed as a requirement, since, again, nobody can know what
a god wants since they are not a god, or on the same plane as a god
themselves, and to claim such a thing would be wrong, and overextending
their bounds as a mortal. And the same is true for any kind of holy books
such as the Bible, Koran, etc since no human can truthfully know the mind
of God, and any that claim to know the dictates of a god are guessing and
lying. Many people use the power of claims that they know what God wants
to influence people, they use the authority of a god and place it into
their own hands. People then think that God is telling them what the
person is telling them, in other words, that this person is an
interpretter for a god that they cannot talk to or hear from directly. And
to me that is very wrong, and it's a scam, because those people can
understand a diety no more than anybody else can, and understanding a
diety is impossible for either. People are certainly entitled to guess at
what a god wants, and then, in my view, that is simply the same as our own
views of what is ethical, what should be legal, what is immoral, etc. We
would find that our own individual preferences exactly coincide with that
of a god.
Can you imagine a time when humans are walking around with handheld lasers
that can chop a person in half in seconds? The photon is actually perhaps
more dangerous and definitely faster than metal projectiles from
conventional guns. Imagine what that must be like to see in a second your
lower half severed from your body. You would instantly feel the pain, and
all your intestines would spill out (it reminds me of the scene when Han
Solo cuts open the TanTan which was dead for heat...maybe they were trying
to get the message to the public, or simply describing what they had seen
many times, but maybe just coincidence). You would instantly lose feeling
in your legs and lower half, and probably within minutes would die from
blood loss. Having a person swipe off your head would probably be quicker
and less painful. Then imagine a computer programmed to track and laser in
half 6 billion people within seconds. I would not want to be the person
that pressed that "enter" button. But that is the reality that people are
faced with and to keep it a secret, I think is asking for trouble. Abuse
usually is done by a minority of priviledged, and rarely by a large group
who all agree on one thing. Generally, the more people that know, the
fairer a decision is, the less people that know, the less fair. The more people included, the more safe things are, the less, the more dangerous. There are
limitations for hand held lasers, although who knows what has been
developed over the century of secrecy? Mainly the supply of electricity is one limiting factor,
eventually the laser pointer battery runs out, and in particular probably
for a CO2 laser, that can cut metal, a large amount of electrons are
needed.
10/27/06
If I had to guess I would say that Hydrogen, probably taken from so-called
nuclear power (separating atoms somehow, maybe simply getting more photons
out than those put in, for a reaction of bombarding objects with
electrically negative antiprotons, or perhaps traditional uranium and
plutonium splitting), hydrogen and oxygen will probably be the future
fuel, with fossil fuel becoming obsolete and eventually unused. I think we
may see Hydrogen combustion engines in addition to fuel cell engines (and ofcourse the traditional hydrogen combustion propulsion used in many rockets: this will probably be the main method up and down on the moon since there is no air.).
Already hydrogen and oxygen combustion is used for rockets, star ship one
it, most interplanetary ships use it. Plus hydrogen simply drifts out of
the atmosphere (although possibly it might create more water than was
originally here, but then, water will be in large demand in orbit, the moon,
etc). Interestingly enough, apparently oxygen is not consumed in
combustion, it simply changes molecules. I guess, theoretically, oxygen is only a catalyst for combustion (although I have doubts, the mass of photons emitted must come from particles). The only other possible choice on
the horizon I see is biofuels, and for that I think there needs to be some
new advances that harness every molecule of plant throwaway...the space
for growing food on earth is going to continue to decrease, and food
growing will move out into orbit, the moon, mars, etc. probably, where
space and light are not factors.
Come to think of it, it seems likely that there must be some atoms where
antiprotons, neutrons, would probably produce more photons than put in,
since the atoms are losing photons (some perhaps gain matter, most
probably lose matter upon such collisions).
Each generation should present their predictions of the future, at least
once a year. Certainly people will be wrong and inaccurate, but it
forces people to think about the future, and it is interesting to look
back and see how accurate the people before them were. In some way, some
of these events, for example, humans going to the closest star appear
inevitable, although when is probably not known clearly. So there are some
clear stepping stones that would probably appear on most people's
estimation of the future.
10/30/06
Every day brings us closer to knowing the truth about 9/11, about the
murder of RFK, MLK, JFK and many many other innocent people. Every day
brings us closer to walking around with personal assistant robots that
capture our every image and sounds for our own protection in case
republicans and other violenters try to harm us and keep it a secret as
they have consistently done throughout history. Every day we are getting
closer to vacationing in orbit, on the moon, on planet mars. With each
day, more cameras are being produced, for example, in 1968 all that the
fascists republican nazis needed to do was confiscate Scott Enyart's
photos, and maybe a few other films, but for 9/11 they needed to
confiscate a heck of a lot more films to cover up the truth, and we are
reaching a time when the evil wealthy powerful conservatives will not be
able to confiscate, destroy or otherwise supress the video of their
violent activities, and I look forward to that time and welcome that
change. So every day brings us closer to justice, to a more complete and
informed understanding of our history. The election of republicans in 2000
and 2004 has set us back into a mini dark age of mass murder and war, but
this is only a temporary set back, and we must remember that voting for
republicans is voting for war, while voting for democrats is voting for
peace. There is an alternative to war, and it's called law. Look at the
way 70 people were just murdered by Musharef in Pakistan, again like so
many violent leaders, no arrest, no trial, ... just quick murder by
missile and unknown people working in the shadows. We need to work towards
internation laws that make homicide illegal in all nations, so that those
who murder can be openly identified to all with satellite videos, and
captured, and given a constant trial, and finally jailed if ever they step
into a democratic nation. Perhaps this was another US missile, look how
the young nonviolent person who reported the earlier US missile that
killed civilians was murdered. What a terrible chaos of violence the
republicans and conservative religious fanatics have opened up on the tiny
earth. Now I think the least people can do, is allow those people in
Afghanistan and Iraq that want to quit the military the choice to quit and
come home, without any penalty, anything else is forced labor and is
wrong. Nobody should be forced into labor, in particle such a dangerous
violent lawless type of job.
I saw Ed Asner talk at UCI, and he had some good stuff to say but jetted
away when I went to shake his hand. Plus his talk was all god this and god
that, who gives a shit about gods? Nothing about Bush doing 9/11, which
seems to me the best truth to tell, that and Bush's dad killed JFK, and Thane
Cesar is still on the loose. But I have to tell you people there was
something really amazing at this rally, Cindy Sheehan didn't show up but
talked over a cellphone and says "gaaaaaaaay"...and it was kind of funny,
because it's like a patented sell-out. Sheehan is such a scum bag. Can you
imagine being the guest of honor to rally the democrats, and then her
moment comes and she does her republican paid for piss on the crowd. And
that is royal piss. Sheehan is like this bloated way overpopular person
who, I think has done little to nothing for peace and the democrats. She
just sits back on the couch with her poking stick to change the channels
while nazi republicans beam offers of money onto her empty uneducated
brain. And the sadest part is that it will take decades for the public to
finally figure it out. How much money did Sheehan get paid? One speaker
said "they right that check". To me, it shows how corrupted and fragile
the democrats and liberal are, to have such a spineless sell-out as a
featured person, whose photo is constantly on newspapers. It's almost like
Sheehan is a republican paid for prop. It takes serious cashish to buy
your picture on a newspaper...where does it come from? She doesn't sound
like a serious force for democracy, for the democrats, for liberals,
against violence, against the murders of 9/11, in Afghanistan or Iraq. But
the public will never understand that until 200 years from now when
everybody gets to see who pays her. I honestly hope, the true liberals on
the earth remember Sheehan's anti-gay statement and let her fall to the
bottom with the rest of the people whose main value is money. It sends a
tingle down my spine to hear such a truth revealed in front of maybe a
hundred people. It was just like a Hollywood thing in some way, to see the
naked dirty truth in person about some person written up as a hero, how
they are just this bloated money for sell-out person. It's
really an interesting phenomenon, and as I said, the excluded public can't
keep up with it. Even I couldn't...how was I supposed to know what she is
like? I don't see inside her house and head as she does us. The liberals
need solid leadership, Sheehan is a total scum and sell-out, they can't be
funding her or allowing her to ruin their rallies, honestly...that is
stupid. One thing I was going to comment on earlier but didn't because I
didn't want to lower the steam of the liberal movement, was how Sheehan
was calling for a meeting with Bush, and I thought that was such an ass
kiss...what does anybody have to say to this asshole? He did 9/11! You
think he is going to be changed by some chit-chat? That was idiocy. And
looking back, I would not, seriously be surprised if the entire "Sheehan"
phenomenon was funded and created. So many things are funded now, people's
values are defined by the money they accept to propagandize for the
republicans who are a nazistic, rogue, violent, criminal group. That was
amazing, just to see this patented sell-out. The liberals are a sad story,
I wish they would stand up like the 9/11-truth people and get tough on the
violent lawless republicans, instead of being murdered, then the killers,
like Sturgis and Cesar...I mean can you imagine how many others? don't
even ever get seen let alone jailed. I told Steve Young who came up to
shake hands..."how do you feel about democratizing the government
more...like letting people vote directly on the decisions"...and Young said
"...you mean like a town hall?.." I said "no..like on the Internet, voting
directly on government decisions..."...and Young says "they had a town
hall in Boston...", and as he walked away I said "how about more stopping
violence and teaching science....". isn't that amazing about Sheehan, and
that is like so many others. Let's see who was the last sell out I
remember...9/11 has presented endless examples. Michael Shermer, ASCE,
Penn & Teller, Scientific American, are a few. Sadly, many people might
argue...there are so many sell-out scum bags...there is nobody left...we
have to listen to them...there is nobody else. I find that very hard to
believe. Send the sell-out scum to the bottom, it's a constant process of
democratic renewel. A new person appears with a fresh message, they rise
up in popularity starting with very little, but when they have a large
amount of popularity they start getting offers (although I don't and I
would refuse any such offers anyway, just experiencing the stomach-turning
feeling of seeing popular people sell-out to the highest bidder is
nausiating to me, but beyond that I stand for something, and I want change
in my lifetime and for the future. You can see Asner has a spine and is in
it for the long haul...he probably really does want change...he funds many
liberal videos that no other wealthy or popular liberals will...so I think
we need to find more people like Asner and don't support those like
Sheehan who turn on a dime for a few thousand dollars. And how much did
Sheehan get paid...I have to guess...I think it was a small
sell-out...maybe 200 people...a few cameras...but ofcourse, with me there,
among the included...it gets seen or heard as it were. If yer excluded and
reading this, you are ofcourse, getting only a brief summary of events
that happened months before, while the republican nazi machinery goes on
in real-time. It was interesting, that Asner sounded interesting at first
and gave a relatively positive helpful speech, he starts with "There are
some wicked wicked people...." that try to supress the truth...I can't
remember exactly, but it would be better if they mention
all the violent murders of the past, and ofcourse 9/11...I had to yell out
"Bush did Nine-eleven!" damn...get a clue people. So I think Sheehan
probably got paid...$25,000? maybe more. There are probably bigger
sell-outs down the road at other stops. That is amazing. It's a touring
republican show parading as a democrat rally...I mean clearly...if Sheehan
is the featured guest and selling-out like this at each stop for $50k a
piece. I think that Mimi Kennedy said "scum!" just before talking which
was nice and how stomach turningly true. It shitheads like Sheehan, circus
Penn and never Teller, and others that leave people of integrity left like
Yoda and the two backstabbing guards in Revenge of the Sith, but many
liberals would try to embrace these sell-out traitors you know like brain
dead shit fer brains, never seeing them for who they really are and the
natural order of the best rising, and the worst falling. The entire
"representative" phenomenon is going to fall to the past, once the first
decent representative gets elected, and implements the long delayed full
and constant democratic voting. It's amazing, only now do I know the deal
on Sheehan...and then only because I bothered to see this rally,
otherwise, like most excluded, I would never have known she is such a
stupid sell-out. It's interesting that Asner, Young and Kennedy chose to
go forward with Sheehan's sell-out comments...perhaps they want to let her
deflate her popularity? to stop her from gaining more popularity? For me,
I would have said fuck that...I'm not letting this idiot sell-out poop all
over liberals...it doesn't look good on them...they look like passive
Jesus-ites who let people bully them around. Young himself was spewing all
that love yer enemy bs. Hop outta that Jesus cloud bank and check into
reality...these people are vicious murderers, and liars, and you can't win
by trying to massage the jellyfish that is the public, you have to show and tell them the
truth about 9/11, the truth about thane cesar, the truth about pupin...lets
go already. Sell-outs come and sell-outs go, when are you going to stop
supporting them?, that's what I'd like to know. It's a natural process,
over time the honest and true rise up, the corrupted should sink down in
popularity. It's nothing personal, its like those who supported the Iraq
invasion...its nothing personal, I just think what they did is illegal, or
should be, is unethical, and immoral...it's not a clickish, or special
friend phenomenon, it's a universal principle applied to all. So to the
bottom of popularity with Sheehan, the 9/11 liars, those who voted to
invade Iraq, and all other shit for brains sell outs, and it's not
personal, it's just the law of nature and self preservation, we can't
elect murderers and expect them to respect the right to life, its basic
math, and so we are clearly in trouble here on earth. I hope the sheeple
get smart and take back the keys from the wolves, it seems more logical
than what they are doing now. It has to be a good feeling for der furor to
see somebody so apparently high up in the democratic group licking his
spiked boot, even though for money, it still has to feel like having a
large amount of power. Here the furor and his group directly control a
popular leader of the democrats, and most of the public don't even know. Also at
this rally, there were some republicans mostly white males with short
hair, but one white female, and one non-white male who held signs up
espousing patriotism...they support their country through thick and
thin...and all other idiotic bs. These people would march into a gas
chamber saluting the entire way. They are all uneducated, ultra religious
fanatics, the easily duped, that Jesus rose from the dead and split one
loaf into 7, and yadda yadda, all that religious bs, a god is in the cloud
and their god is the only true god, etc. When you see these people, you
are looking at the supporters of first degree murder. And the supporters
of first degree cold-blooded murder are gadamn everywhere. Where the f are
the laws? I can't believe Bush and the republicans can kill 3,000 people
and the public scarsely changes. On one night they bomb Afghanistan...then
one clear peaceful night they bomb Iraq...it's pure first degree assault
and homicide of people who have lived nonviolent lives. We need to enforce
the homicide and assault laws, not violate them. Then, what about even
seeing the photos of what is happening there? We see the guns firing, but
not the people who are fired upon. It's totally gross...I mean, it's a
bloody slaughter on both sides, the republicans can't even stop violence
in the USA, and ofcourse these people don't try...they love violence.
Anybody that rejects allowing them to violate the violence laws is called
a pussy and fag, just for believing that homicide and assault is wrong and
those laws should be enforced. We don't need to live with violence, we are
advanced enough to live without violence, we have laws against violence,
and it's time those laws are enforced. Imagine the viewpoint that those
who oppose violence are pussies. This is one of the main arguements coming
out of the republican hole now, to honestly think that assaulting a person
is a good thing to do, that it's a good idea to run out and assault your
neighbor, I mean that is ridiculous. We don't need violence, violence
doesn't prove manhood. And the amazing idiocy of this republican theory is
clear when you start to add up...ok...one person has a fist (some people
can't handle the responsibility of owning a fist, let alone a weapon)...ok
this person has a knife...ok maybe they are more manly because they
probably will inflict more damage...ok this person has a gun...maybe they
are the biggest and toughest man (I sometimes say the toughest guy is the
one that wears a pink shirt), ...here this person has a surface to air
missile launcher...well, perhaps they are the most manly...I mean it's
idiocy. Why don't people just want to get regular sex with a variety of
different people, vote on a full democracy, have full free information,
build walking robots, round up and jail the violent (ok this will take
years, but it will happen), build rocket planes into orbit, build cities
on the moon, mars, go to Centauri, send robots there...I mean...where are
the obvious goals that seem so simple to me?
10/31/06
More about the Sheehan sell-out. I think most people can see that Cindy
She-hands-it-to-women, and so is a hypocrite, if not, and I seriously
doubt it, she is a dull mind-chained nazi. The nazi's were so concerned
with homosexuality but not with violence obviously because like the
republicans they are the violent. The nazis and republicans both liked to
punish the weak and the minorities: homosexuals, non-whites, women, the
ill, the poor, drug users, people in prostitution. It's interesting in
some way that this sell-out of Sheehan is typical of the "iron-fist" of
the republicans, its like Saddam and other dictators...they like to use
their wealth to do displays of power. The question in my mind, is: "do
people want the iron fist, or do they oppose it?". I don't know. There is
a tradition in the USA of people who don't like being force-fed, but
because of the empty minds that religion propagates, there are many people
who like to be told what to do, how to live, forced down one narrow path,
etc. It's an interesting story about Sheehan, here she has become, I think
similar to a person with a false charity...abusing her status as the
mother of a victim of the Bush regime. We see this all the time, people
faking blindness for money, fake charities, false wheelchairs, etc. I am
interested to see how Sheehan falls in popularity, and the same for
Penn&Teller, Shermer, Popular Mechanics, and all those who play an active
role in covering up the truth about 9/11, Thane Cesar, Frank Fiorini,
Pupin, etc. those who speak out against homosexuality, those who are racists,
genderists, etc. In my experience I think the public does listen and is
affected, just simply not fast and full enough.
It's kind of interesting that Bush jr is a cheerleader turned mass
murderer. That is an interesting combination. Kind of a cheerleader gone
too far...you know "blow them up, blow them up...blow them way up!".
Here agin, another example of how Cheney and the republicans support
torture, Cheney saying that water dunking torture is a no-brainer. It is a
no-brainer, obviously...torture is barbaric and should never be done.
There is no need for torture, in particular with the billions of cameras
and thought-machines...is there something these Orwellian people don't
know? They see and hear our thoughts, they have vast video archives of our
lives that they routinely access, getting the search results beamed onto their heads....but yet we know
surprisingly little about them, without so much as a polaroid of their
lives of lies.
I am a simple person, I just simply want a life on earth, free from
violence, and I don't think that is asking too much. I look forward to a
time where we all can look down on those in the camera thought network,
and quickly see who is assaulting people with ceiling lasers, or whatever,
and shut them down and jail them in accordance with democratic voting
quickly...first because it is illegal to assault people, and secondly to
stop the evolution of an all out laser war, when as is inevitable, the
victimized side fires back.
That was one other point about that Sheehan sell-out anti-gay story, that
I am so tired of the passive Jesus forgive everybody people. There are at
least two kinds of people that reacted to that Sheehan "gaaaay", the
one's, like me, who say, "get this piece of shit the fuck outta here, what
a dumb ass shit", and those like Steve Young and many Christian people,
who say "oh...forgive her...". They are like spineless jellyfish, you
know, and they are the reason Sturgis, Thane Cesar, and the truth about
9/11 is unknown...not even shown! I much prefer the "get this piece of
shit the fuck outta here" people, those that exist of them, halleluja for
common sense. This wonderful logical solid group also is banning Popular
Mechanics, Scientific American, Penn & Teller, Michael Shermer, ASCE, and
any other piece o shit that takes money to lie about 9/11, JFK, RFK or any
other republican murder. The "forgive everybody people" routinely forgive
murderers, assaulters...you name it, they forgive it...in the name of
Jesus. It has made a routine establishment of jail ministries...they know
the quickest path to freedom...claim Jesus and get forgiven by mindless
spineless forgive even the most frequently violent, Christian people.
So many of the things we see with the secret thought-cam net are similar
to nazism, and we have to remember that one of the worst things about
living in this time is that we are very shortly on the heels of WW2 and
the rise of Nazism. It was only 60-70 years ago that people embraced the
Nazi ideal, and philosophy of Hitler. Less than a century has passed since
large numbers of people casually embraced Nazism. And things are no
different today. Religion and racism are just as popular as ever if not
more so. All the ingredients, secrecy, no full democracy, no free info,
etc are all in place for similar events, and the rise of Bush jr and
Swartzenegger is about as close as I think ever has been to a repeat of
the rise of Hitler. Bush jr's grandfather was punished for working with
Fritz Thiessan the main financier of Hitler, and Swartzenegger's father
was in the Gestapo. It seems clear that Arnold probably would have
followed in his father's footsteps and been a member of the German high
command, in the gestapo like his dad. Picture the show and tell for the
young Arnold...some children: "my dad is a salesman", "my dad is a scientist"...arnold: "my dad
systematically kills thousands of jewish people and political prisoners using
zyklon B gas every day"....other kids:"oh". Did Arnold's dad hunt down Jewish people? I think we need to ask ourselves that, and take another look at the videos of what the gestapo did for a living every day at the office. There are republicans whose grandfathers
did not work with the Nazis, and whose fathers were not in the gestapo,
but...curiously...they don't get the popular support and funding the
Bushes and Swartzenegger appear to get. Swartzenegger, whose father probably went door to door asking "is your father home? We want to talk to him." taking the Jewish men of Germany and removing them forever from their families. And ofcourse Swartzenegger publically supports Bush (as he did at the Republican convention), and therefore the 9/11 mass murder. And what we see is a large amount
of dog-eat-dog kind of behavior by those victims of the evil regime,
Jewish people called these people "Quizzlings", those who sold out other
Jewish people who idiotically trusted them by secretly working with the
Nazis. The same exact characteristics are true today in the age old battle of conservatives and liberals.
It's amazing to me, that of all the wealthy people who have died, none
have done anything extraordinary to expose the truth about Michael Pupin,
seeing and hearing thought. All it would take to make a beautiful gesture
to the humans and future of earth, is perhaps $100,000, maybe even
less...perhaps as little as $10,000....for many wealthy people that is
nothing. But yet none, to my knowledge have done this: simply producing a
DVD, maybe in their final years, that tells the story of Pupin, hearing
thought, how everybody sees thought, the history of all the secrets, and
then produce 10,000-100,000...maybe perhaps 1 million, 10 million DVDs,
and pay for enough postage to cover the postage cost for the year the
person would definitely be dead by, and give an attourney or trusted
employee or friend the instruction to bulk mail those DVDs [it would be
interesting...that evil people in the government would no doubt swoop down
and confiscate them all]. Perhaps a court case could be raised, using
evidence of government confiscation of the person's DVDs. Perhaps people
could be paid to deliver the DVDs door to door, or at supermarkets. In
particular, that none of those people, a good example is Carl Sagan,
perhaps JFK or RFK, MLK, John Lennon, could have reached many excluded
with the truth about the included, about Pupin, ... come to think of
it...many insiders could have and most definitely should have warned John
Lennon about Chapman who had to have been a focus of attention in the thought-cam net in the weeks preceeding the murder...I find this same negligence...I am surrounded by evil paid for
positioned people...but there is not one communication to me...to watch
out...the person in the car is paid to do something...the person next to
you is going to do something they are paid to do, etc...not one message
comes to me or any other fine liberals. Isn't it surprising that no other
people saw or see fit to tell the truth about Pupin, hearing thought, the
massive secrets and lies in their final years as a gift to the people and
future of earth? It's very selfish and unthinking that they don't, and
here, I am doing this publically on the Internet for free in what is left
of my youth.
Is there any question that Republicans are the party that plays with
matches? That starts violence? And if you are a person that is thinking
that we need to make the earth safe, and should not be reckless, you
should not vote for the Republicans. The Republicans, like any bully, feel
no hesitation to assault some person without the slightest
provocation...many times they manufacture weak excuses for provocation,
they did 9/11, they invaded afghan and iraq, completely unprovoked, and
they have no program to stop violence, Bush jr entertained the idea of
using nuclear weapons...all of this destabilizes the planet, and opens the
door to planetary destruction. Look at the planet before the rise of
Hitler...there was peace, although there was poverty and starvation, but
Hitler was the primary cause of millions of murders and the choas that
destroyed many people, buildings, artifacts of history, etc. it was pure
idiocy, and reckless, reckless decision making on the part of people,
mainly people in Germany. Now it seems that a similar incredibly reckless
phenomenon has happened in the USA. Why won't the people ever learn? It's
amazing. You can't keep electing first strike violent people...it's
dangerous to the future existence of life on earth. We need to stop
violence, not start it up. Electing republicans is clearly pouring gas on
an already out of control fire of violence that the forces of stop
violence can't control...I mean we can't even see the murderers of many of
these people...there is not even a photo of them...Andrew O, Tom E, the
9/11 killers, and thousands of others.
This thing with Kevin Barrett is unbelievable. Here, just for questioning
the official 9/11 story, 60 state legislators are calling for him to be
fired...I mean that is gross...in particular because Barrett is telling
the truth. It's like a herd of SS. That is so gross the way they are
trying to power through a big lie. Why do people vote for those people?
And here, this is Wisconsin of all places, maybe I could expect that kind
of nazistic conformity in the old south, but in Wisconsin? That is
frightening. How proud the honest should be of the U of Wisconsin for standing up to these big
time fascist liars. That is my view too of people like Fetzer, Steven
Jones, all the 9/11 people...it's really an amazing thing they are doing
and my support and thanks goes out to them.
Here are more people working to protect the killers of the 3000 victims of
9/11:
FR Greening, a Canadian chemist,
Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University
Professors,
Michael Newman of NIST (and no doubt most of the NIST employees, like
Controlled Demolition. In fact, that Controlled Demolition was used to
clean up 9/11 proves that they were in on the demolition because whoever
does the cleanup is going to see evidence of cutter charges, etc. Then,
that controlled demolition did the clean up on Oklahoma city, is strong
evidence that they were hired by some part of the US government to do the Oklahoma city explosions, probably
the military, which is like a secondary government in the USA...I shit you
not, they operate on their own, nobody can stop them because ofcourse,
they have all the weapons. All this should show people that the Pupin
network is out of control...it needs to be exposed, before more mass
murders are coordinated by this huge-ass murderous criminal group in the
US military [and clearly in the offensive...they can hardly be called
defense...industry])
Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican
http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1439.cfm
Fetzer says in a recent video that Judy Wood may have lost her job for
telling the truth about 9/11. I think the time is coming when the honest
and educated are in power and the liars and antiscience are in the
minority, probably with the arrival of more videos, walking robots, ...
the robots will walk out and then the violent will walk in to prison
probably. One of Wood's students, who was heavily involved in exposing the
truth about 9/11 was apparently murdered, Michael Zebuhr,
http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Michael.html and somehow,
despite seeing thought, and inside people's houses, the killer has not and
probably will not be captured, or even identified as far as I can gleen
from the Internet. That is fucking scary. The person robbed his mom who
didn't resist and then just shot Zebuhr twice. It looks like Steven Jones
was banned from teaching in the classroom...this is unbelievable:
http://www.rense.com/general73/ZZIBN.HTM
Wood has an informative page at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com
The beam weapons, basically these are photon guns (and electron,
antiproton guns perhaps), and I think we should show a simple CO2 laser
chopping up a piece of meat, metal, etc...just to educate the public about
the reality of this scientific advance. Check out the video at:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html and how a large laser is
used to destroy missiles.
Is you search for laser weapon in video.google.com, here is a vid:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2160832135608196496&q=laser+weapon&hl=en
Clearly this laser, from powerlabs.org, whose size or kind is not
explained, would be a nasty beam to be in front of. This is a CO2 laser.
http://www.powerlabs.org/laser.htm
11/01/06
Another symbolic Star Wars scene that must relate to a secret practice
among the included is when Obi Wan goes into the archive to verify that
Anakin Skywalker killed the young Jedi children, the so-called younglings.
This must be a common practice among included, to verify the monetary
transaction, or even money-free promise, and in particular any violence
that a person has done...to see for themselves, as many of us like to do,
even when we trust those who tell us the news.
11/02/06
There should be another 9/11 commission, under a Democratic president.
David Ray Griffen suggests that somebody like Jimmy Carter should chair
it, but I think I would feel better, and my vote goes to Griffen
himself, Jim Fetzer, and Steven Jones chairing and running a second 9/11
commission, because unlike Carter, in terms of 9/11, they are already
proven commodoties. We can't be sure people like Carter would explain in
the detail that Griffen, Fetzer, Jones, vonKleist, Avery, etc already
have. And so I would vote for and expect that a second 9/11 report would then be published that describes all
the details uncovered by this new second commission.
I was thinking, and it's interesting, I have to ask, in the battle of what
is and what is not sane: how sane is violence? Is doing a first degree
unprovoked murder a sane choice? Is assaulting some innocent person sane?
is that a sane sound logical choice? How about antisexuality...is that
sane? Is the detest for nude images, the view that the nude human body
should be kept secret...is that sane? That sex should be secret, etc. is
that a sane logical philosophy? How about religion...is that sane? Is it
sane to preach that Jesus split 1 loaf into 10? Is it sane to forbid
drawings of Muhommed? The more I think about it, the more I think,
violence, antisexuality and religion...the foundations of much of our
modern society are far from having a sane, sound, logical basis and
foundation.
I'll tell you what is disrepectful to our troops, and all humanity, is
sending then into Iraq to be killed for no reason at all, that is a
disgrace to all humans. I can see paying people in police to arrest a
violent person, but invading Iraq is ridiculous. Bush did 9/11, that is
clear, and even beyond that, there are no WMDs in Iraq which proves even
the secondary reason to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation, false. How about
letting those people quit? Now that is disrepectful to human decency and
the most basic of human rights. Can you imagine, you work at Walmart, and
decide to quit, and they haul you off to prison for disobeying an order,
for going awol, etc....it's forced labor, and it absolutely has to stop.
It's a violation of the most basic principles of human rights.
As an aside, you know what stinks? John Kerry's voting record. How he
supported the draft (I just read this today. It's another example of how
Kerry's intuition is usually wrong. We need to move to people being able
to quit the army at any time, moving into the future), how he, like
Hillary Clinton, supported the Iraq invasion, how he sees no value in the
moon land, we need leaders with vision, and it's not personal, its only
logical. Then how even though Kerry served in Vietnam (which to me, the
smart choice was made by people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
who dodged the draft), he back peddles and has a jellyfish spine when it
comes to his recent comment about people staying in college to avoid
Iraq...which is the most trivial statement...the entire thing is like
some...ridiculous powder puff bunch of cloud blowing material...why don't
they stand up and say...this occupation in Iraq is wrong, the invasion of
Afghanistan was wrong, and Bush and the republicans did 9/11...40% of
Americans know it. Here the people in Iraq are being used as pawns to die
for Bush, Cheney and these uber-wealthy defense industry companies and
owners....they care nothing for a human life, but we are to believe that
they are respectful of our military and troops? I mean that's shocking.
Here they send these kids to kill and die for them, and that is respect?
While they sit back in their powder-puff billion dollar lives puffing
cigars and cognac watching it all in their secret camera thought network
like some sick-ass war movie.
With these redneck yokels who constantly assault the american public with
lasers, and other secret technology. Should they be jailed? Probably. You
know, maybe not forever, but probably for some time. But what I think is
the most important thing is just showing the goddamn public...just show
them...you know also, with 9/11...maybe Bush and the organizers will be
protected by the first ammendment, and popular support for free speech,
but at least, as a bare minimum show the public...show them how Robertson
and Falwell supported doing 9/11, show them how Bush and Cheney made 9/11
happen...etc...show them and tell them how thousands of criminal people,
mostly white males, are paid by our tax money to sit and watch the public,
occassionally zapping them to make an eye muscle twitch, or to make them
itch their nose, or to beam bad suggestions onto their heads....that is
the most important thing of all...to show and tell the
public...then...whether those people are free to continue their activity,
jailed, fined, whatever...it matters less to me than the fact that the
public got to see, halleluja, the public finally got to see, and now the
issue is not trying to show them, but how do they feel about such things
as doing 9/11, zapping people in their homes, etc.? Finally the furor
first family, the Bushes will be recognized for all of their murders...and
people will truly know their vast accomplishments, in addition to those of
the republicans, and true credit will be given to all those conservatives
who have secretly worked overtime behind the scenes in the secret pupin
camera net, never receiving the credit due them, even by fellow supporters
in the excluded. These muscle movers, eye flickers, make-you-itch people,
microwave people need to be identified, they need to be exposed, they need
to be punished...or else...why would they ever stop committing violent
crime after violent crime? I am simply saying...I think we can all
agree...that exposing them...showing the excluded, and explaining the
pupin technology is really the first step to work on, on the long, dull,
frightening and torturous journey to actually seeing and jailing them.
These beamers have to know they have it coming. They know what awaits them
if ever caught.
I think we can expect another mass murder. Also, Osama
bin Laden may already be in custody, and like the Iran hostage release,
the republicans are waiting to spring him out right before an election, to
trick the excluded. Again, Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. The
republicans planned 9/11 for perhaps a full year in advance. They planted
explosives in WTC 1,2, and 7 (possibly even the Pentagon) weeks before as
many employees in the WTC have testified, and Securacom/Stratasec was/is
run by Marvin Bush and Wort Walker...that is some choice for security. and
on and on the evidence is clear, but the public...appears ... well 40% or
something think the Bush and the republicans knew about 9/11, but still
even that is ridiculous...any search of the Internet should provide ample
evidence...and for example....any David Ray Griffen video or Jim Fetzer
video ... Loose Change...will explain in fine detail, with surprisingly
very little doubt or speculation...what really happened on 9/11. The
physical evidence tells it all. The latest revelation is from Fetzer who
shows how these twisted evil bastards in the Pentagon burned some garbage
or something in some dumpsters...and it's obvious...the photos show it
clearly. This dumpster thing is evidence of how stupid these 9/11 plotters
are, that and the controlled demolition of the 3 WTCs, and everywhere is
nothing but gaping holes in their 9/11 story. Lucky for them, and the only
thing that is saving them appears to be that the average person in the
public is as equally stupid as they are...which I can't understand. This
was the big problem in Nazi Germany, as stupid as the Nazi leaders were,
the people were just as stupid and failed to stop the rise of Hitler
believing everything out of his mouth, despite obvious evidence of
dishonesty.
As a prediction, the republicans will go down, if they go down, as
Goebbells and the Nazis did, denying that anything is wrong until the end.
Remember Goebbells standing in the tank factory saying..."do you want more
total radical war!" and the crowd cheering....even as the allies were
entering Germany unslowed in any way, and it was clear that the end was
near. And this is my prediction for 9/11, the Bushes...hopefully, if the
truth, in particular about Pupin gets exposed, and none too early I might
add. In other words, they are not going to make any effort to adjust their
9/11 story...it seems doubtful, but instead that they will go to the end
with their established lie. Although Norad changed their story 3 times.
One thing that is interesting that nobody but me appears to admit is that
red shifted light is not strictly caused by Doppler shift alone, that
light can be red-shifted by other phenomena. This is an establish fact,
proven by Raman. Light can be red-shifted because of interaction with
atoms. Even if that is not the explanation for the red-shift of other
stars...why won't they accept and admit that there is at least one other
phenomenon that changes the frequency of light besides Doppler shift? I
think, currently, the most likely cause of the red-shift of distant
galaxies....another point rarely mentioned...that this red-shift property
of galaxies doesn't really apply to galaxies relatively close to us, which
may be blue-shifted (like M31). So I think currently that this red-shift
is due to gravitational stretching of light beams. Interestingly enough,
this is one of the few explanations that can actual accomodate the
galaxies Arp claims to be physically connected, but yet have different
red-shifts. We see the way galaxies are stretched around a large mass...I
find it hard to believe that light bent from a large mass would not be
stretched out and lowered in frequency. And if true this leaves us with an
interesting interpretation of the distance of galaxies. It says, that the
distance should be judged more by size than by Doppler shift. It says that
Doppler shift may not be an accurate measure of distance, but is more a
measure of how much light has been bent. So, in someway, on average, the
more bent, the more red-shifted, probably the more distant. It's leaves us
on an uncertain ground. In particular, there are examples where a highly
red shifted galaxy is the same size and appears to interact with galaxies
with less red-shift, and chances are that light from that galaxy is bent
from its neighboring galaxy, and we are actually seeing the galaxy in a
different position than it actually is. Light is somewhat tricky in that
way, that where we see something might not be where it actually is. But
the most awesome aspect of this find if true, and we need to perform many
experiments to determine if gravitational bending light also changes light
frequency to find if this really is what is happening, is that the
universe is most likely much larger than even the farthest galaxies we
see, and that those galaxies are no different from any around us (in other
words that quasars are probably just regular galaxies, and any apparent
differences need to be explored and explained). So I find that an amazing
truth, if true, that the universe is infinite in size and matter.
There is a ratio of space to matter in the universe. I don't know what it
is, but there is clearly far more space than matter. I would put this
ratio at about, just completely guessing and estimating at, 1 million to
1. In other words there are 1 million photon sized spaces to each photon.
Why has nobody ever mentioned this before? It is a simple fact, but yet,
no matter to space ratio has ever been discussed. I have read that a ratio
of elements has been estimated, with most elements being H, He, but why no
ratio of space to matter? I think because people shockingly cannot grasp
the idea of a photon as a piece of matter and the base piece of matter of
all matter. If a photon is matter then it causes an interesting
debate...because photons do not appear to follow Newton's laws with the
current gravitational constant. I don't know, I mean...I suppose possibly
things should be measured in number of photons instead of grams. I think
it may be possible that photons do obey Newton's laws, but I can't get the
model to work correctly yet. Some interesting things happen if photons do
obey Newton's law/equation. (Possibly some part of the equation needs to
be modified, certainly the use of grams instead of photons). For example,
a beam of photons might orbit a dense matter...although this has never
been observed. I think because it takes a very very large matter to even
bend a photon from its direction. But yet, if photons are the basis of all
atoms, clearly they are being bent...maybe the distance between photons is
what causes them to change direction, if it is very small. Clearly atoms
absorb and emit photons all the time. Photons get stuck in atoms, and so
therefore are clearly changing direction. That is one interesting aspect,
if photons obey Newton's equation, then they change velocity, and this has
never been observed. We have never seen beams of light slow down or speed
up, but then, we have never looked for that, and measuring such a thing,
might not be easy. The only evidence of photons changing velocity that I
am aware of is photon reflection. (Some might argue that photons/light in
water slows down and then speeds back up upon exiting). This is a classic
question that will perhaps be around for awhile: When light reflects (for
example off a mirror), do the photons come to a complete stop, that is a
velocity of 0m/s, before quickly returning to their usual speed of 3e8m/s
or do they only rotate 180 degrees around some particle(s) and never lose
their usual velocity? Evidence for stopping and quickly accelerating comes
from water drops into a pool of water, with photons the action-reaction
may be even more perfectly elastic. But yet, photons may never stop and
orbit 180 degrees, although it is unlikely in some people's minds that a
photon would exit at exactly 180 degrees, why not some other angle? The
problem is that we can't see inside the atom, so we don't know from visual
inspection. The light slowing in water is interesting, if it really is
slowing, is it because of gravity? Are the photons in the water slowing
the photons passing through, but yet, not changing their direction? (in an any angle other than the index of refraction)
Now in terms of exposing the work of Pupin, and hearing thought. We ought
to start with the video provided to the pulbic by UC Berkeley employee Dr
Yang Dan.
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=834975715926377089&q=yang+dan&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=834975715926377089&q=yang+dan&hl=en
Ive said it before, but its true:
recipe
instant asshole: just add secret camera thought network.
it seems to be the rule and not the exception, although there are
exceptions, at least I guess, since none of us excluded really know for
sure who has vid in their eyes and who doesn't.
Recently, some people finally succeeded at making the largest inert gas,
element 118, and it rapidly collapsed. It is interesting that it does not
attain an inert quality of very long half life, but maybe because it is
unstable to begin with. Again, one thing I think is interesting, is that
some of these atoms, when made, last for milliseconds, but many, like
Plutonium while not occuring naturally (as far as I know) may last for
centuries once made. That is kind of interesting. In my opinion, a
radioactive atom is a perfect battery, as long as the photons, helium
nuclei and electrons can be contained to a small volume. One key thing is
how to convert the photons emitted directly into electrical current
without having to heat water to move a piston/dynamo to generate eletricity. We can only guess as to
what has been found in a century of secret research on an international
scale.
It's tough to know what being in the included network is like. For
example, I think it must be a thrill for the very dumb to be able to
twitch somebody's eye and know that they are moving a famous person's eye.
You know, like some poor famous popular person, who millions of people
watch. Wealthy people pay these scum bag security camera-thought net
technicians, and maybe form a line, paying some absurd amount, $1000/a
zap, just to make a celebrity itch their nose (using these hidden lasers),
or to twitch their muscle...it must be a thrill for them, to be
interacting with a famous person (albeit in the most annoying way), in
particular for excluded people like myself, when the victim can't see them
and can't possibly know their scummy identity. Mostly the scummy admins of
the cam-net do the beaming at the command of their bosses, who get money
from the assistants of wealthy crapulent minded people. Mainly for
political propagandizing. There they can see, perhaps beamed onto their
eyes or on an LCD screen...how they press the button and the celebrity
scratches their nose...and they clap and laugh...probably many rich old
people engage in this type of activity. Mostly thought, probably these are
people we fund in what was once the US military, but now has become a
grotesque secret criminal organiztion, that watches people without their
knowledge, zaps them, watches their thoughts, etc. secretly develops the
technology Pupin should be credited as being the first to invent.
11/03/06
Ofcourse we must always remember, the simple truth, that what stinks more
than John Kerry's voting record, is the way the republicans did 9/11.
When hiring people, my advice is to check these things in the secret
cam-thought net routinely:
-violence: do they have a history of violence?
-advocates of violence: are they believers, supporters, advocates of
violence?
-rude: do they have a history of being rude to nice people?
-psychologers: this one is confusing, but let me explain as best as
possible. Are they people who routinely accuse people of being psycho,
insane, nuts, nut-job, nutter, wacko, weird, kookoo, etc (schitzo is not
used as often). Because think of yourself being labeled this way, do you
honestly think you will be able to stop the rumor by using logic? I think
most of us understand that logic is not going to persuade people who
believe a rumor of insanity. It's similar to nazism, and witchcraft,
because, if somebody claimed you were a witch in 1600, you might be
tortured and forced to confess, turn in your family and friends, etc. if
enough people believed it. Even though, now, we understand that witchcraft
is not a real phenomenon, most of us, enough to stop a person from being
prosecuted for witchcraft. Some important people must have stood up in the
past against charges of witchcraft (and laws against blasphomy)...and they were wealthy, influential
enough to not be a victim of the inevitable accusations of witchcraft that
would be cast on anybody who questioned the popular opinion. Here is a
wonderful observation...do you know that those people who call everybody
psycho, etc. ofcourse know nothing about the theory of psychology...they
don't know anything about the criteria of determining if somebody suffers
from psychosis, they know nothing about the history of psychology, or
psychology as a "science"...they are not big followers of Freud and have
probably never heard of Pinel. What they understand is the stigma of
psychology, the power of labeling somebody with a psychological disease. A
similar phenomenon is seen in religions. Most religious people don't
really know anything about Jesus, they don't even know he was Jewish and a
believer in Judeism, Islamic people don't know about history, etc.
Religious people only know that everybody is doing religion, that
everybody has to go to a church, temple, synogogue or mosque every 7 or
whatever earth rotations. They know they have to, in order to be accepted,
to have job opportunities, to have social connections. But do they believe
that Jesus split 1 loaf into 7? Maybe some do, but probably many didn't
know that claim was even ever made. It's funny in some ways the stories in
religion, but also sad. In the polytheism before Christianity, people used
to sacrifice virgin females...kill them with no arrest of the murderer, no anything...no
punishment...and then watch how the victim fell and try to make
predictions about the future from the victim's position...they tell
stories of talking birds, and all kinds of obviously false things...people
raising the dead is a popular tale. It's funny because the stories are
ridiculously false and obvious lies, but sad because so many believe them.
-antisexuals: there is nothing worse then sour-puss antisexuals who preach
constantly against those sexuals or sexual-wannabees, constantly
advocating abstanence and monogomy, celebrating HIV, they want everybody
to have a sexless or boring sex life like they do, they are jealous if
anybody is enjoying physical pleasure while they cant. To them, females
are whores, sluts, males are fags and gay. It's interesting because
sexuality is nonviolent (I view sexual violence as a subset of violence,
but it can be argued to be a subset of sexuality), and healthy. These
people are callous, cold, rude, hostile, intolerant, unfeeling,
insensitive. It's interesting why they take such an interest in the sex
lives of other people...most people would allow a human to make their own
choices...their sexual choices would not seem important..I know they don't
to me. I am more interested in the content of their values and opinions.
Who with and how they have sex is interesting, but it makes little
difference to me, where it is of absolute upmost importance to these a/s
people. There is a war on pleasure, and its a hysterical illogical war
that runs over anybody in the way, ... and it has nothing to do with
stopping violence (or else wouldn't people clearly make a distinction
between the violent and nonviolent offenders, sexual or otherwise, instead
of grouping them all together into one group? wouldn't there be a war on
violence? wouldn't there be "stop violence" groups? a registry of violent
offenders?), its main goal is stopping pleasure.
-antiscience ofcourse, if you are an antiscientist, you probably want to
hire these people, but if a science lover, it can't possibly help. There
are some who claim...this is a way to reach into the antiscience movement,
and make converts, but I think this is a weak claim...the truth is more
like a trojan horse that is looking to take down science.
-religious: see above with psychology. With so many religious, I think
this may be less important than ofcourse violent, advocate of violence,
rude, psy, a/s, antisci ... if they have good scores on all of those, they
probably will be relatively fine.
I was on the phone, and the wealthy elitist republican 9/11 murder group,
connect me to a black guy who clucks out "koo koo" (its a third
interval...or what I would define as an 5:1 interval ... traditionally used
to imply that a person has a mental disease). The repubs will pick a
useful sell-out..."kookoo" coming from a white male is not as effective as
"kookoo" coming from a non-white, in particular a liberal. This is the
name of the sell-out game...mostly the repubs pay big bucks (although gee
where is the news story and hidden video to explain this to the public?) to so-called liberals to sell
out their "friends", and/or fellow-liberals. This is why Shermer "debunks"
the 9/11-truth, why Sheehan speaks out against homosexuality, etc. For
this quick-pay to be possible, think about it, they have to have some kind
of secret accounts...I mean I doubt they have these payments directly
debitted from their official person accounts. They have to have secret
credit card accounts perhaps, in a secret money transfer system...but then
even the recipiant of the bribe has to have a secret account. None of
their activity can be trackable by excluded investigators. It's really
amazing...that some kind of thought-network secret transaction
multi-trillion dollar system has to exist outside of the common person's
system. Perhaps Visa/MC are involved, or perhaps each bank has "covert"
accounts, or somehow .,...I guess the only thing that is needed for a
really slimmed down system is to cover up the nature of the transaction. A
stool pidgeon gets a payment from "John Doe Inc" (for this each payer has
to set up a business front to hide their name). More likely, these
transactions never appear on any public balance statement, which implies
that there are 2 systems of "books", the public records and the secret
mind-net records. Is there then "secret account" customer service? Probably this is done on the thought net. And I thought more about it, and I encounter these paid
for insulters and propaganders all the time, and I came up with some
creative ideas and approaches:
1: try to get info about the pupin net out of them...under pressure they
may spill some info, mostly you will get "I don't know what yer talking
about", "Im sorry", lots of "I'm sorry", and "I don't know what you mean".
The key is not to stop and explain, but to continue with more questions.
Here are some:
a) How much were you paid to say that?
b) Who paid you to say that? How is it credited to you? Is it in yer checking account or some secret account?
c) How old were you when you were allowed to hear?
d) Who let you in?
e) Was it yer dad?
f) Did yer mom tell you about hearing thought?
g) Was it Pupin at Columbia who first saw thought?
h) Is there a screen in our mind in addition to the screen we see what
our eyes sees with?
and on and on...
I doubt you will get any answers, and you know...don't waste yer time,
but remember, there is nothing they can do, and you can't be fired from
yer job because you don't work with them.
i) Why did you take money to sell out the truth?
2: try to convert them
a) Why don't you stop torture in the psychiatric hospitals?
b) Don't those people deserve the right to a trial?
c) Did you know that the first people gassed by the Nazis were in
psychiatric hospitals?
d) are you evolutionist or creationist?
e) do you know we do not even have a history of science movie for the
large screen?
f) Did you know Jesus never did anything in science? Pliny wrote an
encyclopedia around the same time.
g) Do you think Jesus broke 1 loaf of bread into 7?
h) do you think Jesus rose from the dead?
i) Did you know Jesus was a follower of Judaism?
1) yeah, he is quoted as saying "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" god, god
, why have you forsaken me?...he was calling out to the god of
Judeism, because he was a follower of Judeism at the time of his
death.
and so on...turn them on to science and a religion free life
j) do you go to a church?
1) you know I don't think people need to go to church, because its so
arrogant for people to claim to know what a god wants...how do they
know a god wants us to go to a church every 7 days? Are they gods? Are
they so important that they can understand what a god wants? and that
a god wants us to go to a church, or that a bible written by people is
exactly what the god said?
3: advertise good messages
a. Bush knocked down the towers!
b. decriminalize it!
c. no more prohibition!
d. stop the violence yo! or stv bee!
e. no moa drug woa
f. I'll see you later ... on the moon!
g. long live the walking robot servants!
h. keep sex legal!
and so on, but remember...if you are a person who can explain stuff like
that...then you are valuable and should not waste time on paid for,
sell-out, nazi thought-cam net scum...you have a life of your own...but if
you have a second...why not do something creative?
Speaking of people locked in psychiatric hospitals and never given a
chance at a trial, do you know I thought more about this, and I encourage
you to too. Do you know that this means, that they are presumed to be
guilty? Yes, whatever the claim is...whatever law they are claimed to have
violated...since there is no trial to determine from evidence if they are
guilty or not guilty...they are basically presumed to be guilty. If you
are locked in a psychiatric hospital...for example, just pulled
over...just pulled off a train...whatever...you will never have a chance
to prove your innocense in a court of law. And abuse of this...people in
police just arresting people, probably is what led to the first right to
trial. Even though many people are only locked in psychiatric hospitals
for 72 hours, many times, they didn't violate any law, and as I said, if
innocent of any wrong doing, it will never be proven in a court of law,
they are presumed to be guilty. And that's why the 72 hour law,
technically, and my vote is against it, is a violation of the principle of
the right to trial for all those incarcerated. My view is that the
psychiatric system needs to be divided into those who are lawful but can
use voluntary assistence in their home, a shelter, or on the street and
those who are unlawful and may consent to free voluntary treatment from
prison while serving time for their crime.
Saw a great movie
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en
and it raises the point: any time one race of people occupies another race
it never works out. The Soviets occupying the mainly arab nation of
Afghanistan was wrong and failed, and the same is true with the US
occupation. It failed for France and the USA in Vietnam. Eventually the
indigenous people are united by race, language, and religion against the
foreign occupiers, rarely is there acceptance. I mean I see nothing wrong with funding like-minded people of any race, and perhaps even giving them weapons to defend themselves, certainly pproviding pro-full-democracy and stop violence people with all info (and for the most part I am for full free info for all people...but I think perhaps restrictions such as delays for repeat violent offenders). That is yet one more reason
why it was stupid to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, and like a
movie that keeps playing over and over, sure enough, the indigenous people
there hate the occupiers, and rally around ousting them out of what they
consider to be their homeland. Only when the soviets left, did this
battle end and their attention turn to other issues. The issue of foreign
occupiers always seems to be the top of the list for an occupied people.
The republicans claim that they are not there to occupy but simply until a
democratic government can rule, but I think the way they made the
pipeline, and guard the oil, that they don't want to leave that to a
native government, in particular one whose rulers may change thru
democratic election. And then probably, we will see what happened with
Iran, a democratic leader will rise who basically nationalizes the oil,
takes it back, pours the proceeds back into the people, into the
infrastructure of the cities, and everything will be back to the way it
was before the US invasion, with the exception of a representative
democracy instead of a dictatorship. But even a representative democracy
in some of the fanatically Islamic nations can fall to a dictatorship, and
Iran is a perfect example of that. The CIA world factbook lists Iran as a
theocratic republic and Saudi Arabia as a monarchy. Isn't it interesting
in this video how these fanatical islamic people were the allies of the
republicans then, but now are the patsies for 9/11 and the manufactured
villian.
There is something wrong when a person that wants sex does not even have
sex once a year. In my view that is a recipe for destruction. First lets
work to keep sex legal, our survival depends on it. Beyond that, I am
talking about even oral sex, anal, or mast. Things that for sure will not result
in preg. And while on the topic, people should answer the pregnancy
question before doing anything sexual in my opinion. They ought to have an
answer at the ready. For example, are they chosing abstenance (although
even then I would think of a backup. ), is the female going to be required
to use the morning-before or morning-after pill? is the male going to be
required to use a condom or pill (soon despite the a/s, this pill may
reach the open drug market)? And then...is oral seks, anal sex or hand mast a
possibility? since that issue is not related to the all important
pregnancy...although some people may feel that the more sexual they are
with other people, the less people will be interested in having a
monogomous relationship with them when they do, if ever, decide to go for
pregnancy. For me, as I said, a society that believes young people who
want to enjoy physical pleasure consentually with other young people, as
being some how wrong is one barbaric society, that is callous, cold,
unfeeling, and produces a society of frustrated frigid hostile humans in
my opinion. There is no good reason for people to stave off physical
affection because of worry of being labeled a slut, whore, or promiscuous,
in my view...we need to dismantle those labels, and paradigms, and accept
that nonsex affection is fine between any number of people, and regular
sex, perhaps just pregnant-free sex (with a pill, oral, or mast), perhaps
once a month is more healthy and natural than going without for those who
want to feel physical pleasure. I can imagine a female that uses the
morning after pill, or only kisses, cuddles, or masts other people and is
masted, and to me, I can't imagine there being anything remotely wrong
about that, or that the value of the person is any less. There are many
issues, and if it wasn't such an controversial topic I would probably
explore those more. For example, I think going into sex without figuring
out what to do about pregnancy while commonplace is not a good idea. For
example, even if the pregnancy issue is solved, there should be a backup
plan in the event of pregnancy, I myself have only abstractly formed one
for myself which is basically a pledge to make sure the child has enough
to eat, a place to sleep, until 18 and probably beyond. But, the best idea
is to be prepared for no-chance-of-preg sex, and also have a complete plan
for the aftermath of planned preg sex, which includes all financial
responsibilities and other requirements into the far future. So many
people just stumble into pregnancy, or deny themselves until after
marriage, and I think both are not the best plans of life.
Thinking more about those who are included, many young people are
included, and this shows that they must be being included at a young age,
before 18. Perhaps they are included from birth. Perhaps by the age they
understand language the camera-thought beaming on their brain system is
explained to them. But one key I think, and I am guessing, is that the
parents have to be native to the area for at least 1 generation, and in
particular they have to attend a Christian (or Judeo) church on a weekly
basis. And probably through the Jesus cult church is how the most people
are included. The single qualifying criteria is that they have to pay lip
service to, and openly pledge allegiance to the cult leader Jesus, beyond
that they can't badmouth the cult leader, and they have to keep the
thought network an absolute secret. And when I say secret, I mean, a
secret that goes beyond family ties even, a secret that if revealed might
result in their being murdered.
I simply think that this hearing thought, beaming vids on people's heads
ought to be made public, as it should have been in 1910. It's harmless,
and it's like the telephone, or computer. It's a hassle to deny it, to
work around it, to have to announce outloud one's thoughts when most
people already know. At the most basic level, simply explaining the
technology, even though most people might not have access to it, then the
incessant annoying lying and denial can be reduced. The pupin secret is
probably the number one divider of people, the number cause of murder,
suicide, theft, murderers never being caught or even identified, etc.
11/05/06
I saw "Enemy of the State" which is refered to by John Hankey, and it is really a positive movie, and a good starter to understanding the current state of technology, although it only scratches the surface. There are many references to me, like a person is murdered in Syracuse, Hackman sez "take a poke at me" (we often do we invite people to assault us, ok there were some plot flaws or unlikely scenarios, but for the info given to the audience I think they can be overlooked). It's made by Jerry Bruckheimer, with Will Smith, Gene Hackman, John Voight, Lisa Bonet, Jack Black, who all are probably somewhat liberal. Smith says the line "those g'damn rightists" or something. Again, I think the right-left paradigm is not any good since there are many issues and not everything can be separated by 1 bit, but generally, the left are democrats, intellectuals and the right are republicans, religious. I would have taken the plot in a different direction, for example, taking the copy of the video of the murder (which is a very clever idea, a motion-detected nature film captures a murder...like the Rodney King video, there are increasing numbers of videos, unlike the Zapruter [also mentioned in this film], Enyart films, the Pentagon gas station video, that can't all be confiscated by crooked criminals in the US government) to media contacts...television, and finding that they won't play the video, and newspapers, perhaps being told candidly that the media is all part of the network and has already been corrupted years ago. Hinting at the scale of this survalience thought-hearing network. As I said they only scratch the surface of surveillance, but at one point towards the end Voight says (paraphrasing, although perhaps there is some important info in this sentence, since it is a powerful truth line) "the only place that is still private is the inside of your head, and maybe that's the best thing", and ofcourse, that is such a basic point the public needs to figure out, that thought can be seen, heard, and sent back onto a brain, and then....not since 10 years ago, not since 20, 30, 40 years ago...not since the 60s, the 50s, or even the 40s...but since the 20s! since 1910...I mean it's something to comprehend. It was somewhat a false message, the message that is represented through Hackman, because it's clear that nobody, but nobody escapes surveillance...most people can't control their thoughts (as an aside it has to be funny to hear the thoughts of the big bullshitters Bush and Blair giving their propaganda speeches...we tend to think of exactly what we dont want to...for example...probably Blair will be saying..."and it's imperative that we continue the challanges posed by terrorism..." while his thoughts are "Bush did 911...Bushy did 911 Bushy Bushy ... did...911...Bush...did...." etc...perhaps even beamed there by some people, although wealthy people, and powerful people can probably stop or control many of the images and sounds being beamed on them, unlike most of us poor powerless people, but he must think of memories that he probably would rather supress but can't.) So this view of the character Hackman plays is very unlikely. A better "good person" would have been a team of people out to stop homicide, a group that exists within the government. I would have played more of that spy vs spy aspect, between the two larger groups. Because the only hope for the stop violent, the honest, etc. is the half of the government against murder, basically the democrats...but you can see, that this group is so spineless, is so corrupted, is so weak that it is virtually like not having anybody there at all, or worse, having enemies there too...people who go along with 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, protecting Sturgis, Cesar, sturgio-cesar-philes, etc. I'm surprised there aren't more people like me who want to expose Sturgis, Cesar, the truth about PUpin, even the simple battle against homicide, assault, against prohibition, for more democracy, free info. You know, I was thinking, after JFK, MLK, RFK, and then for sure, after 9/11...the public should have demanded and started talking about an "anti-patriot act", where we increase the surveillance of our government, forcing them to be on public camera during their working hours, stopping government secrecy, etc. It's an informative video, it's worth checking out at the public library, or even now you can buy it for $4 at amazon.com.
Think of a killer, any killer, a 7/11 killer, Jam Jay, Nicole Simpson, Mark Chapman, Bonnie Bakely, ... now think of that killer as President of the USA, as a virtual king of the USA....and that is what has happened and been happening in the USA with the rise of the Bushes. I can't understand how people can't despise a murderer like Mark Chapman, or pick a famous murderer in 1930 Germany, but then elect Adolf Hitler, one of the biggest murderers of history. It is really a bizarre phenomenon. I think people have to understand that murder is murder, and the motivation is similar between Jeff Daumer, and the 9/11 murderers...they see killing humans as acceptable for some goal, where most of us (I would like to think at least, egad!) think killing humans is deplorable, frightening, one of the most evil acts a human can do. Other hints in the movie: a very camoflauged "Columbia" cough by Hackman.
The Saddam verdict of death by hanging, does not bode well for Bush. This is a classic example of an oppressed people becoming very vindictive, very vengeful. In any event, I would argue for both Saddam and Bush that what they did was nonviolent, they may have ordered, or allowed many murders, but the murders were always actually committed by underlings, low level murderers (this is also the defense I would have argued for the character John Voight plays in 'Enemy of the State'...since he didn't actually do the murder, he just stood there and observed his right to free speech and freedom of movement). This is one of the most complex arguments, in my mind, about these orderers of murder...is what they do free speech? I want to ask the most die hard advocates of free info and free speech...is ordering murder by a powerful leader upon pain of imprisonment, for example, ... is that protected under free speech to the extent that the person cannot be convicted of accessory to murder? Most people would argue...no, ordering a murder, in particular one that is successful, must result in prison time. This is the basis of the "conspiracy to commit murder", and "accessory to murder before the fact" laws...in some states in the USA, this act carries a life sentence, even the death penalty. Many view ordering a murder as just as bad as committing the murder yourself (I tend to disagree, my own personal view and vote, currently is for small jail time for the orderers of murder and other violence....we need to work towards a society where people are responsible for their own actions, and they understand this...not like now where pawns sign up to murder for their kings, and the wealthy). It's going to be interesting with 9/11...is it too big to fool the public? or will it go the way of so many other murders...Sturgis, Cesar...all protected for decades? No honest person can really say. We simply don't know. On the one hand, we are entering an information age where video is reaching the public in unprecedented amounts, but on the other hand, the public (and those in the USA govt) have consistently protected the truth from becoming public, or affecting elections (few people connect Sturgis to the killing of JFK, even 40 years later, nor do they understand what Pupin did). 11/05/06 One article probably has it correct, that the Saddam verdict, on the trial that would not end...went on for 3 years or something...surprisingly just raps up a few days before a US election.
Robert Greenwald has made an informative movie aobut the private defense contractors in Iraq:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&hl=en
It's amazing, their income has gone up by billions of dollars since Bush got into power, and ofcourse, all that money is coming directly from the US taxpayer. Then this movie shows how these 4 or 5 companies change $40 for a six pack of soda, $100 for each load of laundry, throw away trucks for a flat tire, lease SUVs for $250,000 etc.
10-21-2006
10/13/06
David Ray Griffen hinted that Muhammed Atta was "undermined", in other
words that Atta
does not see and hear thought, and therefore makes a better pawn. It seems
it would be a requirement that the hijackers not know what was planned for
them (that they would be shown as suicide hijackers and held indefinitely
in a prison camp somewhere...and nobody of the excluded really knows where
yet), as they may have had they been able to see and hear thought.
10/17/06
You know, the entire theme of the Bush jr 8 years is completely fake, its
totally fabricated. They did 9/11, they changed from the relatively
passive era of Clinton/Gore, back into the old school Vietnam, big
military, fear tactics. Put simply, they did 9/11, they changed the theme
to "war on terror", and its total fraud.
I called the UC Irvine School of Opthamology for an eye exam, and one
employee "Candy" called me "vert" and the soonest appointment they can
make for me is November 29th, a month and a half away, with the one doctor
Edward Wang. To me anybody who uses "vert" is a low-brow antisexual scum
bag, my usual response in thought is, "perhaps then you can stop secretly
watching me and my thoughts in my bathroom, you all have cornered the
market on vertism". But also "why do we have them?", "where does it come
from?", "cut it off", etc. all apply. These are people who don't see
anything wrong with the 9/11 neocon antics. What rude people and dumb. By
the way an Insight Optometric Center (on campus) employee said her name
was "jewey" instead of "julie", "right now" and "alrighty"...so they are
no doubt naziistic there. But back to the UC Irvine, just like the
passport office, I am amazed at how rude and low-life so many of the
employees are. But also look at the inefficiency and rubber-stamping.
First they sat back and watched the last thoughts of those who were denied
livers...they couldn't find anything wrong with that, the most abrassive
rude people freely insult for money constantly without even the tiniest
warning or punishment, and any person that might complain is quickly and
definitely punished. Look at how they don't hire a new doctor to do eye
exams for the many people that appear to be making appointments, and then
an enlightened, smart, friendly person (and honestly I would not have
hired Wong with that kind of behavior, and my own vote is to let those
people go, no matter how radical that seems, it would be a taste of their
own medicine for the republicans since the only people that are let go or
punished are enlightened liberals)...it's just a backwards operation in my
experience, although ofcourse I'm sure I don't see the worst of it.
Ofcourse in the UC there are some very smart excellent people, for
example, there are astronomers, biologists, chemists, etc. and I am still
employed here which says alot for the amount of tolerance of truth and
honest opinion. Sadly, though, so many people that are far from decent are
also tolerated, in addition to the unmoving beaurocracy that results in
people dying from not getting livers, etc. update: then one Brenda sez
"narkay (ok)", so prosecret antifreeinfo ppl, and probably to keep that
neocon massive, massive illegal drug money which is so wonderful to have
available to them any time they choose to make a bust from their routine
watching in the cam-thought net. It would be a surprise to find people in
the illegal drug industry (included those millions who have ever used
drugs) more comfortable with the crooked insiders than the full public.
Free info is inevitable, even for images of violence and porno, totally
ending privacy, and copyright, simply if only because the cam-net rotten
people have already showed us this. Crying "perv" is a lot like the way
Hitler cried "It is the Jews!" towards the end of his life. He kept
blaming Jewish people for all of his problems. All the resources, trains,
etc went into murdering more Jewish people and not to those probably more
realistic concerns like supplies for the defense of Nazi Germany, etc.
People nowadays cry "It is the pervs!" even though, you know, 3000 people
were murdered in the WTCs, buildings are crumbling around them, 10,000 or
something US citizens have been killed in Afganistan and Iraq, violence
surrounds us all the time, 48 people are murdered in the USA every day,
and that does not even mention assaults. The money being charged up on the
public's credit cards for two useless occupations continues to accumulate
as debt unpaid for, collecting interest. According to the latest FBI
report, violence in the USA is increasing. But these people continue to
blame nonviolent people and abstract perceived problems. And crying perv
is like beating a dead horse, already nobody is having sex. I'm a 37 year
old who hasn't had sex (oral or vaginal) in years. I'm far from my sexual
prime. And very few people are having sex in my opinion, mainly because
they don't want a reputation for promiscuity (and of the excluded they
fear HIV and other STDs), they already know fully well that sexuality is
frowned upon by the vast majority of society. They see those who do engage
in sex ostracised. It's the same with drugs. But people continue to beat
the "It is the druggies!" dead horse. We often hear "It is the gays!".
Never do we hear "It is the violent!", now it's mostly "It is the
terrorists!" which translates loosely to "It is the Arabs!". Drugs and
sexuality are not the big problems, in my opinion, and while those poor
people accussed of drugs and being sexual are being beaten down and fill
the prisons, the true criminals, the violent, continue to get away with
murder and assault. Anybody that is rude to me, basically, is a supporter
of the opposite side, of protecting Thane Cesar, of covering up the truth
about 9/11...or else they would see me as an ally, somebody on the same
side, the exact opposite of a threat...as basically supporting the same
things. They might not agree with everything I say, but if they agree with
the main thrust of my arguments on the major issues, against Sturgis,
Cesar, against the 9/11 murderers, but disagree with me on minor issues,
it's doubtful they would be rude to me, but simply give me common courtesy
as fellow intellectual, liberal, etc. (Perhaps it's the camera thought net
plus lack of any education that makes people so rude...for exmaple, I
don't see any reason to be rude even to murderers, for example, and those
people I think are terrible...rudeness is stupid in my view. But perhaps
the rude view rudeness as a way of promoting their philosophies, where I
generally do that in videos on the Internet, in my web log, etc. But I
find that I have to keep an arsenal of "snappy comebacks" to offset the
idiots who look for verbal combat every second of life. Another snappy
comeback to the mental police is "I might be tied up then!". Most of us
have projects that consume our lives and minds and don't get involved in
putting down those we encounter from day to day.)
I would think that atheists, agnostics, intellectuals, liberals would band
together to inform each other who is who, to warn about neocon,
conservative, nazistic people, and businesses...but they don't! it's tough
to call them intellectual or enlightened. As a result, most intellectuals
have to spend hours researching doctors, restaurants, etc, or simply learn
from trial and error. At least I am sharing what little I have learned
about many people in the cities in Southern California. But that is tiny
in comparison with the info the included have in the camera-thought net.
When people are hidden by the wall of anonymity the secret camera thought
net provides then they feel more free to murder, assault, insult, etc.
with feelings of no possibility of reprisal or identification by the many
excluded, but when there is no wall, or when they are exposed to the
public it's a different story. In Europe, in the psychiatric hospitals,
the torturers used to hold up masks so that their victims would not be
able to identify them. It's the same principle with those who zap the
excluded with lasers. Only the included know who they are, the excluded
can't possibly punish them, because they have no idea what they even look
like. It must be a feeling of safety, a feeling that no matter how nasty
you are, no matter how violent, your victim will never ever be able to see
you.
It's interesting that we get a possible peek at what Nazi Europe might
have looked like had the Nazis won all of Europe in the example of Spain
who was not liberated in 1945. Spain did not topple it's Nazi
sympathathetic leader until the 1970s when he died, and even then Aznar
was similar in being ultraconservative. It's evidence that eventually
Nazism would have failed, although it would take as we seen in Spain many
decades. Now in the USA an interesting thing is happening. The Nazis are
in power and nearly democratically put there too. But this time there are
no allies to bail out those oppressed under Nazi rule, or the only allies
there might be are half of the US military, but that I think is doubtful,
it would require drastic disobedience and would be the source of nasty
conflict, unless such structure and independence already exists. The only
ray of hope is if the public can vote out the republicans from power in
that tiny time frame, that one day they get to vote. So you can see that
this Nazi take over has the potential to be much worse than the Nazis of
the 1940s, because this time there are no allies to bring down the Nazi
machine. It's almost like HIV, a virus that infects the immune system.
There is still time for the public to disarm this terrible leadership, in
theory if the vote is overwhelmingly against the Nazis/Republicans so
altering the vote counts enough would be very difficult and prohibitively
expensive. It is still very easy for the Nazi people in power, the repubs
to end elections altogether, as I have said there is only 1 measily
election one day every 4 years, they come less often than eclipses.
Psychology justifies a corrupt social order. Don't like something somebody
says? Why you can claim they have a mental disease, and threaten them with
incarceration without trial, sentence, etc. Instead of addressing a
person's claims, they don't address a person's claims or the physical
data, they address a person's mental stability, their mental purity, with
mythological diseases. That is how they try to win arguments, and this has
been a classic approach to covering up the JFK murder and protecting Frank
Fiorini, why...anybody that disputes is a nut, and 9/11 and RFK, and on
and on. Instead of simply saying...where is the physical evidence? and
addressing the inaccuracy of a person's claim. When you hear claims of
psychology, it should be an indication of foul play...why don't they argue
on the facts instead of resorting to stigma?
10/18/06
that the thing with orwell and big brother...many of us ask "how about
letting little brother see?" and then ofcourse big sis and lil sis, ma and
pa. I think the public can handle seeing it.
I tell yiz, I called this one dentist looking for beatrice lu to get some
info about her dentist skills and methods and this lady answers and sez
she's gone but Dr Chin (a guy) is taking her patients, and then she sez
"next jeer" (year), which was nice, but then sez yerwellian (yer willing)
[orwell sa far as I know was warning against only an elite people seeing
cameras, like the way it is now, I am saying let all people (or at least
all but the most violent and then let them at least know about it) so we
can all use this advanced technology like a telephone already, and sez
"get out of here", "not", and "jew" (you) (all slyly, working them into
sentences as usual) which...maybe she is angry at the guy I don't know
(people shouldn't hire rudites and racists from the cam net if so), but
maybe they really are supporters of nazism. It wasn't pleasant.
10/19/06
Sometimes before an election the republicans stop assaulting people to try
and trick democrats, liberals, etc that they aren't so bad and that is
nice for those who are the victims of secret republican violence.
One male at "Wash and Go" off Harvard (near BK and Ralph's) said "gay"
(just like the way Alfie of the SHell on Culver sez "All Bi's, Gay's and
Lesbians should be gassed!", and then makes a left hand limp wrist at me.
This is a light skinned younger native american-white mix male with a
round face and possibly brown medium length hair. I hope the lawful people
of the USA expose, track down, and arrest every last nazi from the 9/11
reichstag fire mass murder, and those like Thane Cesar involved in the RFK
and JFK nazi murders and shut down the nazi republicans in the USA all the
way down to a Texas bunker, and start a new era of honesty, decency,
sexuality, creativity, diversity, artistry, engineering, and science, free
of violence in the USA, and lets do it for the people who are gay, black,
asian, native american, arab, white, italian, jewish, the countless
victims of violence, those addicted to drugs, who chose prostitution, and
those of any and no religion who choose nonviolence, to stop violence and
tell the truth. A few seconds later a larger older darker skinned native
american male yellz "no!" out of nowhere, and children and dogs ran away
(ok Im joking about the last part). Clearly a nasty two people, and no
doubt paid to say and do their nasty pawn propaganda for white and/or
wealthy owners. That is a phenomenon in southern cal and no doubt many
places, but here, poor native american people take money from rich white
people to spread the republican propaganda. So I am calling for a ban and
boycott on "Wash and Go Hand Car Wash" 3080 Main St, Irvine, CA 92614,
(949) 863-1550. There was also a woman, an older white woman with black
hair that I want a ban (hiring, etc) on who had a fist at her mouth, if
that was intended as "we will assault those who talk" which no doubt it
must be, I then put my right hand behind my back as in being handcuffed,
which is what may in fact happen to the 9/11 plotters, and then to confirm
her job as a republican propaganda puppet this older female walks by and
made another propaganda gesture, putting her left hand behind as in a
cuffing (sorry lady, I was first, that copying back the gesture convinces
only the dumbest although we all idiotically do that sometimes, its the
violent criminals we need to expose and jail, the rest who gives as
shit?). So people need to remember that the ban is on those two
individuals and the business, and not anybody else that works there. I
think we need to be specific and only punish those puppets of the
republican gestapo, and let the rest continue. I think I am just going to
wash my car myself, like my oil changing which I do myself after having to
replace an oil pan for $700 because some ahole stripped my oil plug, there
is too much corruption because of the thought-cam net. It's impossible for
an excluded to know who is who. There is a coin operated hose station on
Bristol for those who feel like I do, and then a few minutes with a few
rags and window spray is all that's needed. Within the included, many
peopel I am sure keep careful records of all these points against people
but in the excluded we don't have access to them.
I was thinking last night that it seems so obvious to me that the honest
people telling the truth about 9/11, the JFK and RFK murder are the little
people, without alot of money. Like Ted Charach, John Hankey, the makers
of Loose Change, In Plane Site, Scholars for 9/11 truth, etc. they are the
little people that stand up against the massive machinery of the 9/11,
JFK, etc. official story. It's like the Tiananmen Tank Man, it's really
remarkable. And we are seeing I think a similar thing, like Tiananmen
square, the marchs on Washington for equal rights, protests like those at
Kent State, there are a growing number of little people that are standing
up against the massive lies and constant war machinery. It's amazing to me
that the people do this without any support from democrats, the people who
probably stand to gain the most from the truth these people are
explaining.
I think many people vote for republicans because they think the
republicans are going to make the USA strong and a dominant force on the
earth, but I think that is an inaccurate conclusion. Think about the
future, in reality we should be developing in orbit, on the moon, on mars,
and expanding the USA instead of expending all our money and time propping
up third world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan. Because other nations
like China, Japan, Europe, are not stuck with Iraq and Afghanistan
occupations (aside from the obvious crime of invading sovereign nations,
hardly something Jesus would have condoned)...they are free to develop
their designs for orbit, the moon and mars. We should be building the
first US cities on the moon, growing US corn and potatos in orbit and on
the moon. It is stupid to by fighting third world nations on earth. At the
same time, I can see working together with the other nations so that they
can get to the moon eventually to. Probably the arab and african nations
will be the last to develop the valuable land on the moon, but we can help
them out by making free history of science videos available to them, and
free video advice about developing science and learning about the history
of science, evolution and the probable future (and this should be done for
the developed nations too). I think we should catagorized the "war on
terrorism" as a subset of the "war on violence (and unauthorized
destruction)", that seems more logical to me, promoting two way free info,
and focusing on the existing homicide, assault, property damage, laws
mainly, working together democractically in accord with popular opinion to
harness the collective power of likeminded (anti-violent) people from all
the nations of earth.
Some decisions in Europe are kind of stupid, but the USA has a large
amount of stupid laws too. For example the prison sentence for haulocaust
denial, for albanian genocide denial, and wearing veils in school illegal.
I vote against all three laws for California, the USA and the Earth laws,
such that they exist.
This new law with the military trials is an issue that was resolved in the
1400s...its basic, that all people deserve a democratic trial, and that is
my vote, so I vote against this new law. I would ammend this to say that
all people deserve a constant democratic trial with all votes recorded.
I think it's becoming clear to even the excluded thatn Osama bin Laden is
a total patsy, he's the Oswald of the 2000s, but unlike Oswald, Laden is
probably 100% innocent of 9/11, since obviously just glancing briefly at
the video evidence anybody can see that Bush and the neocons did 9/11.
You have to imagine this, as my left eye muscle is being flicked remotely,
that there is some low-life person who clicks some button on a screen,
perhaps clicks on a close-up of my face where they would like the muscle
moved (or skin to be itched), I can only guess but the included all know.
Think about that though, that there is some person who is willing to spend
the time executing a few muscle twitchs on some person, and then the
person who actually spends the time out of their life, to pay for
it...there is somebody out there, the included know who they are (or what
their name and history is), that has enough money to pay the people who
click the laser or whatever to make a person's eye-lid muscle twitch, who
is willing to spend that kind of time watching the victim, and enjoying
seeing their eye muscle twitched...and feeling satisfied that their
opinion has been amplified...or observed...talk about dull...and no life
to speak of. wow that sounds like fun, sitting around and making jane doe
or richard roe's feckin eye muscle twitch. It's like a new age
interactive tv or movie or something for them...imagine watching a movie
and you can make the person on the screen have to itch their nose!
wouldn't that be fun...? no, I don't think it would, but beyond...it's a
nuisance...people complain about genital touching...this is similar, but
in this case there is even clear objection. But that's the mind of a
person...its like true molestation...a person being bothered...and clearly
bothered...not even pleasured or something...being truly bothered. It's
nonviolent, but it's molestation...its to physically irritate a person.
Another one is to make the popular victim (used to propagandize to the
many watching them) itch under their eye, or on their eye...to say..."boo
hooo....you pussy liberal..." (this is the argument too against those who
question the homicide and assaults done by the republicans). My question
is: are they made to itch back? I feckin hope so, and certainly vote so.
It seems natural and fair. If not, that really is nazism and a
frightningly one sided nazism...and so typical of nazism...the public has
not 1% of an idea of what is going on behind the curtain. If yes, they are
made to itch, then what a stupid bunch of idiots to endure such a
nuisance. The eye twitch, I am guessing is for those people who hoot and
holler for insane jokes...the finger around the ear, flipping the lip,
they believe in the theories of psychology (mainly by default, the neural
connections are made in their brain without any actually basis in
fact...it's like race jokes...they are only funny if you believe a race is
inferior or has some kind of deficiency or problem), you have to believe
it for it to be funny, unless somebody is beaming on the laugh center in
our brains (and there is also a cry center). But also the eye twitch is
to propagandize the people watching some great individual...I mean clearly
they are popular enough to attract such attention, audience, expense, etc.
to try and lower the person's popularity, to make the topic..."insanity"
instead of whatever it may have been. There is a constant war over "the
topic". Currently the repubs own it with .... just check news.google.com,
or news.yahoo.com, cnn.com, ... the AP basically...they determine what is
"the topic", and for the most part it's "terror", which is a nearly
fictional creation of the repubs since they did 9/11...in some way I can
"terror" applying as a topic, but the terrorists are the republicans, a
massive wealthy group of people that order and pay violent criminals, and
advocates of violent crime themselves. Most of us would probably call the
planner and funder of homicide, a violent criminal, but technically...it
depends on your definition...those people are nonviolent, they are only
the funders and orderers, advocates of violent crime, they rarely do the
actual violent crime themselves. It's the power of money, mainly, the
power of military order, that fuels the actual violent criminal who
carries out the dirty work. Sturgis for example, was strictly controlled
with money, (even more addictive than cocaine, in particular when you have
to pay for food and rent, and legal objects) to my knowledge. It's kind of
funny that in theory, the person with the most of these little bits of
paper is the richest person. Here "with" can be "that owns". And ownership
is usually determined by a piece of paper. I think that eye twitch may
relate to a Pink Panther Movie, with Peter Sellers, where the bad guy
trying to destroy the earth had an eye twitch, no doubt made to imply that
he had a mental disease (perhaps even a neurological disorder). There is a
funny scene where they both inhale nitrous oxide. I think nitrous should
be legal as a recreational drug, an chemist in England, Davy the person
who first inhaled it of record (also the first taster of CO2 dissolved in
water, soda water), thought so too.
Common types of thought-cam net insider "tricks":
1. muscle moving:
a. Muscle twitching
1. twitch eye="remember, this person is insane/has a mental disease"
b. Changing what person says
1. person needs to have rehearsed, or next word must be known, but
can be done in milliseconds by computers.
2. used to make a person look bad by saying something bad (example:
substituting, "um" with "dum" by adding a "d" vocalization to their
muscle control sensors). Takes sophisticated synchronization,
developed probably with the first computers (1960s?).
c. Changing what a person types
1. Sophisticated, unlike changing on the computer side, this has to be
pulled off w/o being overly obvious (although perhaps at the finger
level, when moving fast people tend not to notice or feel their
fingers being pulled in a way they didn't plan). Many times, keys of
new word are near originally intended word.
d. Making a persons leg swing wide while walking to stub their toe into
an object. (is a sophisticated operation and takes precision 3D
calculations.)
2. making a person itching/gesturing:
a. itch eye="boo hoo, this person is too much of a wimp"
b. itch front of nose="right on the nose" (exactly what we have been
saying for years)
c. itch inside nose=make person look bad because they pick their nose
d. itch left back: "remeber, this person is on the left, if you think
you are on the right, reject what you were just believing what they
thought/said".
e. itch right back: opposite of d.
f. Itch right upper back: results in a "bent elbow heil", generally used
sarcastically to imply repubs are neonazis.
g. itch left upper back: opposite of f.
h. itch JFK spot: simply to remind people of the JFK murder (almost
strictly used by liberals, but some minority conservatives)
i. itch RFK spot: same as f.
j. opposite JFK, RFK spot: that the official theory on the JFK, RFK
murders is correct. This can only be used effectively on excluded, since
most in the included know, but surprisingly, it does even work on a
small number of included (I presume).
3. Sending images to mind screen
4. Sending images to eyes
5. Sending sounds
6. Sending smells
a. urine smell
b. a smell can be used in a sophisticated way for a person to remember
the past. Perhaps even distinct smells are beamed onto a brain, in order
to make a person remember a location and time in the past (for example a
nursery school, or some job) by sending that same smell signal. Probably
the majority of this is recording the smell (and taste) data and playing
it back later to remind a person, perhaps to suggest they eat a food.
7. Changing computer text
a. don't print character person typed
8. Burning a person with a laser
a. This forms a very large "mutual deterrent" system, similar to this
phenomenon with missiles, guns, other high-speed weapons. The speed of
the weapon creates a potential quick large scale victory for a first
strike group (typically nazis, republicans, conservatives, violent first
strike unprovoked assaulters and murderers). Even publically the
strength of photons and other particles is known to be able to cut
through metal, so human skin is much less dense and a person can without
question be cut in half, decapitated, fatally damaged in milliseconds
using a laser. The power of the lasers in everybody's houses is not
publically known, a CO2 laser, for example, which uses photons to cut
through metal, wood, and any other object, publically is a large device.
Clearly these would be available in a satellite and so a person walking
outside (and perhaps even in a building) could be cut
vertically/murdered in milliseconds. That seems a definite and probable
reality people in the excluded really should accept, talk about and
think about. Currently these lasers, publically are not being used.
b. small burn, enough to feel: serves as a reminder of such technology,
used to explain to excluded victim larger picture of mutual laser
pointing
What an excluded (and ofcourse included too) can do in defense of these
assaults and nuisances:
1) vote thru thought to ban the assailant from sending anything to you
2) vote thru thought to ban the assailant from hearing thought, etc.
3) vote thru thought to jail the assailant for some amount of time or
indefinitely
These people are like people that hide behind a mask or curtain. Perhaps
they feel they are safe because the excluded cannot see them and do not
know who is assaulting or pestering them, while they can see endless
videos from the life of the poor excluded victim, inside the victim's
house, even video of the victim's thoughts...and this video goes back...I
mean years...it goes back to the early 1900s, perhaps even the 1800s.
Before 1960 the video is probably limited to wealthy and popular people,
but after the 1960s it is relatively clear that most people's entire lives
are probably available in video, not only the video of their bodies (and
people are no doubt excited to see all these videos, those few who accept
what I am saying of the excluded), but video of what the see in their
mind, the audio around them, and the audio from their mind in particular.
Mainly people are probably curious about famous people like the sex life
of Marilyn Monroe, what Elvis thought about, the sex that the beatles had,
what their life behind the scenes in hotels was like when they become
famous, what tv people do at home, etc. but ofcourse there is also all the
info about murders, the story about JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon and
probably many that the excluded public doesn't even know were
homicides...and no doubt a lot of it is probably something sad to see for
a person who is smart, how massive groups of people orchestrate and
organize murder of innocent democratic leaders and intellectuals, and then
ofcourse just innocent other people, and then no doubt a few nasty
people...the stories must be very interesting...and make the television
shown to the public appear like some kind of ... dull oatmeal or something
immeasurably less interesting. Beyond that, there is the secret science,
kept from the public, all the inventions that would have been in use right
when they were invented in a normal evolution, and progressed life in a
normal way (like the color television and microwave improved out lives)
had it not been for nazis that bullied their way into power and maintain a
backwards society unaware that basic technological progress resulted in
hearing thought 100 years ago...like living for 100 years without the
majority of people knowing about paper, radio, photography, or movies.
People will look back at this time and the elephant in the room, so to
speak, which Richard Dawkins uses, and which applies so well to this time,
is: why does nobody talk about hearing thought, and all this technology?
They appear to have created a system designed to enhance the lie that such
technology exists. I guess within the included they are talk about it,
mainly, it probably forms the basis of much of their thoughts and perhaps
even openly vocal talk. It's possible that vocalizing anything about the
secret technology is strictly forbidden and punished with loss of service
for some time, and perhaps even permanently. Maybe even included thinking
about the secret technology is either forbidden or frowned upon. I
constantly see people covering their mouth with their hand, and even in
the 1940s the finger over the mouth "shush" sign is popular. I think it
must apply to even those included talking among themselves, and perhaps
even thinking among themselves about the history of Pupin and the
technology, what they see and hear in the thought nets, which include
shocking video of people being killed in their houses, some are even
included, most are excluded, people being assaulted, sexually or
otherwise. It must be some frightning video to see, and the amazing thing
is that they do nothing about any of the murders...they leave it like some
kind of 1920s society. And my view is that some scientists stumbled on
this wonderful technology on how to hear and see thought, how to play
movies in front of people's eyes by sending them directly to their brain,
and instead of everybody being happy and wonderfully announcing this new
find, and all of the earth enjoying this new wonderful technology,
powerful wealthy people, with backward religious views, feel that the
technology can be used against their enemies, and that it is better to
keep it just among an elite group to control society according to their
beliefs and wants. This pattern had already been set into motion
early...the photograph (Daguerrotype) was publically announced around
1850, but clearly by 1910 people in the governments were starting to delay
and stop indefinitely the publication (and patents) of certain scientific
findings, seeing eyes, seeing thought, hearing thought, sending to eyes,
sending to thought, sending sound directly to the brain, were all stopped,
and we can only imagine what other technologies were stopped from being
explained to the public. Even nuclear fission, and nuclear bombs have been
explained to the public...it really is a shocking thing, and a terrible
history of secrecy at the hands of a wealthy greedy minority who has
horded this technology for themselves using flimsy excuses for keeping it
a secret for just themselves such as the public cannot handle hearing
thought, that it can be used to stop the spread of communism, etc. So,
people will look back and it will be interesting, in light, of how hearing
thought will be commonly accepted that for 100 years nobody talked about
it, or it was only thought about by a small elite group of terrible greedy
people who absolutely made a ridiculously bad decision in keeping it a
secret for an elite few. The same can be said for religion, where for 2000
years they have been talking about a remote guy who did nothing called
Jesus, or 1300 of talking about Muhommed, with a penalty of death for
those who say anything bad about these cult figures, not even knowing that
the sun is one of billions of stars, in a universe of an infinite number
of galaxies.
I am interested in seeing how much of an addiction hearing thought it...is
it more of an addiction than money? than sexual reputation? than food?
That has to be tough to measure, and it's a brutal society that makes such
questions relevent.
There is a difference between Plank's black body radiation for a
combusting objects, and an object heated by electricity, it seems to me,
because photons are released in distinct frequencies in, for example,
fluorescent lights heated by electrons, versus, iron on a stove...black
body radiation, as far as I know, describes a set of frequencies in a
curve where most frequencies are lower. This seems like a simple thing to
figure out, either photons emit in black body or in specific frequencies,
perhaps it's black body but in specific frequencies along a black body
curve?
10-15-2006
When a person sends me a letter, there is a return address. WHen they send me an email, there is a reply-to address. For an instat message we see the userid. But for an image sent to my mind or to my eyes, where is the sender? what's the MAC address of the sender? When somebody zaps my leg, where's the reply-to address?
Add to the no-hire ban list:
Ray Rivera (rayrivera.net) and Abby Scott http://abbyscott.blogspot.com/ both of "Conspiracy Wars" what is probably a republican funded video. They are one of two things:
1) included and know that the neocons did 9/11 or
2) excluded and simply stupid
It seems clear that they are both 1). Scott adheres to the classic method of "accuse them with our biggest flaw" when the first thing out her mouth is "next yer going to accuse me! my dad's in the us military and you are going to accuse me of being involved in 9/11, etc". Another 9/11 official story person can be seen in the NYC 9/11/06 video screaming "they're paid to be here!" (of the 9/11 truth people), again the exact opposite is probably true, but I am excluded and supposing, it just seems logical they would use that well-worn "accuse them with my worst flaw" technique. Nixon used this in classic form when he said "are we going to let these thugs...?" refering to the democratic primary in Chicago, the so-called liberal "pansies" are the thugs, and Nixon is the peacenik I guess. Evidence that they are included is on Rivera's site he is "very, very poor" as a lame excuse as to why he took the republican money. (the repubs fund many dishonest people, that "no child left behind" million to that guy is only scratching the surface of a massive money for votes, money for propaganda system that goes on in the cam-thought net). Scott has on her site descriptions of hearing people's thoughts (some person thinks "no it's not, I want a hotdog"...she probably actually heard that and found it a useful quote for her propaganda.
I think I can describe what happened. In Plane Site and Loose Change came out of nowhere, repubs are used to dems rolling over and accepting their punishment without any resistance, and so it takes the repubs time to adjust to seeing liberals actually question their violent crimes. It takes them perhaps a full year to adjust and to figure out what is happening and to come up with an effective plan to combat it. The repubs don't understand the Internet video phenomenon at first and pour money into television, newspapers, magazines, radio, thought-cam word of mouth propaganda. Eventually, and this takes some time, they figure out..."hey we need to get some of these 'self made' videos on google and youtube", and this is a little different than what they usually do. Usually they just use the cam-thought net to spread their bs and lies, so ....very late in the game...they start to pay "popular mechanics"...they had already paid off so many people involved directly with 9/11, and much of that money came from taxpayers. The repubs probably paid pop mechanics $1 million for their one issue cover story. Then they paid Circus Penn and Never Teller probably only $100k to critisize the 9/11 conspiracy people. Penn claims to be an atheist, and so many intellectuals came to watch them, and that is who the repubs are trying to reach it appears. Then they found a willing participant in Michael Shermer and Scientific American. They probably shelled out $200k to Shermer, and a cool $2 million to Scientific American. Why did they spend so much on sciam? Because they are paying for the sciam reputation and audience. Much of sciam's audience are excluded intellectuals (again the name of the game is convincing the excluded, included already know....there are really two sides of the game...1) paying off and convincing included to lie to excluded and 2) trying to mislead the excluded directly.) So mainly the excluded, who are the majority are the ones who all the propaganda is meant for. With Shermer and Sciam they are definitely going for the influential intellectuals, atheists and agnosts...the so-called intelligencia. For all I know they are going for the dumb, low-brow, but it appears mainly to be atheists (albeit scummy ones) interestingly enough. So for Rivera I would say that he is definitely paid, and that he is not white is important to these repubs/cia/etc I am going to guess that Rivera was paid $50k for a webpage, blog, and the 1 video, but they may be asked to make more videos. I kind of doubt it. Probably the more effective method is paying new people each time, it spreads out the message. So this guy will probably forever be known as the guy who took the money to lie about a mass murder committed by a large portion of people in the US government, in corporations and individuals. For Scott, it's a tough call, she may have made the video for free, to please her dad, for the republican christian cause, but probably she took $30k for a blog and vid. It must be an interesting movie for those in the included who really can see all this stuff. I wish the 9/11 truth people would be more vocal about these paid for propagandizers. One of the 9/11 official story people was yelling and many of them appear to be violent which the 9/11 truth people ought to draw attention to too.
Bush jr passed a law making online gambling illegal, my vote is for a legal free and open market for gambling. I am against controls of the open market, and people should be allowed to gamble with their own property. It's free speech, free trade, free information, it's nonviolent. I see nothing wrong with it. Mainly it's the religious who don't like gambling, but also those who like to control the people. They like to stop anybody having a good time. People can gamble in church bingo, and gambling is fine in vegas, it seems puritanical and counter-free-market principles to prohibit online gambling. That being said, I don't advise people to gamble, luck is not a real phenomenon. I used to think like many people "I am probably lucky", or " there is a god or gods out there that is looking out for me and going to make me make this basket, or win this game, etc." but none of that is true honestly. The gambling games are designed to win the dealer money. Some people do win, but ultimately the casino and owners win in the long term. But in addition, some games are entertaining, video games, etc. but who can sit there and play black jack or slot machines for hours? That is sad if people can be entertained that way. My advice, don't gamble, I don't (but you know I can see throwing away a few dollars on gambling if bored ... I usually don't) but it's your choice, it's your money and property etc.
It's sad that millions of people are limited to watching a few people on a few tv shows and movies. They all know the show theme songs, they've all seen each episode and quote the funny lines they all know. The people on the shows are idolized like Stalin and Mao were...millions watching only a few hundred while the truly interesting heroic people go unknown. But the Internet is changing all of that. 10/15/06 Widespread popularity is natural and fine, but the most popular people should be people who have earned popularity by a smart and well informed public public (eventually in a few centuries) for telling the truth, for contributions to science, etc, not simply for having great wealth, for their image being advertised everywhere, etc. When we look at the most popular, we should see people who have made significant contributions to the public and life of earth, not people who simply paid to be shown to millions, or where randomly selected to be shown to millions. Its the nature of how millions of people all have to watch 3 or for television stations, how they all know the shows, that is so unhealthy and wrong to me. In particular knowing that many people now are selecting from the vast 6 billion people on earth to watch, watching them in their houses and apartments, hearing their thoughts...that is a much more natural system, where real heros are more likely to emerge as popular, as opposed to the phony, heavily restricted and limited 4 tv station, paid for major media system that is currently in place. Evidence of this is seen on the Internet, the future source of videos and information, that will replace the dull and corrupted major media. We see all these 9/11 truth heros rise up, most of them never appear on television...it's like night and day, on the Internet they are known by all, on television they have rarely if ever been seen. It's similar to those who openly question the JFK and RFK murder. On the Internet people can see and hear the story of Ted Charach, Frank Sturgis, from me, John Hankey, and many others. On the television, those people are unknown. The most popular people of the Internet are unknown to television, newspapers, magazines, movies, radio...it's unusual, because wouldn't popularity be a universal? Wouldn't popularity on the Internet be the same as popularity on television? Ofcourse it is, popularity is popularity, there is no difference. Why these people are not invited onto the television, newspapers, etc. is for monetary and political reasons, because the major media owner or two, wants to keep the truth out of the public's view. They can't do that on the Internet, but they can on their major media company. Perhaps they ever receive money for such banning of popular Internet people, a subsidy from those who murdered JFK and the 9/11 people, from the repubs. So we see are more honest nature of democracy on the Internet than we do on television, newspapers, etc. It's like oil and water many times. On one, all the popular are vigorously telling the truth about JFK, 9/11, religion, establishing their popularity on those principles, and on the other the most popular never mention those things, or only hint at such things in passing, establishing their popularity on sheer repetition and buying of air time without any actual issues or scientific contributions.
I am voting no on all the ballot measures and I will tell you why. Although had people really made their case to me that special money needs to be made to improve the roads, schools, levies, etc. I would probably vote in favor of that but that case was not made to me well enough. In addition there is a very important point that I just thought about. And you out there, correct me if I am wrong. Ok, so many of these propositions start with "bond"...they are going to create a bond and sell to people and then pay interest on the bond. I think it's like a trick to fool the public into thinking..."hey they are not raising taxes...it's a bond...it's not a new tax". But they are wrong! It is a new tax. Correct me if I am wrong, but the interest to pay off the interest on that bond comes from our income (sales and property) taxes, then in addition, we have to pay the billions that is the bond...it's a loan from the public and the money to pay it back when it is due comes from our taxes. So I am waiting for a ballot measure that says "uses existing tax money for ...", and deals with how the current funds are divided instead of creating new taxes and new sources of government income. And here is such a point as you will never see. Ok I am looking at condos, and in 2003 a single condo is $100,000, and in 2006 it's $400,000. That is an unbelievable increase, and that means that at 1.1% (for Irvine), the property taxes have to have gone through the roof...I mean the people that administer the property taxes must have been like...holy shit!....we are rolling in dough....millions and millions more. So do they do the honest thing, and lower the tax rate? no! They don't mention it. Not a word. Do they reveal how they are using this massive influx of money to improve the roads, schools, levies, beaches, free rooms, soap, health care, etc.? no! Maybe you are like me, and I swear to you people, I have to take a loan out just to pay my property taxes. The property taxes are sending me further into debt than my income taxes. So, it's shocking to me...that they want to make more taxes, in particular one says they are going to raise funds through more property taxes (maybe I read it wrong and I am not going to look for it). The government has way too much money already. We can easily feed and shelter all the humans by simply reducing our military costs in half to the next nearest nation, by ending the drug arrests (here the drug war is creating a social program beyond most fiscal conservatives wildest dreams, 3 hot meals, a room, clothes, soap, toilets....if they were not locked in there, if they simply had a key to their room and were there voluntarily, I would say that is one of the most advanced social programs of any nation), ending funding for involuntary psychiatric hospitals and simply jailing people who violate laws (perhaps working with trying to solve their law-breaking problems there). Voting on the Internet, the many "counciling" programs can be ended, all propaganda can be ended, the CIA should be ended. For al the money in the gov, they cannot produce one evolution video, cannot give away one piece of bread, not one cup of water, not one room, not one history of science video, not one future of life video. It's total waste. And ofcourse, end the funds to other countries and simply deliver food to those starving in the USA first, and then maybe other nations. End the Iraq and Afghan occupation, right there we would have no deficit, that is a shocking waste of money.
On the ballot measures in particular one gross one is 83. The psychiatric system is a completely illegal unconstitutional system because there is no trial, no sentence, torture (4 point restraints where humans have less room to move than a chicken in a cage does), drugging. Then when it comes to molestation, have you ever heard of physical evidence for molestation? No you never have because the only form that can exist is a video of the molestation. The claim of genital touching is enough. So anybody could come out of nowhere and accuse somebody they don't like of molestation, and the entire trial depends only on if 12 people think the accuser is lying or not. Physicial evidence doesn't exist, there is only the word of the alleged victim. And then, we are talking about a nonviolent crime. How serious can a genital touching be next to a spanking or other assault to a child or any human? This ballot measure is going to be evidence of how low can the antisexual fanatics go. I know it's low, there appears to be no bottom when it comes to children and sexuality. And an interesting point is that the ferver around molestation is not a ferver about child safety and protecting children from violence, pain and damage. It's mainly an antisexual thing. Because if it was about child safety, they would be ranting on and on about an end to spanking in the interest of the child, an end to belting, and end to sibling fighting, an end to playground fighting...but we hear never a peep about those things...so clearly the physical safety of the child is not as important as their sexual history, their sexual purity, their understanding of sex. Maybe someone else can shed light on this too. It seems pretty obvious to me that these fanatic people are not concerned with the physical safety of children or else they would be up in arms over spanking and assault. But most people appear to view child violence as "toughening the child", who should not be a "momma's boy" or "Momma's girl" even. The concern is that a male may be affeminate or gay if they don't fight and rough-house, but that is not true...violence is illegal for good reason, although rarely enforced. There is no need for violence or even aggression for sexual arousal. Maybe people can prove me wrong, but I think sex works just fine without assault (against others or a mate) ever.
One point on this prop 83, is a point I can't make clear enough. Laws against sexual assault are all covered under the existing assault law. It's kind of interesting that people are thinking...you know...we never made molestation and violent sexual assault of children illegal....perhaps the thinking is now (by the wealthy who fund these propositions)...we've been going easy on these people who genital touch (never those who genital assault)...
People continue to create more and more laws, 20 page laws, when I really think the future will be a set of working popular laws that people maybe adjust a word or two on every year, etc. No doubt new and specific laws will be voted up, but then everything will be very simple...otherwise people would never be able to know if they were violating a law or not. Some of these ballot measure have so many specific stipulations...the money can only be used for this, and only under these special conditions...who can remember all of that? I am voting and advocating a much more simple system where the public votes constantly, enacting new laws, voting down unpopular ones, etc.
A point again I make every voting time: these ballot measure are so dull and useless. When are we going to see:
The government has to record the publics votes over the Internet on all laws.
Every person must have their own cell when locked or even held in a prison.
The court system must be open everyday.
People can make bail by using a credit card when the bail is <$1000.
No person can be jailed for owning, using, buying or selling Marijuana.
No person can be jailed or fined for asking for sex for money or for free.
All government cameras must have the images archived and made available to the public on the Internet.
No employee of the government can take photographic, video, or audio recordings as evidence. They must get a copy of the recording from the owner.
No videos confiscated by the government can be kept from the public.
...
I have a million of them.
For example prop 1e, people will say of those who oppose: you care nothing about our roads, etc. we could be flooded like katrina. But the truth from my view is that, if we need to fix our roads, lets redivide the existing pie of government income, let's not generate endless new taxes. And then, if that money is not enough, let's vote to raise income (or property) taxes. I am for removing sales tax all together, it's a hassle, it's penny pinching, it adds to the complexity of business and life, an income tax is enough.
For this prop 85, waiting period for abortion. There is a clear and simple guiding principle I think we should ultimately adhere to and that is principle of "full human rights for children." I don't think we are going to get there for centuries, it's too difficult for parents to accept or understand. Children are different than adults in that their bodies are not as developed, although perhaps old people's bodies are overdeveloped by that criteria. And children have had less time to learn about life, althought even adults fail to learn any history, and there is probably too much for any one human to remember. Still, I think humans of all ages should enjoy the same basic rights, I remember when I was younger understanding how wrong it was to be treated differently and to have limited rights, to not be able to work, to vote, to not get into R rated movies, to not buy pornography, etc. It was frustrating and angering. Young people are one of the last groups to win their full rights, mainly because of this problem of them being inexperienced, they don't know that they are being cheated, and they don't have the skills needed to confront it. Black people, women and homo/bisexual people are clear examples of how people overcame unfair laws, to get the right to own property, to vote, etc. It would be nice if adults helped young people gain their full and equal rights.
I like the idea of 1c, and I almost voted it for it, but again it's a bond. Use the existing money I say (actually it looks like the money comes from the existing money $6 billion...I don't know the full budget and so I don't know how much of the budget this is, I might approve it). It's in a good directoin. This is one of the few props I thought was ok and almost got my support. One thing is the military veterans, perhaps those from WW2, but just being hired in the military shouldn't give people extra benefits in my view. We don't give extra benefits to other government employees like police. Many people are homeless, and they all deserve some rooms or at least enough food to stop starvation and/or dehydration, a place to shower with some free soap and shampoo, maybe a few free tee-shirts and shorts each year and that's about it.
It seems to me that the goal of included is not to include people, and they are probably very unhappy and suspicious to include new people. Probably a lot of begging and bribing on the part of other included for excluded family members and friends is the preferred and most common method, there is probably not a lot of recruiting of excluded to be included done on the part of included. The included probably jealously guard their priviledge to see and hear thoughts and inside people's apartments and houses, knowing that more people included means less power for them. In addition, more people included brings closer the day when the truth is shown to all. It probably goes like this: repub president: # of included decreases, dem pres: $ of included increases.
Many people, even in the 9/11 group fail to see any difference between democrats and republicans, and you know I think this is because they are trying to trick republicans into supporting their cause. The truth seems clear to me, and I will agree that many democrats are spineless (although if you look at Dean and Kucinich there is some 9/11 questioning), but whatever people do...do not elect more republicans...holy shit...the republicans have been terrible for the USA, and the truth is clear...anybody is better or less worse than the republicans. They killed JFK, MLK, RFK, Lennon, they did 9/11! they did 9/11...I mean what more proof do you need that repubs are not good for the USA? Average decent people, I would think...you know...would have said after the JFK murder...ok no more republicans until we know who killed JFK...until we see the Zubruter film...no Time-Life hiding it for years, ... we absolutely reject all republicans until we get to see the truth about JFK, a democratically elected president was murdered, it seems strongly that it was not Oswald, and we will not elect a republican until the full story is told and shown to us. That would be the basic mind set of any decent people of average smarts. But then they go and elect Nixon...these are the people that re-elected Bush jr. Which brings me to, what I think is one of the best metaphors for Bush jr that I have seen in a while. Even though the South Park creators have been corrupted, in particular, I don't think many liberals will forget their bogus view on Michael Moore and other liberals in the last movie. In this one, it's right on the money in terms of how the people who vote republicans view Bush jr. One tiny point is that maybe people are afraid to vote against Bush jr, and this is the view of fear versus freedom, it's always better to rule by popular support not be fear. This video says it all. It's comical how stupid the people that vote for Bush jr. and the repubs are...all the popular liberal leaders murdered and their murderers openly protected for years...who can understand how stupid people are?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6437069303151444343&q=southpark&hl=en
It's frightening to read about this: the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence. In particular when you think about a person with like a youtube.com web site where people can upload video, unless you watch every video and make sure there is not one second of porn, you could be doing jail time. And then to think that Walsh and all of those people watch people in their houses, and have seen numerous child pornos just by watching people's memories and thoughts in addition to watching people in their houses and apartments. It's gross and highly dishonest what Walsh and others do. In particular because we really should be headed towards a free info society where people aren't jailed no matter what images they own. This law is a victory for those who want to stop free information, child porn is their best weapon, as is invasion of privacy, national security, and copyright. I argue that allowing images of violence or sexual touching against children shuold be legal so we all can see who is doing the violence and that nobody is afraid to actively study and analyze those images to figure out who is out there assaulting people. Many people argue that only the police should, but look at the Internet provider, for example, they have child porn on their computers, and so they are now guilty too, but they chose to call the police and apparently they were not arrested...the people in the police viewed the porno as belonging to somebody else even though it was on their computers. But beyond that example, think of anybody who stumbles onto child porno...most would delete, flush or destroy the images because who wants to involve the police? That could only bring trouble and suspicion on you. Another point that I think really lows open the child porno issue is that there are examples of child pornography that are ancient artifacts, ancient Greek pottery for example, woodcuts, 1800s paintings, early photographs. These are valuable objects...some of them are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Are peopel saying now...that these valuable ancient drawings, painting, pottery must now be confiscated and destroyed? I mean that's shocking. And then to think that adults in a society are not strong enough to see such images...it's unbelievable. I think we are big enough to handle seeing them. But when will the rest of society feel that way too?
10/15/06
How about that guy that murdered 3 young Amish children because he felt bad about touching the genitals of 2 children 20 years before? What if he had heard from those saying that violence against children is a much worse crime than gential touching, and that gentital touching, while perhaps unethical for most and unwanted for many is not a big deal, it's not something where the victim is going to feel pain, be damaged, or their life ended, it's something they are going to be able to walk away from without even any pain, unlike violence, where the child definitely feels pain, and murder where the child is permanently damaged and no longer alive, that in my humble opinion seems much worse, but no doubt in the mind of the killer the genital touching was worse and I understand the hysteria and ferver that he probably experienced.
THere is a wonderful page if you have never heard of it, and it's the archive.com, the way back machine that has saved the contents of millions of webpages, even the images, audio and video and they are all available.
10/18 A person has to mow 10 laws just to be able to afford a quarter ounce of weed? Now that is ridiculous. I hope people choose not to use weed, but for those who decide to, they shouldn't be driven into poverty for their hobby/habit.
10-13-2006
==============================
OPINIONS WENT OFFLINE 09/27/06
==============================
groups in power over the earth, and those many claim to be:
ok so I am thinking that I want to name the groups I feel are the most powerful and exert the most control over the earth:
1) godders/diests (those who are in the cult of God or Gods)
a) subset: Jesus, Mary, etc cult
b) subset: Mohammed cult
c) subset: Buddha cult
d) subset: Vishnu, etc. cult
e) subset: Moses, Yahweh, Zion
f) synonyms: evangelicals
2) camera-thought net
a) based on Pupin inventions and other 18 secret technologies
3) psychologers
a) those who believe in psychiatric diseases as serious and scientific theories
1) in particular make use of fraudulent theories of psychosis, neurosis, scitzophrenia
4) antisexuals
a) against images and live acts of nudity/sex in public
b) against legal prostitution
c) against homosexuality/bisexuality
5) prohibitionists
a) for jailing those who use drugs
6) antiscientists
a) against history of science
b) against teaching of evolution
c) against new theories in science
d) against questioning popular theories in science
7) antifreeinformationists
a) against full free information
b) in favor of secrecy
c) in favor of national security
d) in favor of copyright, patent, trademark
8) antifulldemocratists
a) in favor of representative democracy
b) against even public vote being counted by government
9) violentists
a) believe violence not a big deal, should be tolerated, nonviolent are "pussies" or "gay"
b) assault, homicide ok
So, in contrast other groups appear to be more popular (again I am excluded, and no doubt these people see more than I:
1) Globalists (Alex Jones, many others)
a) to me, doesn't appear to be major group
2) Malthusians (A Jones, Tarpley)
a) think overpopulation is a problem and poor should be killed or starved off
b) is similar to old-time "Eugenic" movement
c) based on writings of Malthus
d) no doubt this philosophy exists, but is it stronger than the belief in god? in Jizuz? stronger than the influence of the camera net? Beyond this, I am the only person to ever counter claims of overpopulation by saying there is more than enough matter and space in the universe for all of life in earth, should we ever chose to go there. Others catagorically ignore this arguement.
3) World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund
a) clearly some evil people, but they only dispense a few millions dollars...I doubt they have as much influence as the pope, and other religious leaders...perhaps it's the collective views of religion that wield the big power.
4) Council on Foreign Relations, PNAC, neocons
a) no doubt an influential group of people, but isn't it really this same group of people, the neocons, no matter what title they take, no matter what group they meet in...you know, it's the Bushes, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Eberheart, Nixon, Kissinger, ... they don't necessarily have a title...they could just as easily be called "the violent criminal network", "the murdering group", the "9/11 Reichstag plotters", etc. The republican party is a similar group.
5) Bilderburg Group
a) this one, I just doubt, and then that there are wealthy people that influence things, well clearly wealthy people have influence, but I doubt they meet around the planet etc...they see each other in the camera-thought net, there is no need to meet and it is a waste of precious time.
I should note that of those that see and hear thought Alex Jones, Tarpley (in fact most people the publically lecture) are members, and so, with all due respect, and I greatly respect those and other people's works, it takes a lot of guts to stand up and tell the truth about 9/11, about the Bush family and others. Excluded have to remember that these people are members of the secret camera-thought net, and therefore have access to all the opportunity to quick case corruption that includes. For example, it is a very rapid process of getting a payment of thousands of dollars to promote some view (such as anti-globalist, etc)...they never appear to expose the hearing-thought secret society and I think that shows that they are not above corruption. So to me the big groups are the godders, camera-thought net, violenters, psychologers, antisexuals, antifullfreeinfo, ... none of which are a concern to any other people, or certainly not a large number of people. It's almost a different language, but one I think people need to learn.
Clear and remarkable truths that fly in the face of the popular views of science:
1) Universe is probably infinitely large and old
evidence= there have to be galaxies so far that not one photon or beam of light is going in our direction. In fact the farther we move from a star then more possible directions (or angles are created), but this simple fact is denied, buried and ignored by all major people in science (and that number is in the millions).
a) Big bang is false
b) background radiation is only photons from unseen galaxies nearly too distant to detect in our tiny detectors.
c) universe is probably not expanding
1) red shift is probably due to some other phenomenon like gravity stretched light beams that have bent around other objects. Raman red-shifted light and is not a difficult thing to do.
2) photons are matter and the basic component of all matter
evidence=all objects emit photons, is strong evidence that they are made of photons.
a) photons are not energy (although perhaps the idea of energy can still be preserved as velocity of photons that collide may be transfered to other photons or reflected)
b) photons are not massless (photons having no mass is a highly unintuitive claim and photons are held out as somehow different from all the other matter)
c) this is potentially where the fraudulent claims of dark energy and dark matter may go. Any matter that is dark is simply not emitting photons in the direction of the detectors, it is still made of photons, it's not some unknown substance.
3) no time dilation
evidence=since the creators of general relativity did not understand that photons are the basic components of all matter, time and space bending was applied to composite matter (such as protons, atoms, molecules). It is more logical to believe that the current time is the same time everywhere in the universe, instead of each piece of matter having a specific time assigned to it.
a) removes idea of black holes, worm holes (even recently I saw this
4) antimatter is probably only electrical opposite matter
evidence=more logical to presume a more simple explanation, explains why not antineutrons, antiphotons, etc. only electrical particles have antiparticles. Some claim difference in "magnetic moment", but magnetism appears to be (a form of standing) electrism.
5) photons have no amplitude and move in a straight line.
evidence=beams of light could not be focused to a point through a lens if they have amplitude, in other words the focus to have an amplitude of zero, so it is logical to conclude that they have no amplitude to begin with instead of the amplitude somehow being distorted or temporarily lost.
6) Cycle of Galaxies
a) Nebuli condense into galaxies like the LMC, then form spirals like the Milky Way and M31, then as advanced life evolves the galaxies turn into globular galaxies such as M87.
1) New galaxies are most probably being created despite very dubious popular belief that no new galaxies are being formed.
2) The mechanism is that all the particles of light from stars in galaxies is emitted out into the universe where it condenses into Hydrogen and Helium clouds. While stars in galaxies eventually run out of their supply of photons, new forming nebuli galaxies absorb those photons, and so the cycle is circular and complete.
a) This hints at how old the age of the Milky Way Galaxy is. It depends on the duration from gas cloud to spiral to globular.
b) It is possible that advanced life preserves their globular galaxy by absorbing matter from other galaxies, nebuli, or even simply passing photons.
c) The age of a spiral galaxy can be determined by the number of globular clusters. The most globular a galaxy the older. Once a galaxy is fully globular we can only say that it is past some certain age (perhaps a trillion years old), only when there is still dust can we say that this galaxy is somewhere between 1 and (in theory) a trillion years old. In fact perhaps we should estimate how many galactic rotations a galaxy lives for. Perhaps it is only a few thousand, before it is filled with advanced life, but maybe more.
3) Globular clusters are almost assuredly shaped by advanced life. My video "planet moves star" is clear evidence that controlling the direction of a star with a planet is very easy to do, in particular over long periods of time.
a) The number of globular clusters <200 tells us how many major colllections of advanced life may have arisen so far in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy.
4) It is very logical that there must be advanced life within the galaxy, the Drake equation and similar efforts show that advanced life is inevitable in the Milky Way. Given this inevitability, it seems logical that advanced life would be moving stars together to form steller communities such as globular clusters.
a) There is evidence that this idea, while not public, was figured out at least 30 years ago (1974) when a message was sent to M13. It is curious why no public comment has ever been made to the extent "we sent a message to a globular cluster because we think that is where advanced life is.".
b) It shows us how primitive our own development is compared to the life that must be around globular clusters, we who have not reached even a different star, let alone controlling the direction of a star.
c) knowing that advanced life probably form glublar clusters, we should carefully observe globular clusters, track the motions of stars within the cluster (in particular to observe unusual motions, for example, stops or sharp changes in direction). In addition to gearing the search for signals in photons from advanced life at globular clusters.
7) center of sun is molten iron like center of earth
evidence=clearly the heavier atoms gravitate towards the center of any star system. The inside of stars are revealed in star explosions to have cores of iron and other heavy metals.
a) current erroneous belief is that the center of the sun is Hydrogen to Helium fusion.
8) ofcourse thought can be heard, and the 18 secret technologies
a) serves as a major reason why all the above is not debated.
I wonder what the liberals in the included were thinking before 9/11, perhaps something like "...we will let the republicans do their little 9/11...mhm...and then we will prosecute them after...yes...ahaha....ahahahaha.....ahahahahahahaha...., etc."
9/26/06
Maybe I had already mentioned this, but I verified in the Bush clapping video from the Florida school, that Bush claps within 1 minute of the WTC2 plane collision. You can time backwards from the infamous "whisper in the ear" at 9:05a according to the official story and the 9/11 timelines. It shows how airtight they view the secret of beaming images onto people's heads...it must seem like the public will never in a million years figure it out...it's basically a defacto feeling, they basically feel very confident that the excluded have no chance at all of knowing about the video beaming system (VBS).
09/27/06
A person was arrested for being AWOL, can you imagine a person being arrested for not showing up to work at Walmart, or Sears, etc? Let's get a bill so people can quit the military already. It makes a hellas of an amount of sense.
Every 30 minutes a person is killed in the USA, every 15 minutes a human is killed in India. That is 2 humans killed an hour in the USA, 48 humans killed a day, but yet none of that reaches the news.
I added a spamcombo.txt file so with keywords separated by && so I can target specific kinds of emails where variables change the contents but many things stay the same, without deleting emails that might use those keywords. I have entries like this:
Company:&&Target Price:&&Recommendation:&&STRONG-BUY
Company Name:&&Current Price:&&HOT STOCK
erectin&&pil&&plesure&&problem
(you can see, for example, many legitimate emails have "problem", but if it's "problem", "erectin", and "pil" then probably it's a viagara message, etc. Never do I get "The Nazis hear our thoughts! The Nazis hear our thoughts!" messages, now that would have been useful and informative.
This simple spam program is working wonderfully, I just checked and it deleted 21 of 24 messages and just now 9 of 10. The vast majority in spambody.txt (there are only 352 lines) are links, unique phrases that are very unlikely to be in a legitimate email (you have to be sure never to put common words like "and", "t", etc on a line, as this will delete the majority of email messages), they should be very specific such as: "Get the Finest Replicas!", which you know will basically never match anything other than spam. I am basically saying any email with "zaicheg.com" in the body, can be deleted without being read, the current owner of zaicheg.com has lost any chance of reaching me with an email with any reference to that URL, and perhaps unfortunately some ligitamate person will come to own that domain name (zaicheg.com) and their email will be automatically deleted. Perhaps I should not go by link, but more by combined text, but URL seems like the simplest link, and generally is related to the source of the spam. I auto delete any email with "A Genuine University Degree" (case sensitive). And then many lines are parts of images, for example any image where any part matches this: "ZSBhbHNvIHByb3ZpZGUgc2".
10/03
What terrible parenting there is on the planet, in particular in the camera network...they sit back and do nothing while the wolves beam all kinds of suicidal thoughts on the excluded children. Another interesting point is that many included (thought who were connected into the secret PUpin thought-hearing video beamed onto yer eyes and thought-screen people from somebody they knew that must have a government police or military friend or connection, or simply are wealthy...also many connections come from the Jesus cult churches) constantly preach about how they have such pristine and pious lives, and the poor excluded have done all kinds of unethical things. But you have to realize that as included people they knew for example, when an evil included beams "steal that" to some poor excluded, the excluded thinks the suggestion is their own thought, and they no doubt will then steal the object, where an included knows that ofcourse everybody would know if they steal something, and so ... lo and behold...the included youngster doesn't steal. They know they would be caught. But the poor excluded child doesn't know that, and probably accepts the suggestions as their own and thinks probably nobody will see them and be any the wiser, etc.
One thing I told my mom in an effort to help understand the nature of this 97 year secret technology is this (because she still has trouble understanding it, although it's becoming more and more clear to me what it all involves, although ofcourse there must be many specifics I don't know.): There is a big difference once a person knows that it's possible for people to beam images and sounds on your brain. Once you realize people are doing that, you can quickly understand that thoughts in your head might originate from some evil bastards in the camera-thought net and then your can toss them off...you know they are not your own thoughts and are probably sent there by evil people trying to get you to do stupid (to put it mildly) things. But for those poor excluded people, they are almost all of them 100% victims, and then as a common point, this is again why I say what terrible people are in the camera-thought net to not even provide a thimble for a shield to the poor excluded. The excluded, when thought images and sounds are beamed on their heads, almost all of them, accept these images and sounds as if they are their own thoughts. The concept of somebody else beaming thought onto a person's head is never even a possibility. I mean, listen to how bizarre it is to tell people that thoughts in their head may not be their own, but may be from an external source...it's hard to fully understand even for many who use the technology every day, and also those excluded, like me, who at least know that such technology exists. So those images and sounds which are suggestions, for example, somebody beams a picture of french fries into your mind...40% or something of excluded will then eat french fries within 1 week. 25% of excluded will eat french fries within 24 hours after the suggestion is beamed on their head. Included people may receive the same image, but they know..oh it's just a suggestion...I'm not thinking that...some body else wants me to eat french fries...infact included might have the opposite effect, rejecting what they see as a suggestion that is imposed. Or ofcourse a smell too, the smell of french fries may be sent. So the poor excluded...and you can take this french fry example into very bad directions indeed, where people receive images of them jumping off buildings, hurting themselves, going out in the nude, stealing, beating...you name it, it's all done routinely. Included shrug off these images and sounds, but excluded many times, may even feel that such images are sent not from a person named Jonesy in the CIA (or army, republican, or TimeWarner hq) as may be the case, but that the images are being sent directly from their diety! directly sent from their god of choice! And if a god is suggestiong they do something, no matter how terrible, no matter how it may ruin their reputation, career, whatever...they must do it, they must obey the images their god is sending to them. And so, you can see that this is 97 years of terrible abuses.
With that music beamed onto our heads...its the next big thing since the "walkman", now it can sent directlyl to our minds...maybe it can be called the "headman", or the "walkhead", or "headtunes".
Eventually most brutal humans, when in an argument, when angry at a different human, eventually start to turn to violence...arguing by principle is not enough, defeating the person with words is not as satisfying and they need to resort to threats of violence. And it's kind of interesting that when people threaten violence. there really are a limited number of threats they can make, because ultimately they simply want the person dead or to be in pain. Many times the threats are not simply to kill, or beat, but have a sexual relation...people are shocked and fascinated by sexuality, so many times, it's threats of things being shoved into the ever loved ass, ("up yours!" is descended from this love), also genital mutilation is a favorite ("It [the genital] should be chopped off!"). But beyond genital and anal related violence, there is not much else. ultimately it comes down to threats to kill "kill the ump", etc.
more snappy comebacks (for those excluded/included who...for some reason spend lots of time creating them, to me it seems a waste of time):
(in thought: "no we're not sexual!")
(to antisexuals) "that's healthy" "it's not a big deal" "it's just a matter of figuring out what is the highest priority, getting my priorities together"
(to "it's crazy") "its brutal" "its harsh" "its torture"
"Thats no lie!"
(to included) "tell me if you need any more information" "tell me if there is anything you dont already know, and I can tell you"
"some people ask, why do we have these systems?" (abbr: "why do we have them?")
10/04/06
I have a partial theory about how a diffraction grating works. I worked it out for a single slit and from there it is easy to apply it to a diffraction grating. Ok so, my conclusion is that some photons move through the slit without touching a side, those form node 0, not spread into a spectrum, a reflection of the light source. But then on either side are the two nodes (the so-called m=-1 and m=+1) which I am saying are possibly photons that have been reflected only 1 time. In other words, these are photons that have a direction that is relatively straight, but angled just enough to bounce off the side of the slit and reflect. These nodes are spread into a spectrum. (Why I don't understand, perhaps their frequency relates to their angle of reflection, one theory I had was that simply less photons are in those angled directions and so therefore form a smaller number of photons that translates into a lower frequency, but I can see that for example a single frequency of green light needs to always reflect to the same position and appears to have nothing to do with the angle of light. But one conclusion is that the intensity is less [as is observed], because there are fewer photons with no straight angles, it seems the frequency of the photons is uneffected.) I want to model this with photons and really see the phenomenon and develop more info about this theory. It is so simple, I think somebody secretly must have figured this out already, it doesn't take much to figure it out, a sinple line drawing with two vertical lines for a magnified slit. Some photons trace a path in a straight line, some reflect only once, others reflect twice, some three times, etc. For a photon to reflect three or more times, that is a very steep angle of incidence (perhaps 45%), whereas a photon that reflects off of only one side of the (presuming a horizontal) side of the slit has a smaller angle (perhaps only 10 or 20% to the slit side surface). I tried to build a single slit pinhole camera box but did not get any spectrum. But we can look at the back of a CD to see a diffraction grating, in addition there is a $10 diffration grating/spectromoeter sold on the Internet which I definitely recommend to see the difference between an object like the sun with an apparently continuous spectrum versus a flourescent light with only a few individual lines in the spectrum. I wish low cost spectrometers existed for average people with a computer, perhaps soon. I want to actually see the spectrum spread over many pixels, and to see the dark lines which I have never seen in person. So I think this theory may work, one point I think cannot be denied is that, when a slit is opened a light goes through without any spreading, and so, clearly this a reflection phenomenon in my opinion, (not a bending of light as is claimed, light does bend but only around large gravity so far as is publically known), but I am keeping an open mind. This theory is still missing an intuitive explanation for the spreading of light. Also, one other thing is that, this theory also works for a reflecting diffraction grating such as the bottom of a DVD. The only difference is that all light is reflected once (for node 0), twice (for the two next nodes. As a note, the nature of the two sides is clear when seeing that photons that reflect only once are going to reflect off the right side and off the left side of the side of the slit. Perhaps for a square slit we would see even spectrum going up and down, perhaps in a circle around node 0.) The key is that I can only guess without seeing video of all the experiments, and doing experiments myself. That is the best way of really knowing what the truth is, people can hypothesize all the time, and that is fine, but looking at the actual phenomenon is in my mind the most important thing. In addition, a grating has thousands of tiny carved lines in a tiny space, and I think that this simply amplifies the spectrum, which is normally very dim, because each frequency is really a tiny fraction of the source light. I think the double-slit is probably like two gratings, but my home-made double-slit box doesn't produce a spectrum, just two white fuzzy lines. So this is really an interesting theory, but what explains the spreading out by frequency? I have tried to think creatively and, I think, maybe there is some property of the photons that determines the angle it reflects at. For example, since only the reflected photons spread out, I can envision a beam of photons collides with atoms in the mirror-like side of the prism...the atom nucleons, or electrons, or even other photons, recoils, bounces into another photon and bounces back (like a water drop will send water up in the air) sending the first photon into the opposite direction. Perhaps the frequency that the photon/atom that pushes back varies depending on the frequency of the beam of source photons doing the initial push, and the amount of push determines angle of reflection. I don't know, it's just a guess. One question is, is white light made of tiny individual beams each with a regular frequency? Another is, is a photon with a blue frequency always going to be in a blue frequency? I kind of doubt it, because frequency is only determined by space between photons. So a photon that is a green photon one minute could perhaps be in a beam of orange light the next. Infact, one theory is that a high frequency light is made using photons of lower multiples, so a laser beam with 20 nm wavelength actually contains a 40 nm wavelength within it, 20,40,60,80,100 nm, etc. all may be contained in that single beam. I guess according to that theory, you could make the color red by simply filtering the color blue. So Violet with 380nm wavelength, could become red at 760nm wavelength if you could remove (absorb or reflect) every other photon. I guess in theory if you beam a violet light on a red filter you should see only red light continuing past the filter, if not, that would be revealing. I only have a red laser, so, so much for that experiment.
EX: Can red light be produced from violet light? My advice is to use a simple red filter and a violet laser.
Perhaps even other "multiple frequencies" can be found within the visible spectrum.
I am reading that the second order spectrum is even more spread out, so that is interesting. One thing that appears a problem with this is that why would light spread out for a reflection in a slit and not for an ordinary mirror? I think it has to have something to do with the small number of photons going through a slit.
I am playing around with a pinhole camera. These things are cool, I encourage you to throw one together for yourself if you have never looked into one. It takes 2 seconds, just take a 1 foot cubed box (or really most boxes work) and on one side poke (or cut) a big hole (about an inch in diameter) towards the top, and poke a smaller hole (about 1/4-1/2 inch) towards the bottom, point the thing near a lit scene (in particular outdoors, but even indoors it works), close the box so it is dark inside, and look in the big hole. I taped a white sheet of printer paper on the opposite side where the light is projected. Outside, it's like looking at a dim blurry photograph. A person can add a lens, or angle a mirror at 45 degrees so you can look in from a different angle. You should add the mirror and lens inside the box when you find the focal point, where the light comes to a point. The image a person sees in a pinhole camera is, perhaps unintuitively at first, upside down. It takes a second to figure out why. First, a tiny beam of light is entering the box, so any light that reaches the top or bottom of the screen must be coming in at an angle. Comprende? ok das is goot. The only light that has that angle, for example to the bottom of the projection screen, traces back to the ceiling, and to the top traces back to the floor. So the light enters and there is a point where most of these beams of light are all in a tiny point (where the image turns upside down), and that is the focal point to use to mirror or magnify/focus the image. I'm not the expert but play around with it, it's fun. Looking at this pinhole camera, it's something everybody sould do at least once, because it's like the Faraday magnet experiment to make a current...if yer interested in science it helps to actually see the experiment, to see the phenomenon and to play around with it, to understand the specifics of how to make it work.
10/05/05
people fascinated and very attuned to sex, very interested in every sexual detail. Sex events rate up there with violent events for capturing the publics interest, so people are very very interested in sex and physical pleasure, genitals, etc. but yet, ironically, at this time, most people live lives of celbacy and total abstanence from physical pleasure, or practice monogomous sex, and then I think for many people exciting sex is long gone, but they view each other as best friends, and want to make a family. They make a conscious decision to have sex strictly, and mainly for the purpose of reproducing.
I found a place where people can review doctors and I wrote a review of a dentist that I got service from for a few years.
Dr Alysia Borgman: Borgman is technically profficient and was one of the first people to have a web page, but I was shocked when she revealed that she doesn't believe in evolution. She got her degree from Loma Linda and that is a religious school. Beyond that, Borgman and her staff could occassionally be rude, more her staff than Borgman herself. One example of a few is how I asked about the cost (I had to ask for a receit) and the receptionist said "cheap!", and I said "poor people usually are!". Kind of a little low-brow rudeness, but then we probably can expect this from those who don't accept something as simple as the theory of evolution. It was just unpleasant, but Borgman is technically skilled and I don't think any work she did on my teeth was unneccesary and was done with a good skill level. Borgman advocated the use of flouride and did measure pocket depth each time, both of which I think are good. Borgman uses a cottonswab to numb the gum before injecting novacaine which is lowers some of the pain of the needle going in and uses digital xray (which probably most people do now I suppose). I think this doctoroogle.com is wonderful, I wish it was free, its good to compare notes like ratemyteacher.com and get to the truth about everything. I will add in this web review that Borgman called me "Ped" instead of Ted one time which I thought was evidence of brutality, stupidity, and no small amount of comformity. I think she didn't like all the attention, in particular bad attention that having me as a customer brings on, and so said "Ped" thinking (and correctly so) that I would then leave as that is annoying...(Victor in the Wheel of Life said the same thing, some of it must be about money too)...you know, nobody likes verbal abuse, and while I accept a certain amount of abuse, too much I don't think I need to tolerate in particular when I never dish any out (I could go on and on about how they are in the Jesus cult, believe in gods and heaven is in the clouds, ...do you see any demons in my teeth? and how they are antisexuals and hypocrites, but I don't because I have a life and many projects that consume my mind, I have better things to do and think of, I'm not trying to hurt people's feelings). It was the rudeness and the fact that she doesn't believe something as simple as evolution that I decided to stop going to Borgman. Now I'm looking for a person that graduated from a non-religious school, and hopefully not a fervent Christian, ideally an atheist (if only an atheist network/registry existed we all could access, I've been calling for a "church-going registry" for years, who are those idiots? where are they? I know they exist and I don't want to donate a dollar to that cause if at all possible.).
In other news:
cnn reports a guy plea bargins to 5 years in jail for beating to death at 74 year old.
the head of HP is looking at 7 years in jail for spying? that's absurd and Lockyer is doing this. I have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes, you know it has to be dirty dirty dirty, as most nonviolent charges are. Whenever we see stuff like this, people charged with nonviolent crimes I have a large amount of skepticism and distrust, knowing that most of these people hears and sees thought. The only real nonviolent crimes, are mainly theft, where, many times simply paying back the money, maybe plus interest, or small amount of jail time for repeat offenders and those who cannot afford to pay back the money is enough.
I could go on for days about this kind of stuff in the news...it's so stupid and frightening. I summarized before by simply saying that when a person kills another person, all those in the camera net know exactly what happened, ie who the killer is, within a few hours, maybe within a day, but the investigation will go on for years, many times, murders will go "unsolved" and unpunished for decades, and then when a person is charged, the trials go on for years and years. Our court system is a disgrace, but what is worse is that the public refuses to talk about it, and beyond that the major media rejects any new ideas such as full democracy voting in the courts, discussion about violent versus nonviolent crime and which is more serious, etc.
I have to ask: why are their lasers mounted in every building and street lamp? I mean what is the thinking behind that? Are they strong enough to actually murder a person? Do we need mounted guns on the streets? and in orbit? Whether we vote yes or no, they are there anyway.
Many people will not look kindly on this view, but I think the truth is more important, and that is this: while I vote in favor of many items on the constitution, for free speech, for free expression, for right to trial, and agree with large portions of the constitution, I think ultimately, like the bible, or any law, popular opinion has to have a higher value. I think ultimately full free and honest democracy is more important than the constitution or any paper. I think it's obvious that the constitution is going to eventually, some century be superceeded by (and no doubt the best parts included in) popular law. I definitely disagree with most of the popular views but I still think laws supported by the majority of people is the fairest system there is. To that I would add the advice of stopping violence and destruction as the highest priority, enforcing full and free information, freeing the wrongly imprisoned, and all the other items I repeat just about every day. With this voting, it should be constant (votes standing for the duration of a person's life), and publically accessible (perhaps initially only voluntarily). 10/06/06 My understanding is that the US consitution forms the beginning of all the laws in the USA, although Habeus Corpus and older laws are also accepted as being included in the US law. But as I have said before, we need to update and prune our laws in accordance with popular opinion, we should not be subject to any backwards views of the past that no longer hold popular support. Any law that does not win popular support should be removed from the current working set of laws.
10/06/06
Just a quick comment about a Nobel prize going to the Coby satellite founders. I think that since this satellite collected actual experimental data that there is some value in that data, as opposed to some theoretical find that perhaps no physical data exists for. I'm interested in looking at that data and drawing my own conclusions. It's not clear to me what Coby actually found. Some reports say that the "background radiation" is in the form of black-body radiation, and others add that it appears to be "lumpy". So I want to find the actual nature report and see what is claimed. Ofcourse, as I have said before, I reject the theory of a big bang, and expanding universe and think the universe is more likely to be infinitely old and infinitely large. The only evidence I can give is that there have to be some galaxies too far away for our telescopes to see. There is a simple relationship between a viewer and a galaxy: the farther a viewer is from a galaxy, the more possible direction the light can be moving in. The farther a viewer, the less chance any beam of light from a distance galaxy will reach them. I think the red shift of the apparantely most distant galaxies is not because of their velocity compared to us, but is because of some other phenomenon, perhaps the stretching of light from gravity. For example, it seems clear that when we look at a gravitational lens we see a spiral galaxy, for example, spread over a larger area, and if we think of how this effect might look from a 90 degrees angle, perhaps the light is being stretched into a lower frequency there. Maybe that is wrong, but there is also the experiments done by another Nobel prize winner C.V. Raman that show that frequency of light can be shifted into the red by reflecting off of many objects. So I have said before, and still stand by the claim that the "background radiation" is probably photons from galaxies too far to see, or maybe even stray photons from galaxies we can see. One thing I think we can say with some amount of certainty about these photons is that whatever their source, it has to be from some source relatively close to us, because after some distance the possibility of a photon reaching our tiny detectors is basically zero percent. What that distance is I don't know, but we can take the largest galaxy known, perhaps M87, and keep theoretically moving that back and find when not one beam of light will reach the largest of our detectors (which is perhaps the Hubble? or maybe an interferometer the diameter of earth). In fact, come to think of it, perhaps an interferometer could find the farthest galaxies not yet seen or only partially seen by other telescopes. Clearly, that distance, currently for the farthest light source is under 20 billion light years. Any galaxy beyond 20 billion light years away can not possibly be seen with our current technology.
As an update, kingsizedirect.com made the $15 coupon that was 15% now $15 off to their credit. They have good prices in their clearance. Hey maybe big and tall man can match up with wild woman? That's a new song I'm putting together called "wild woman".
10/10/06
It must be clear a pattern for the included to see that the excluded all have to masturbate but the included can usually find sex. Where could the excluded turn to find a partner for sex? How could the included not find somebody with all the people they can interact with? Plus, it is probably a clear pattern how excluded have colorful lives, while included have less colorful lives, because the included known everybody can see them and so they are less adventurous and tend not to stray from the mainstream behavior they see.
On the Russian reporter that was murdered by a person with a handgun. It looks to me like Pupin either made this or allowed this to happen. You have to remember that clearly Pupin and those people in the Russian government all see and hear thought and have for decades. So, many many people around the planet know exactly who killed this poor woman. My guess is that there will be no arrest, and that is very strong evidence, in light of knowing that all the people in the police know precisely who did it. What citizen would be angry at a reporter enough to risk life in jail and maybe the death penalty for murder? Only those in the government would do such a thing, knowing that they won't be prosecuted. It's frightening, in comparison, Bush jr has murdered more (3000 in 9/11 alone), but each murder of an innocent person is frightening, wrong and illegal.
I heard the "Inside Job" by Don Henley, that sounds like a good song, although, I think the reality of total free info has lessened the ability of people to steal ideas, but even in a totally free society, if the people are immoral, stupid, deceitful, etc. no amount of free info is going to make any difference, and that is the big problem we currently face, is the lack of basic honesty and wisdom in the average person, and in particular those in the included. How else could millions see all the evidence of an inside job in 9/11 and re-elect Bush jr? Perhaps most didn't see the evidence fully explained well enough. But it's clear Henley doesn't need the money, and so it's nice he took on the extra risk to hint to the public about the truth about many terrible crimes.
Apparently Pupin first saw what eyes see behind the head in October 1910. But I can't be sure. It seems clear now that Pupin may have used the same infrared technology to see eyes that sees thoughts...and may have uncovered a very interesting double-find all at once in seeing eyes and the thought screen (traditionally refered to as the mind). But how much longer was hearing thought behind that? And then sending images to both the eyes and mind screen (it probably is the same technology).
Just to cover every possibility, it is possible that some assaults are done through sound (ultrasound)...it's interesting that simply sometimes touching your skin makes the pain go away (not always though), and that would seem logic either if people suddly stop the beam, or the beam is disrupted on the skin cells by the motion of your fingers. I'm not sure how much force can be inflicted and directed with ultrasound.
10/12/06
I was learning about the Helios plane crash, and this is the main example of why the very simple addition of parachutes to commercial planes should be done very soon. This is not a bizarre or unusual request because look at how many capsules, rockets, and even now small planes have parachute systems that successfully save lives and have been functioning properly for years. Simply 3 thick cloth parachutes on the top of commercial planes from Airbus, Boeing, etc attached to the metal frame of the plane, electronically triggered to open upon a rapid decent, perhaps when a plane is out of fuel, when a wing is missing, and even controlled by a control in the cockpit. Perhaps even procedures should exist for how to deploy the chutes, for example turning the plane up to slow its horizontal velocity before opening the chutes. The parachute emergency landing system could automatically shut off the engines seconds before opening. A simple parachute system would have saved the lives of those 400 or something people on the Helios plane, and in other similar situations when the pilots are incapacitated. In addition, parachutes, like a car airbag that triggers when a large acceleration is experienced, could have saved those people on flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA (theoretically if the official story was true, which it ofcourse, is not). It seems to me so suicidal and stupid to send up a huge cyclinder of metal with only 1 method back down, that of a perfect landing, with no emergency landing systems at all, the most obvious being a parachute system. Perhaps it is an expensive system to test, with the possibility of losing some test plane if there is an error, but I think people should explore the physics of it and think about tough parachutes and how they might work. I think people will look back in 500 years when parachutes are a standard feature on all flying vehicles, and marvel at how primitive people are now. I should add that a person mentioned the idea of ejecting individual people which is probably an expensive (but nonetheless technically possible) alternative and will probably be done in the future, but I see the simply 3 parachutes (or even more) on the top of a plane
Not a good indication that the Nobel prize committee are endorsing the ancient theory of "souls" and "spirits", next they will be believing in "phlogiston" and "caloric".
I have found other people that have actually started talking about hearing and seeing thought, it's unbelievable...for years there has been nobody but me and a few included hinters. It's "Out There TV": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8386744922901050611&q=out+there+tv+911&hl=en with an interview of one Billy Lewis. They also interview David Ray Griffen who Fetzer claims is probably the best authority on the 9/11 event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1770248447205753124&q=out+there+tv+911&hl=en Some of the more probably highly inaccurate stories they tell are about aliens (it's very unlikely that a species would evolve eyes, nose and mouth on the same positions on a very human-like body), alien abductions (I can accept that perhaps those in the pupin cam net have possibly decoded a message from some advanced life, maybe from a globular cluster, but I'm doubtful, but on the other hand, they figured out how to see and hear thought, it can't be ruled out.), asparatame poisoning (Mae Brussell supported this, and in my opinion it discredited her otherwise more accurate work. I haven't really heard the evidence, but I have doubts about it, these are people that relish the illegal market for weed and other drugs, if they could make it illegal they probably would have by now), fake moon landing (it's just very doubtful, all the technology is adequate, people reaching the moon is certainly within the realm of technical possibility. 9/11 is certainly an inside job, but I seriously doubt the moon landing was staged in a studio.), ... these stories tend to cast doubt on the other "news" expressed on "Out There TV", but the far-fetched nature of these stories, probably allows them to talk about the truth about 9/11 and hearing thought with more immunity. I can't forget crop circles, some guy raised his hand and asked Paul Kurtz "So you think them crop circles ain't real?", and a rush of feeling went down my spine and I had to reevaluate why I was there, and what I was doing there, because that is shockingly stupid. The hosts are funny, in particular Richard, who asks what the deal with the public is to not be able to figure out the truth about 9/11 postulating that perhaps they have been "flourodated". I think its clear that they have been "godified", "jesufied" and massively underinformed by the television, magazine and newspaper companies. The "Out There TV" people appear to fit into typical, I guess what I would call liberal or neoliberal order, which is surprisingly uniform. If not liberal, I would say it's libertarian. They all view "globalists" as the big enemy, which defines them as "nationalists" (I view globalization as not as serious a threat as violence, jailing of nonviolent, secrecy, religion [I am for ending religion consensualy through science education, free info and free choice], we need to remember that nationism was a major feature of Nazism, they felt that they were the master race and master nation), religion is a central theme (the claim is that the globalists want to end religion, atheism is associated to communism, where I think atheism is inevitable and is wisdom...to claim Jesus rose from the dead and made 10 loaves of one, that a diety burned the tablets for Moses, Moses parted the red sea, etc...it's all hard to believe and only those who are easily duped believe the outlandish claims of the religions rejected by individual people even 2000 years before now), privacy is a big issue (where I lean more towards free info, but I do oppose free info for the government without free info for the public, and reject people in government having any more right to info than the public even for 911 calls and health records). But this new aspect of coming clean about hearing thought is nice to see (in addition to exposing 9/11 which is fortunately a mainstay of this group) and is a refreshing injection of truth into this typical cannonized liberal/libertarian philosophy. Speaking of injections, antipsychology doesn't form a part, infact psychology does form a part in this philosophy, and is used in the "you're the one that's crazy" mode, which is a method of throwing off claims that a person is insane...its a classical thing...as long as a person is on the "crazy offensive" there is less chance that claims of them being crazy will stick, where I take the view that I want to stop advocating the claims of insanity that get people tortured and jailed without trial or sentence, this includes "psychosis", "neurosis", "scitzophrenia", "insane", "crazy" and then the crude forms "nutter", "nut-job", "nuts", "bananas", prefering to use the words "inaccurate", and possibly "delusional" for a person like a hard core religionist who cannot accept evolution despite the more than sufficient evidence. But I see complaints about the right to trial, against restraining people with less room to move than a dog-cage, without any sentence, mixing violent and nonviolent together, etc. as on the horizon for this group, because the conspiracy theory people and liberals are almost always the ones locked in psychiatric hospitals, it's rarely the spartans, Warren Commission, 9/11 official storiers. It's through the 1984 Orwellian big brother paradigm that people are exposing the hearing and seeing thought secret, which is an interesting method. I use a different method myself of viewing it as a technological innovation that needs to be opened up to the public, but whatever works, damn just expose it already! Also the "more democracy" issue will probably start to make a stronger appearance in this group as time continues, as will decrim/legal prost and drugs, but clearly those issues have not entered mainstream yet.
A US citizen was arrested in Orange County with the charge of "treason", the new article states that a charge of "treason" has not been issued in years and that the punishment ranges from 5 years to the death sentence. What a narrow range eh? But you know, I have been voting against a treason law for years, because its too abstract, its a nonviolent crime, (therefore the death penalty does not fit the crime), and there are many nonviolent alternatives including simply banning a person from a nation, state, city etc. Most of the cases of treason have to do with a person who has access to secret info that sells the info to other nations, and in that case, since it is an information crime, I think they could be simply exposed and let go from any government job, but in a society of total free info there would never be any secrets and that is the way it should be in my vote. Some people argue the neocons that did 9/11 should be charged with treason, but it seems clear to me that is should be "accessory to murder before the fact". The best defense attorney in my view would argue that the neocon 9/11 plotters simply exercized their right to free speech, they didn't murder 3000 people, that it was Andrew O and Tom E that murdered those people, that the neocons simply gave the order which is free speech and nonviolent, and that their right to free speech is part of the constitution, where accessory to murder is a later law (to my limited knowledge) and is therefore unconstitutional and is a violation of the first ammendment right to free speech and expression. But I think most people side on jail time for assessory before the fact to murder and for good reason. But I see life of this star system ultimately supporting total free info and jailing only those who actually do violence, perhaps in thousands of years when violence is much less common. But I can see that the nazi neocons might be testing the waters to see about jailing liberals and democrats for terrorism and other bogus charges. I think that first they can jail the minorities: atheists, homo/bisexuals, 911/JFK/MLK/RFK conspiracy people, those labeled insane, misc perverts/pornsters, prostitutes, drug dealers/users, ... because the religious majority will allow it. The one group that will not be jailed or hospitalized are the murderers and assaulters, because the religious majority feel that violence is ok as long as its done by those in the pupin net, or certainly they are not spending a thought or dime on capturing those murderers and assaulters, Thane Cesar is living proof, as are AO and TE of 9/11. I was thinking how easy it would be to throw away what little democracy exists in the USA...I mean we only have 1 solitary day of voting every 4 years. All a president needs to do is delay it indefinitely. And you might think I am just making this up and it's crazy talk, but check it out, Tom Ridge (correct me if I'm wrong) from homeland security said in 2004 that they might need to postpone the election because of concerns about a terrorist attack (maybe they needed more time to work their election-rigging together). Then a US general, Tommy Franks (I guess only people named Tom issue these statements) said that if there is another terrorist attack they might have to repeal the constitution, end elections and declare a state of emergency. So we need to increase the public voting, not reduce it. We need to increase it more than just one day every four years, to maybe once a year, once a month, and ultimately to a constant and continuous public vote on all government decisions.
Let me say while I still remember: Don't let the antisexuals win! and Don't let the psychologers win! Let's make the defenders of consensual sex and thought-freedom people win for once and for ever.
A good NY Times article on how religious people get tax benefits the nonreligious don't. Look at the photo of a church near where I live. It's shocking to me that people can endure that kind of dullness and fraud. The guy there sold a quarter million copies of his abstract religious book. People are so dumb, its unbelievable. I want to say again how shockingly boring and dull church services are...it takes a special kind of person and a kind of mental numbness to endure that kind of idiocy and dullness. I was thinking that perhaps if people really believe in magic it might not be as dull, you could pretend that what the person is saying might actually be true, that angels fly around us, and people rise up from the dead and float around reassuring people still alive, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html?hp&ex=1160625600&en=3e7ff24164bf9aae&ei=5094&partner=homepage
10/13/06
I see a time when all people and business have to pay the same taxes, and hopefully just a single income tax. Maybe just a single income tax on people and not even on businesses. I guess I can see a property tax too possibly. Eventually people are moving to the moon, mars, the moons of jupiter, a changed venus. While I am here, its good to know that Pupin at Columbia figured out how to hear and see thought in 1910. There is more important news though, there is what an animal sees, but also what an animal thinks, and so there are two screens in an animal's mind. This is demonstrated by how we can visualize a triangle even when our eyes are open and we are processing images through our eyes. Now many of you are included and already know this, but many of you are like me and excluded, so this news really is for you.
In addition, I want to tell people that the future looks good, we are going to have walking robots in a few decades, and I mean everywhere, probably replacing all low-skill jobs and there will have to be food, soap etc programs to accomodate the many people without jobs, as we transistion to a humans-don't-work society. As we grow to the other stars, we will find that there is more than enough space and matter to continue population growth unhindered for thousands of years. Humans will no doubt change physical form however, like the way hippos evolved into whales...they gained size in the ocean because of less force of gravity in water, similarly humans will probably be spherical, their legs turning more into arms and grow very large as they live between the planets and stars because of the low gravity in addition to the selective advantage of more neurons and accomodating birth. But even ending aging by altering DNA so that a fetus grows to 20 and stops aging, even regenerating lost organs like other species.
Other ideas: we need to recognize the enemy: the republicans with their mass 911 murders and lies, check out videos on video.google.com loose change, in plane site. the antisexuals who despise sexuality may they never win, and the psychologers, the mind police of the planet. Beyond that, the secretists, watch out for the secretive, we need total free info, ofcourse the violent, those who jail and hospitalize the nonviolent, we have to recognize the enemies out there, religion is no good, the antiscientists, the antidemocracy and I am talking about full total and constant democracy, not that representative one day every four years crap. It's amazing to me that people can openly claim that Jesus rose from the dead, that Muhommed was magical, etc. and they are considered realistic.
Just a little info to those out there looking for some interesting truth.
09-22-2006
09/18?/06
EX: Do photons change velocity around a large mass such as a star or large planet?
09/20/06
I think the star system would be a much lonelier place without the many different races of people.
Mechanical clocks slow down the faster they go.
I question whether this is really true or not, and I think this really needs to be experimentally shown in video and proven clearly for all to see if true. If true, that mechanical clocks slow down the faster they are moving relative to all the other matter in the universe, then I think we need to ask, "Does time slow down, or do the particles slow down?". I for one, think that time does not slow down, but I can accept that the motions of a mechanical clock might slow, perhaps due to friction with other particles, for example. I am keeping an open mind, in particular in the absence of clear demonstrations that mechanical clocks tick more slowly the faster their velocity relative to the rest of the universe. In addition there is a logical relation that applies, if the mechanics of a clock slow down, so much the mechanics of all particles. So for example, a clock may slow down for example on an airplane relative to a clock on earth, and so, then so do our biological process, does our hearth muscle pump a tiny fraction slower? Do we walk slightly more slowly? (ie the motion of the particles of our muscles is slowed). I think that people may have erroneously interpolated or applied the example of electric particles in an accelerator to all other matter. For that example, I think that there is simply a limit on how fast an electric particle can be accelerated, because of the physical nature of electric fields, and not because of "time-dilation", or the idea that time slows down for the particle. I think it may be an effect similar to a car, plane or rocket where at some point there is no way to make an engine go any faster because it is already going the fastest it can, or simply, the higher the velocity of some object, the more the amount of fuel needed to make acceleration. For example a rocket a 10 km/hour can be accelerated by burning 10 pounds of fuel/second. But 10 pounds of fuel/second won't be enough to accelerate a rocket with a velocity of 100km/hour (since first, like in a car, some fuel goes simply to stop friction...like why the accelerator needs to be held down even when we are maintaining a velocity of 70mph on the highway...because we are using fuel against friction, but not accelerating).
EX: Does the motion of mechanical clocks and other objects actually slow down when moving faster relative to the rest of the universe?
I view myself similar to that kind of dog that likes to be petted alot. While most other people seem to me to be like dogs who have been beat, are hostile, angry, or simply ambivalent (perhaps similar to being neutered or spade). I like consensual physical pleasure, probably more than the average person.
I honestly think there is way too much attention, money and praise put on people in acting (and sports too inparticular in the absence of science and human rights heros), but that being said. It's interesting that Brad Pitt said he is waiting until all people can wed before he wed's and that he has had a child out of wed-lock. Marriage to me seems like a piece of paper, as I have said, if two people truly love each other they shouldn't need any paperwork or trinkets to prove it.
Song people periodically have been recently playing in my head I could not remember earlier: .."I live among the creatures of the night...I haven't got the will to stop and fight...", it's lyrics like these that make me gain appreciation for my own censored and obscurified music. This is similar to the Phantom of the Opera, and at least one person compared me to this story, but it's not quite clear...I don't hide, I happily accepted an interview from the Infidel Guy, for example, I freely distribute videos, I'm not afraid of giving my opinions openly, and I have nothing to hide...it simply is that the establishment doesn't want to show me and the ideas I am discussing. The story of my life is more like the story of an honest smart person supressed by a corrupt evil establishment, not a smart person who hides from society, but a smart person who is hidden from society against their will, not by choice. And speaking of living in the creatures of the dark, what better way can a person describe those in the Pupin camera thought network? Laura Branigan sung this song, and it was drummed into our poor heads. I had ambivalent feelings about the song the first time I heard it, like the vast majority of the songs I hear and that are widely heard and radio stations are paid to play. I like songs with either a smart lyrical message, or a technically impressive riff, new sound samples, etc. Kind of a funny point, that I see Branigan does the "Cause I am your lady
And you are my man" song, and I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this song might be related to me saying "we never hear any gay country songs...[heckler, that Warren guy: and yih never will!] and so I've written what may be the first gay country song....Your my man, I like to hold yer hand...], and it was funny, and I am ofcourse 100% for gay,bi,lesbian full rights, but then I heard this "I'm yer lady, and you are my man" and I couldn't help but notice the similarity, and it is funny...I always think of that "yer my man" song when I hear that "im yer lady" song. ah anyway...
If I ever do get into the secret camera-thought network things I want to see: (maybe not entirely in this order) (*a)
1) the 5 minute videos that tell all the stories about:
a) Who did murders: 9/11, Bakely, Jam Jay, Simpson-Goldman, Ramsey, Marley, Lennon, RFK, MLK, JFK
2) females that want to have sex with me and then those that want to reproduce with me too between ages 18-40. Probably in order of most interested in me, smart, large breasts, round butt, pretty face.(*b)(*c)
3) People that are a threat to my physical safety, from most dangerous to least, also considering potential, and physical closeness
4) history of the 18 secret technologies, and all other important secret technologies
5) what people I know are included and excluded (maybe just 5 second vids [including text date] of them being included in order of those I have most memories of)
6) any important info I need or should know I can't think of or am not aware of the existence of.
7) big lies beside the secret technologies
8) best female on female love (not staged thank you), this will help our sex lives
9) Closest times I have almost been murdered or assaulted
10) Who are violent that live around me (so-called registry of violent offenders, including off-the-record/unreported assaults and murders)
11) just maybe 15 second video profiles of those people that watch me the most
12) 15 second to 1 minute video profiles of the most watched humans (if already known, then simply 1 second of vid is enough).
*a) It's amazing that most murders only require a very few seconds of video to tell the entire story. The video of the person murdering (if no disguise, most of the time that is all that is needed, just a 3 second video clip of them doing the murder. But if somebody else if involved a 3 second video of their involvement could be simply them paying for it, etc. these are more abstract and complex and probably may go into even a few minutes of video.) But the irony is that a murder trial may last for 5 years before a verdict is reached, and here if people were smart it could all be wrapped up with 3 seconds of video from the cam-thought net, of even maybe 10 seconds of street camera video even without the cam-thought net.
*b) Sex+Repro: I am thinking that ideally I want to have oral and vaginal sex with a different female at least once a week, reproducing up to 10 humans with 10 different females. But if there is a limitation then having sex with a different female only every 1 year, 2 year, etc. up to 10 years depending on the quality of females that will agree to that. I can see there being one (and perhaps more) female that lives with me and reproduces with me, and then regularly having sex (w/o pregnancy) with different people (as her and my interest indicates), and even simply one female for life with no sex with other people if things are desparate and the highest quality females are in this catagory (let's hope not). For any child I create half of, I am willing, as I have stated before, to pay for half of all living expenses for the child until age 18, and that includes an open invitation to live with me for free, half free food (my half will be of my and the child's chosing), half clothes, half day-care. I think ideally I want to make 3 to 10 children, each with a different mother, but potentially 3 per mother. I want to highly schedule my last 20,000 ejaculations. They should be carefully placed, and not to simply to go up into the air, but onto a face, or breasts, a back, and of course into a vagina or rectum. It's a tiny pleasure of life taking up only at 10 minutes a day, but still very much an important part of life. I may find that I have to alternate days, and then I can only schedule up to 10,000 ejaculations...a pittence! 9/21/06 For repro, wealth, job skills, occupation may influence my decision, because I don't want to be burdered with paying the full amount for a child I only make half of, but I am willing to if the best choice(s) are without any occupation, skills, income, or wealth (up to at least the point of paying for themselves and a child we both make). And I think expenses for a child need to be accurately estimated.
*c) Nonsexual Friends: Beyond those females I want to have sex and reproduce with (since I have been denied this for 37 and counting years), I want to find the smartest people, simply people like me that agree with the views I have. I want to know who are the most watched on our side, and then on the other sides.
9/21/06
I think I need to put together my first search, and that is forming into at least two major ideas in my mind:
1) female for single event of sex no chance of pregnancy
a) might be oral
b) might be vagina
c) could be both
d) includes consensual and nonpainful fondling and touching of all accessible body parts.
2) female for at least one birth
a) time period of being in same building (living together)
1) until death
2) at least 20 years
3) at least 15 years
4) at least 10 years
5) at least 5 years (until school)
6) at least 1-5 years
7) 1 year
8) until birth
9) 3 months
10) until pregnant
11) until sex is done
b) monogomous or no
c) place child lives in event of separation
d) sleep in same bed?
e) live with me in same house
a) for free
b) pay part of loan (complex)
c) rent
d) trade for services/employment
3) could be threeway 2f+me, or fourway 3f+me
My own choice for 2) depends on the quality of females available and interested. Perhaps most females will not know (other than 2a1) what they want either (and are in a similar decision/selection process). Hypothetically, if there are acceptible quality females of equal kinds for all options, I think I am leaning toward: options 2a11,2a8,2a7,2a6,2a5 maybe 2a4,2a3,2a2 depending on: quality, the system other people are using (if any other than 2a1),
My goal is to maximize and distribute the amount of love, and not just keep it for one special person. In addition, to pursue a more natural course of sexuality. I am interested in variety (mainly as relates to appearance) in terms of sex. I think possibly I might like to try to reproduce with one person of each race:
perhaps
pregnancy (just as rough guideline)
1: caucasian (black, brown, yellow hair), native, asian
2: native, asian, arab, african
3: asian, arab, african, caucasian 2
4: arab, african, caucasian 2
5: african, caucasian 2
6: caucasian 2
7: native 2
8: asian 2
10: african 2
(I ofcourse, cannot rule out people of mixed race and other races...it really depends on the person, but I have to obviously chose one person to be first, and that is an important choice). Among caucasian there are: US, Canadian, English, French, German, Italian, Jewish, Greek, Russian, Australian.
This is simply a rough order based on my initial preferences for sex and reproduction. It may be useless depending on what females are available and interested. But this helps to give me an idea about planning my future.
Because caucasian is such a large group I may increase the number of different caucasian females.
>From a female perspective it may be undesirable to be weighed down with a child in particular from a father that is in a different location (although the child may live with me, and ofcourse I expect a female to be paying for half of the expenses of the child in an open information arrangement). And in fact a female already with a child is not a huge deal, depending on the circumstances, I don't want to have to pay for a child that is not half-made from me. So I can see this is probably a fear for many females, but if there is a half-half arrangement for the child it will help. Because I have not alot of money, and a very small condo, I think I am going to be limited. A female that has a child, but the child lives with the father might be more acceptable. First a female, ofcourse, with no children is probably the most acceptable, although an older child might provide a form of day care, perhaps from the 3-5p, it's something to think about. It's true that any person female or male is probably going to lose vallue once they reproduce, in particular a female that is breast feeding for a few years. Maybe I should move towards a harem for life arrangement.
In addition, putting a limit of, for example 5 years, may not mean that me and the female will separate after 5 years.
I think it very unlikely that I will live in somebody else's house, but I can't rule that out. In any event, I will always be keeping a house of my own.
I like the openess of 2a11, because then a person may choose to stay (with my consent), there is no obligation, if there is a pregnancy (and that is what is being planned), then our lives continue on, but I will have to start paying for half of the expense of: lost wages, health checkups relating to the pregnancy, the birth, and from there, clothes, daycare (which can be the mother, with me paying half the expense of lost wages), food (I expect, generally a female to pay for and prepare her own food, but I am flexible, vegetarian is best, but I will pay for at least half of the [vegetarian only] food for the baby until 18 and perhaps even beyond).
In the event that I do not have the money to afford my financial responsibilities in total, I expect that money dedicated to any children I make half of should represent a fair amount of my total income. Simply as an idea, should be no more than my income/(number of children I am supporting+me) for each child. In other words 9 childrens would be 1/10 of my total after taxes income dedicated each of their expenses (includes shelter...perhaps shelter should be like a child too).
All of these things should be agreed upon in writing, and perhaps video, and at least notarized.
Important features of female for sex and repro (later divide into sex and repro):
1) smart (all of these things are not required but may help)
a) evolution
b) interest in science
c) interest in technology
d) funny, sense of humor
e) many skills (food,music,tools,technology,etc)
f) not religious/skeptical of religion (see 7)
g) interest in history
h) interest in the future
i) has theory about the universe, understands what galaxies, etc are.
j) not antisexual, tolerant of consensual sexuality, nudity
k) for free info in some form, if not total free info
l) interest in idea of full democracy
m) anti-drug war, and/or anti-jailing drug users
n) concern for freeing nonviolent in jails and hospitals, perhaps with exceptions for theft, repeat nonviolent offenders, those in jail for threats or plans of violence and/or property destruction
2) breasts
3) round ass
4) pretty face
5) not too overweight
6) height can influence
7) religion, prefer none/anti-religion/agnostic, but some may be acceptible, in particular godder, or non practicing
8) vegetarian (although meat-eater is acceptible)
9) musical/movies tastes something I can live with
10) a job, job skills, college degree in actual science
11) enough money (and future employment prospects) to pay for themselves (their own food, shelter, clothes, half of child).
12) non-violent (this actually should go higher, and then violence in defense of physical attack is obviously acceptable, this is as pertains to first strike violence)
13) honest, no or very few secrets
14) age 18-40 (probably initially 20-30)
15) lives in same county (it helps but is not essential, but otherwise, money is going to be a factor for transportation...ultimately I prefer to live in the same city as any children, but I don't rule out other ideas), possibly opened up to CA coast.
16) no violent male boyfriends/ex-husbands/family members
17) not married (and is willing to have sex and pregnancy without marriage)
18) does not already have children, or has a child(s) but they are already completely financially taken care of, and none of my money will be needed to pay for anything of theirs (I am willing to provide shelter but there is currently very limited space).
19) not overly turned off by other females, perhaps willing to sleep and touch together with me and other females. Initially and perhaps permanently without other males.
Planning out how to raise the children I make half of:
1. Until school age
a) pay for in house care
1) can be mother
2) can be employee
a) prefer female but an flexible
b) pay for day care
c) should have video access to child at all times
d) kind of education/raising/duties age 0-5
1) potty train
2) feed
3) dress
4) play games with
5) educate via TPH lesson plan
a) learning sounds of language
b) learning words, nouns, verbs, adjectives
c) learning to read, write, type
d) history of universe, evolution, science, future, life
1) geography of universe, galaxy, star system, earth, vehicle transportation systems
2) biology including sex
e) education and warnings about religious, antisexuals, psychologers
f) learning laws, against first degree violence, (perhaps defending self), interacting with other people, theft, property, money, business (how people buy, sell, and trade), the typical course of a human life, making friends, avoiding enemies, finding dates, getting a mate to agree to physical pleasure (hugs, kisses, rubs) [always with the idea that every child is going to be starved of physical affection from those outside their family, with the goal of trying to minimize that neglect and suffering, but perhaps trying not to overcompensating with familial or pet touch, although I'm not sure there can be too much, but it should be obvious if there is, or it's too late]. punishments for violence: time locked in room? removal of privledges? hopefully there will be little need to punish for violence.
g) physical exercize (either as nonviolent sports, and/or small basic 10 minute exercize/stretch period, perhaps nature/zoo walking)
6) learning to walk
7) riding a bike
8) drive a car (may be robot by then)
2. at school age
a) public school
b) there and back on bus
c) after school
1) waits alone until 5:30p
2) a person is there until 5:30p
a) can be older child
b) can be mother
c) can be employee
9/21/06
One comment, it's amazing to me that people have built a society where uneducated idiots pay and are paid to constantly pester fine lawful people with secret hidden lasers (or whatever they are) every 5 seconds (you know, an itch, a tiny pain, the old water goes into the windpipe). Can you imagine seeing these people that constantly do this? What a bunch of idiots. Here we could be enjoying life, spending our money to build walking robots, to go to the moon, mars, other planets, to secure life on earth, to make justice while here...you know jail the violent, free the innocent, and ofcourse our own physical pleasure. And here is this exquisite technology, and then how is it used? Just to constantly bother innocent people. It's amazing to me, that people would evolve such stupidity. To have idiots like this running the show. These are clearly people who enjoy seeing their enemies annoyed, distracted, suffering, assaulted, etc. just low-lifes. I don't enjoy seeing my enemies suffer, I am for simple justice, I want the murderers and assaulters in the jail, and I'm not interested in gloating or torturing them incessently with laser itches, etc. I can't help but think that so much of this comes from the lack of education, the popularity of the idiotic religions, the tolerance and widespread approval of violence, secrecy (I firmly believe that people would set society for the better if only they could see what has happened and is happening here), and the diversions into antisexuality, drug abuse, mental/psychological purity, etc...much lower priority ideas, in particular when compared to violence. Still the picture is periodically in my mind...just the shock at how people would spend their wealth and time making people itch...a billion dollar technology grown from Pupin, and all they can do is secretly use it to bother ants. I'm hopeful though...even though this has been 100 years of secrecy with no sign of change and only more and more injustice culminating in 9/11 and continuing to move on through to whatever evil events await the poor excluded public next...even so...I'm still optimistic about the future. As I said I think people, if ever they do get to see, will vastly improve the current situation with the secret cameras and lasers...as I have said numerous times...doing what those in power ought to be doing and have done years ago, jailing the murderers, whom everybody knows, the assaulters, freeing those in jail for drugs and prostitutions...I doubt we will get all of that, but I think we would at least get jailing of most of the murderers from simply popular opinion, and that would be an improvement, but I think too, as pertains to these nuisance people with lasers, probably the public would vote that type of thing down, and punish people that do such nuisance type of stuff, even potentially punishing the wealthy imbeciles that fund them. Mainly, I hope the focus will be on shutting down violence, much of the other stuff can be shaped through democratic opinion and policy...hopefully most people will not fund those who engage in asshole albeit nonviolent asshole behaviors (like lying, stealing, making people itch, etc), and that will help. I'm optimistic, because the Internet is growing, and it's going to be the Internet I think, as far as I can see, that is going to be able to get this message to the public in a way that television, radio, movies, magazine, newspapers, and just about anything else can't.
9/22/06
A quick comment, there is at least one good thing that has in fact come from the 9/11 mass murder performed by the US neocons, and that is that 9/11 is an event that draws a clear line between who supports lying about mass murder and who opposed lying about mass murder. It has made who is a scum bag and who is an honest decent person more easy to determine. Simply put, 9/11 was done by Bush jr, Cheney, PNAC, people employed in the US military, Controlled Demolition, CIA, FBI, and others. The evidence is very clear, and that is just the evidence that has escaped to the public, and an ocean of other evidence being supressed (like the FBI confiscated Gas station video, and many others, hey just the thought images...can you imagine how much evidence there is?). So any person actively supporting the official 9/11 story is simply a supporter of mass murder, and it is very very simple. We have already seen how:
Scientific American
Popular Mechanics
Michael Shermer
Penn & Teller
and many others have actively endorsed the official 9/11 stories and gone out of their way to criticize the truth about 9/11, and earn the rank of "highly scummy" or if you will "highly sleazy", or simply "accessory to mass murder after the fact", since they know the truth, it's not an honest mistake, they know the truth from the camera-thought pupin network...but even just seeing the physical evidence that is available to the excluded is more than enough. So 9/11 provides a clear "supporter of murder indicator". And so here we see another person that been exposed: John McCain writes the foreward to the "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book ...it's really interesting, we might never know that McCain was such a brutal supporter of cold blooded murder of lawful US citizens, if he had not written such a preface. And so you can see, that this is valuable information. McCain is openly a supporter of the 9/11 mass murder, he may change his story later, but this book is physical evidence for all to see, that McCain is an accessory to many of these 9/11 murders after the fact. For example, being excluded, I had very little idea what McCain believes in, and so now, this is clear that he is a brutal guy who cares very little for those painfully murdered in 9/11 by this guy Andrew O, of who ever it was, probably from controlled demolition, but funded by Bush jr, and ordered by the neocons to initiate the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, while the people were still inside, in addition to those miserably murdered by the military planes that hit the buildings. So I am glad that we excluded can know the truth about McCain, and this will stand as a strong piece of evidence that he supported murder of lawful US citizens. We in the excluded might never have known otherwise. And this is strong evidence that there is nothing of redeemable value in the republican group, that for whatever reason, this political group is nothing more than a criminal group of murders and supporters of murder. There is not one person, or at least the vast majority of the republican party is a disgrace and a violent criminal enterprise. I think the entire republican party needs to be denounced and rejected, for their uniform support for 9/11 (and in fact much of the democratic party too, those who openly question the truth about 9/11 that supported the Iraq invasion). This thing with McCain just shows me how terribly corrupt and dangerous the entire republican party is, to uniformly be supporting the murder of thousands of innocent people in NYC. One interesting aspect of this book is the popularity of it, it's ranked #547, which is a high ranking. And you know, it's sad, because I think what this means is that many people, in particular those who voted for Bush jr, want very much to believe that the official story about 9/11 is true, they want to be told that the videos like "Loose Change", "In Plane Site", "Terror Storm", and others are not true. And as I said, it's sad, because they are excluded, they don't know the truth, that they helped to murder those innocent 9/11 people by voting for Bush jr, and they elected the worst monster to ever be elected president in US history (I mean I think history will reflect that this claim is so far true). But there is another phenomenon that I think is interesting, and that is...at some point...I mean given all the physical evidence of controlled demolition, the Pentagon hole being way too small, etc. eventually, people realize that these people are basically somehow mesmerized into believing the lies of Bush jr and the others. For example, see if you can follow my logic here: Bush jr, and them have to lie about 9/11, they can't tell the truth openly to the public that they killed all these people in the WTC and Pentagon. THere is a reason for that...why wouldn't they just tell the truth? Because if the told the truth, it's clear that they would never be elected, and that they might even probably be jailed. They lie because they have to trick the public, they can't tell the public the truth because the public is basically lawful and decent and would reject their philosophy of murder. I mean the entire basis of 9/11 is to trick the public, that is why it was done. So, it's simple that Bush jr and the 9/11 plotters have to lie about 9/11 to the public in order to remain popular. And so, there is a phenomenon here where, it's like a reverend moon phenomenon where...even despite overwhelming evidence, the followers of Bush jr will still believe their lies. I can imagine perhaps even those in the camera netwrok with overwhelming evidence of the truth about 9/11 might even still believe Bush jr's lies. I don't know, perhaps that is doubtful. But these people, I have a feeling, even when the see the thoughts and full planning of 9/11 they will still believe the lying Bush jr. I mean it's like total unthinking allegience to some claim despite very large amounts of physical evidence to the contrary. And so that is a phenomenon...it's like a person who still believes a murderer in prison that denies their crime until they die. It's a sad phenomenon, and in particular to see it on such a large scale. But then religion is similar, the way people believe the very unbelievable stories about Jesus raising the dead, Moses parting a sea, and on and on. This 9/11 event is going to forever serve, like the JFK murder as a clear line between honorable and less than honorable for historians and hopefully when thought images go public the excluded will finally get to see all the liars and suck-hole supporters of murder. As an added comment, it's clear that if we as a people, as a nation, and an excluded public ever want to know the truth about 9/11, RFK, MLK, JFK, all the murders of the innocent, then we should never vote for Republicans, not that Democrats will share that info, but we know Republicans will never because they are so deeply connected to the murders and cover-ups of 9/11, JFK, etc.
As an aside it's not helpful that there are liberals that reject the truth about 9/11, because I am sure that is the first argument McCain and other similar conservatives will use: "hey Chomsky supports the official story, other democrats and liberals lied about the mass murder too...". In fact, we only really see one democrat, Howard Dean, say anything about the truth about 9/11, not even Kucinich (to my knowledge) has expressed doubts. In England Michael Meecher is probably the most distinguished of the people expressing doubts about the official 9/11 story. Chomsky was recently refered to by Hugo Chavez at the UN, and you know, I like a lot of what Chomsky has to say, but to me, like many liberals I don't think they are living as far into the future as I am, or as honest as I am...because as I said, Chomsky for all the good ideas rejects 9/11 being an inside job, and that is a simply truth that shows he is either corrupted or duped (and I have plenty of stupid mistakes in my past too). Then another popular person who I have alot of respect for is Richard Dawkins. I mean, here Dawkins' new book "The GOd Delusion" is #20! on amazon.com. That is an amazing and enormous accomplishment, and it shows that people are willing and interested to hear criticism of religion. At the same time, Dawkins appeals to and is a believer (as far as I know) in a lot of the fraudulent claims of pychology. Religion as delusion is an argument I make ... I have said things like "70 percent of the people deny evolution, and so delusion is commonplace", and "millions believe Jesus rose from the dead and so delusion is commonplace", and I make clear that nobody should be strapped down, drugged, or imprisoned as is common practice, where I seriously doubt Dawkins makes that clear. So I am proud to have stepped forward to say that forced treatment is unethical, and that psychosis (freely used and fully believed by Dawkins, in fact Dawkins even uses cruder labels like "bonkers", "crackpot", that are to me harsh but I am one of the few who has seen up close what is going on in the psychiatric hospitals and the abuse that is the end product of this popular belief in mental purity stigma, which is innocent nonviolent people being held with less room to move than in a dog cage strapped to a bed for hours, drugged against their choice, held without violating a crime, without a sentence, and on and on). Inaccurateness is a reality (I think that truth exists outside of human existence), and so I think people can believe false claims...and all of history is built on this...science is a constant correcting and learning process, our theories now, we can be sure will be improved and made more accurate as time continues (for example, that the farthest galaxy we see is the end of the universe...now that is sanity). Ofcourse calling somebody psychotic is free speech and must be protected, but to me it's like calling somebody a sorcerer...you know...it just has no value to me...or saying somebody is relactant...it is meaningless because there is no real phenomenon of relactantness, of sorcery, or of psychosis. They are all erroneous useless claims. Now if we want to talk about the disease of violentia, there we have a real phenomenon. Still, I have to look kindly on the effort put forward by Dawkins. Although he stoops to have Penn and Teller the supporters of mass murder comment on his book, which to me is unethical, but we see this with major media products. It appears that they cannot surface without putting some kind of mud on themselves. It is a really interesting phenomenon. The only way they can be accepted, mass distributed and funded is if the neocon murderers get some kind of pat on the back, or some concession. I can't possibly do such a thing, or if I ever did I would use the money to expose what happened, so it's one reason why I live in poverty, but at least with my value system in a way that I approve of.
Dawkins has chosen this technique, of embracing psychology and the stigma of mental impurity as a tool against religion, where I reject (for the most part) the use of psychology as a useful tool against the mass mistake of religion. I mean it's useful to harness the massive stigma that puritans and idiots have forged of mental purity, as applies to their own cronic dishonesty about hearing thought for example...is that a form of mental disease to be so dishonest all the time? to live a dual life? and how about secretly watching people in their houses and keeping it a secret from them for 100 years...is that sane? Does a sane mind support that kind of dishonest unfair system? I guess it's like slavory...are those who support slavory insane? But mainly I apply this stigma simply to try and open people's minds up to the idea that believing the obviously false claims of religion, that jesus rose from the dead, that jesus brough people back to life, that jesus turn 1 loaf of bread into 10, that moses parted the water, that zeus came down and reproduced with a human, and on and on...that to believe those lies is technically delusion, and perhaps a treatment would be to teach them evolution, the history of science, that consensual sex is healthy and natural, etc. which is basically what modern education is on the path to do. So, to conclude, I simply think that, as is the case with most books critical of religion that try to apply arguments of psychology that it's boring to me, because I already know that most of the stories of religion (certainly the supernatural stories) are lies.
idea of good and evil
It's interesting to me that people are really not clear on the basics of good and evil. Good and evil are, in my view, basically good and evil are human prejudices. If a meteor smashes into the earth and destroys life, we view that as evil, but life of some other star might view that as good. Just like we view killing a cow as good, but the cow certainly would view such a thing as evil. So good and evil are human prejudices. But that being said, they are useful descriptions and ideas. For me, for example, the most evil is homicide, the killing of a human. The killing of a chimp is evil in my view too, but not as evil as the killing of a human. From there, it is other forms of first strike violence, mainly assault, and beyond that we are into the nonviolent realm...we have crossed a very distinct line from violent event to nonviolent event...and here I would say the worst evil is restraining a human to a small space for long periods of time and arranging objects so as to cause murder or physical damage to a human. Beyond this, we are into a realm of nonviolent activity that is really simply nuisance events, but should be punished and stopped, such as theft, lying, trespassing, threats of violence (although I think this may be higher up and more evil). Beyond that we have things that are of even less importance: drug use, prostitution, religious beliefs. For example, the mass belief in religion has terrible effects on the planet, and is collectively responsible for the murder of many innocent people, and so, some might argue that religion ranks as being somewhere on the chart of evil (clearly below murder, assault and violent crime, because simply believing in a god or gods in itself is obviously no crime), just as not believing in any gods is (in my view a good, logical and accurate belief) not a big deal...for those who view not believing in religion as evil, it has to be under the violent crime as being less evil than murder and assault, because it is nonviolent to simply not believe in religion, like believing in religion whatever evil collective effect is not as important as violent crime. But I think people have trouble understanding this. Murder and assault are far worse than believing or not believing in religion. I am interested in seeing how many people accept that as true. So I view people that believe in religion, most probably simply made an honest mistake...the power of the collective mistake has a terrible evil effect, but it is within the realm of personal belief, personal choice, it's a nonviolent thing...nobody, in my view, should be tortured, drugged, jailed or violence done to them for simply making an honest nonviolent mistake.
It's funny that most major recent advances in psychology (mostly a pseudoscience) have been made by me I think. And here are another two:
1) insanity can be reduce to inaccurateness and/or unusual behavior. That sums it up without psychosis, neurosis, or schitzophrenia which are all useless, meaningless descriptions.
a) there are subsets which include: delusions of a paranoid, religious, etc. nature
2) a clear distinction should be drawn between those viewed as insane: those who are lawful and unlawful. In other words, those who, for all their delusion, somehow have managed to not violate any known law versus those who routinely violate known laws. Because I think a serious injustice is being done to those prisoners in psychiatric hospitals who have not broken any law. And those prisoners who have ought to be charged, tried and potentially imprisoned for their crime. Any treatments funded by the taxpayers ought to be consensual/voluntary only (and for those who violate a law and are jailed, are dispensed voluntarily from within the prison which are designed for those who violate laws [and here, separated depending on history of violence]). Many people in psychiatric hospitals are people who are lawful, but simply cannot hold a job, cannot pay their bills, cannot feed themselves, and for those people voluntary helpers like food programs, room cleaning helpers, bill paying helpers, etc are the answer, not involuntary experimental drug-based incarceration approaches. Many times these drugs are trying to cure diseases that have more to do with a long history of misinformation, of sexual repression, of religious lies, etc...not something that is going to be cured with drugs in an afternoon or even over long terms. These drugs are being used to "zombyize" the people into unemotional, lethargic drooling blobs, and that is viewed as success because they are too debilitated to even move therefore their disease appears to be "cured"! (similar to the way a dead person's disease is then cured).
One argument I give against the insanity defense is that, even if a person was a victim of a disease when they did a murder, we cannot allow such a person who is subject to this disease out into society even if unaware of their crime. In addition, I would question the validity of claims of psychosis, neurosis, and scitzophrenia as being too abstract to be a real disease (or simply being reduced to delusion), where paranoia, for example, most people can understand.
Some aspect of psychiatric hospitals have served as a rudementary brutal primative social program for those people who are without a room or food, the so-called homeless. Instead of establishing free room and food programs, society has chosen to use psychiatric hospitals to address this.
Just a quick note again: you have to ask yerself what has bush junyer done for us people? there was that one tax return check, but beyond that? Now violence is up in 2005, and it shows the phonyness of the "war on terror", they haven't reduced violence at all, in fact the opposite, there is more violence that before. At least it shows that their increased funding against "terror" is no where connected to stopping violence, or certainly has had no effect on the amount of violence we all are subjected to here in the USA. Then beyond that, they have just charged up our credit card so our children have to pay off all that money they spent on themselves through military spending. Then they got more of the children in the USA killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for what? for no good reason, or not a good enough reason. This group hasn't really done anything for the public, there is no stopping of violence, the streets aren't any safer, no tax rebate checks, no free food, no free health care, we aren't getting anything for all the money we pour in there, no right to vote on more issues, no right to see the images archived from cameras on the street, no registry of violent offenders, no reduction in sentences for drug users, nothing at all...why do people elect people that only financially gouge them and do nothing for them? This remains a mystery, well, I think partially that they are unaware of the possibilities that exist for us.
09-15-2006
I got a response to my complaint from Parago:
------------------
Lee Stallings
Better Business Bureau of
Metropolitan Dallas, Inc.
1601 Elm Street, Ste 3838
Dallas, TX 75201
RE: Ted Huntington COMP_ID: 91019576
Dear Christina Hawkins:
Parago is responding to a letter of complaint that we received from your firm regarding consumer Ted Huntington's rebate submission.
Mr. Huntington submitted for a $10.00 rebate for the purchase of Verabtim DVD-R 4.7GB 16X Branded 25Pk Spindle product from Supermed on 07-10-2004. The original postmark date was 07-12-04, and the rebate was entered as invalid on 08-24-06 for missing UPC. There was an invalid postcard sent to Mr. Huntington on 08-29-06 to advise him of the status of his rebate submission. Today, as a concession, the $10.00 rebate has been validated for processing. Mr. Huntington will receive the $10.00 rebate for the processing
I do apologize to Mr. Huntington for the complications she has experienced with her rebate submission.
If you have any further questions, please contact me. I will be glad to provide a resolution.
Thank you,
Kent Patterson
Parago, Inc.
Consumer Complaints Specialist
Kent.Patterson@Parago.com
--------------------------------
You can see clearly that they people did this as part of some kind of included scam, they refer to me is "her", in addition where did "Supermed" come from? might that be "supermedia"? To me, it shows they are scum bags who singled me out for harassment and abuse. I still think peopel should stay away from Parago. Many people don't mind playing that game of abuse then apology, abuse then apology...I reject that idiotic game and expect people to stand up on their spine everytime. People make mistakes but this is a systematic scam and abuse, not an honest and occassional mistake, therefore people should reject that system of apology. A rebate is a fine legal technique for getting income, since many people don't bother to fill out the forms, but it's illegal when companies reject a certain number of (and maybe even all) submissions the first time, and then only pay those who complain. I'm glad to see that there may have been some effect. Scummy dishonest people should not supported, and there is always an opportunity for less scummy people to move in and take their business, because no lawful person wants to deal with or be associated with a shady unethical or illegal group (except apparently the Bush Republican supporters who feel that mass murder is alright). I have to wonder about Linkyo and Verbatim for being associated with people like these rednecks at Parago, are they also nazi rednecks? who knows, only the included do.
My case description was reduced to: "These scum bags rejected a rebate, knowing that it was complete. We can't promote this kind of dishonesty and greed. Even though it's only $10, I want to go on record that these people are running a scam." by the BBB in Dallas, TX.
9/12/06 update:
This response from Verbatim makes me think they are involved in something dishonest:
==========
On September 11, 2006, the business provided the following information:
Contact Name and Title: Terry W. Young, Risk/Admi
Contact Phone: 704.547.6513
Contact Email: terry.young@verbatim.com
According to Verbatim's records, Mr. Huntington did not provide an original UPC code as was required by the terms of the rebate. However, we have instructed our rebate service provider to pay Mr. Huntington's rebate claim and he can expect a check for $10.00 within the next couple of weeks.
========
Because it's "Verbatim's" records...not Parago's. I definitely did provide the 2 UPC codes, there is no question, and I have photocopies of them to prove it.
============
EX: are particles of light slowed when going through glass and other transparent substances? This might require very fast photon detection devices.
EX: Do photons bounce off each other? Has it ever been observed that photons bounce off each other? Perhaps beams can be sent at each other and photons can be detected in any part outside of the direction of the 2 beams. I did this simply with 2 lasers and did not notice any light at different angles that would suggest they were reflected...but then maybe on one of two photons is being reflected and are too small to see with the human eye. Clearly photons are absorbed in and emitted from atoms. Do photons fall into orbit of each other? Are there ever observed other larger than photon particles that result from photon-only beams? I thin kprobably those cretons in the secret camera net have probably already done this experiment with very intense beams of light (beams that can melt metal for example). That is my advice, to use very intense beams if possible, as close to a direct collision as possible (similar to proton-antiproton particle colliders), and then measure for reflected photons along the sides.
EX: Is a magnetic field actually 90 degree from an electrical field? What made James Maxwell conclude this?
It may be possible that photons, in fact, do move according to Newton's laws of gravitation. I don't doubt that there exist people who believe this. This is the idea that Newton was correct, even as applies to particles of light. I think historians and even just any science lover ought to be interested in Newton's comments on how his laws apply to particles of light. I'm guessing that Newton doesn't mention anything about gravity as pertains to particles of light, that basically Newton presumed that particles of light also followed the laws of gravity. Newton and Halley checked the motions of the planets, moons and even the comets to see if they followed Newton's laws of gravitation. Newton was even aware of Roemer's find of the velocity of light. So I think we are coming to a point of proving one of two major theories wrong, either:
1) Photons never change velocity (and Newton is not entirely correct): Newton's idea of gravity applies only for composite matter (matter made of particles of light) and not for individual particles of light which never change velocity, but only change direction as the result of the force (or geometrical effect) of gravity.
or
2) Photons do change velocity (and those who claim a constant speed of light are wrong, who those people are is not clear, but the constant velocity of light is considered to be an established fact)
PHOTONS CHANGE VELOCITY ARGUMENT:
Seeing the arguement that photons obey Newton's laws is attractive, it would be nice to have one simple law that applies to photons and collections of photons too (as opposed to the view I am putting forward, no doubt with other people, that photons only change direction and therefore gravity is defined differently than Newton described (the F=Gm1m2/d^2 law does not apply for photons which follow a law where there direction is only changed and velocity remains constant). If I were to argue that Newton's laws apply to photons, I would put forward that a photon may infact change velocity (and that the view that light moves at a constant velocity all the time is incorrect). I would theorize that photons move at a constant velocity when there is nothing in the way to stop them, but that they may change velocity as a result of gravity, and also when they collide into other photons. I would argue that these changes in velocity due to gravity are so small that they are barely noticable, for example a planet is held in orbit around a star, but a photon is too small to be held in orbit around a star, although it might be slowed or accelerated by the gravity of a star, and certainly the photon's direction changes. Then I would add that photons may change velocity when they collide with other photons, for example with photons in the atoms of a mirror. The scale of this event is so small that might be impossible to ever detect. There is a certain amount of inevitableness that two photons would be in each other's way and collide...it seems very logical that this is what happens. We see photons bounce off of a mirror and other objects, just as if the photon had stopped, reached a velocity of 0, and then quickly reverse with tremendous acceleration, (perhaps as a result of the transfer of "energy" or velocity the photon exerts on the photon of the mirror which like a water drop promptly is pushed back onto the photon and the photon accelerates) back to it's velocity of 3e8 m/s. It's appealing, and the example of a water drop would suggest that a similar thing is happening for photons. It's still tough for people to accept, I am sure that particles of light can have a variable velocity (although perhaps occuring rarely). If gravity does affect the velocity of light particles, then perhaps this effect explains the tendency of most galaxies to be red-shifted (and perhaps the relation of smaller appearing galaxies, which implies more distant galaxies, being more red-shifted). Clearly these photons are spread out but does that relate to their velocity. If photons are slowed, the beam would be blue-shifted because the more distance a photon moves the slower it would move, and photons would be bunched up at the front of the beam. If they are accelerated they would be red shifted, because the more distance a photon moves the faster it would be going (it sounds illogical) and so the photons in the front of the beam would be the farthest separated from the rest of the beam. I can't see any explanation here that is better than stretching of light that results from bending around large masses because of gravity. But in any event, maybe the force of gravity does have an affect on photons, but it is so small that it is impossible to change the velocity of a photon in empty space and only changes the photon's direction. For this to be true, the change of direction of a photon around a large mass (which is definitely measurable) has to be explained by Newton's equation. This argument needs to explain what photons are gravitationally attracted to. I put forward the idea that photons are gravitatinally attracted to the large amount of matter that fills the universe. Perhaps photons are not attracted to some dominant gravitational source but simply continue to move in a straight line until colliding with some other photon. Perhaps the mass of photons is so small (and the force of gravity also so weak) that the gravitational sources of the universe have only a very little effect on photons. What gives (or initially gave) photons their tremendous velocity is unknown, maybe some sum total of all the matter in the universe, or just in the immediate volume of the universe.
9/12 it seems like either there are photons with variable velocity or photon collisions are perfectly elastic. But it is an interesting point that we might some time find photons (or interpret already existing particles) as photons of different velocity.
PHOTONS NEVER CHANGE VELOCITY ARGUMENT:
The other side (photons never change velocity) has appealing arguments too. It sounds logical that photons would have a constant velocity and never stop because of some configuration of the universe. It seems clear that a photon's direction is measurably changed by the gravity of a large mass. There is no question about this effect. Photon's definitely change direction because of gravity, and this is the basis of gravitational lensing. But if photons changed velocity, we might expect photons to be like planets and change velocity near a star or galaxy. Perhaps this change in velocity is too small to measure or notice. This theory removes photons from the traditional view of gravity by saying that their direction is only changed, so no source of their gravitational attration is needed, they simply started with a velocity of 3e8m/s, and only ever change direction. The other argument needs to explain what photons are gravitationally attracted to. It's difficult to believe that photons would be perfectly balanced by all the gravitational sources into moving in a straight line, but perhaps their matter is so small that gravity only effects them in the tiniest way.
One classic question that I have only ever heard myself ask is: do photons come to a complete stop when they collide with a mirror. It's a simple question, I think we can all understand what I am asking here. To my knowledge there are only two answers: 1) yes they do, and 2) no, they perform a 180 degree (or some other) rotation without ever colliding into another photons (it implies that it is impossible for two photons ever to touch, collide or even slow down).
Summing it all up for now, I want to think more about the theory that particles of light actually do can change velocity, but initially, I think this is an interesting idea. For both theories, there is still the mystery of how did photons reach this enormous velocity to begin with? I made an attempt to answer this question in saying that photons are gravitationally attracted to all the matter far away in the universe that far outweighs any local matter, (ie when a person turns on a flashlight the photons fly out to that outer matter), but it seems illogical that a photon would then turn around 180 degrees when reflecting off a mirror, although I can see that if a person presumes that photons do collide and come to a complete stop that this might be possible. I think there is some possibility that photons do change velocity, and that, infact, Newton's theory of gravitation may remain the most accurate theory, even after 300+ years. In a similar debate, I came into the classic debate about objects falling to the earth with a constant velocity between Aristotle and Galileo. And this also comes down to an interesting conclusion. In theory, the velocity of an object is in fact related to it's mass, Newton has shown this to be true (for at least composite matter and I think possibly even for photons too). So in some sense Aristotle was theoretically correct, but perhaps observationaly and literaly wrong. Where Galileo was theoretically wrong but observationally correct. It all comes down to if a person thinks the earth actually feels the effect of a tiny mass like a feather or bowling ball, etc. Mathematically there is some infitesimally small effect, but observationally it's too small to measure. It's kind of funny that here I might find myself defending the theory of Newton (and no doubt losing in terms of popular belief) even 300 years after it's creation. Still the all time recorded incorrect theory has to be the earth as center of the universe...that holds the record at 2500 years (at least of recorded history) or something. One thing I need to remember is that, many people still cannot even accept that light is a particle, many believe in time and space dilation, the expanding universe, the big bang, quarks, the weak force, the strong force, the graviton, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, worm holes, that antimatter is no simply electrical opposite, that magnetism is not simply electricism [I think I am the first to say "electricism"] (and that a magnetic field is 90 degrees to an electric field), and so I feel at least that I have surpassed those ideas, but I'm keeping an open mind.
It's interesting that, in my view, physics descended after Newton and is only now understanding the depth of those laws. And it seems clear that Hooke, Halley and one other person at least had much of the idea of gravitation already figured out...they understood that the force of gravity is an inverse distance squared force...according to my understanding, Newton simply added the Gm1m2 part, and formalized the theory, which was important and very helpful. Halley seems like an interesting person. Halley is the person that actually funded the publishing of Newton's Principia, even after Halley had understood so much about the inverse distance relationship of gravity. It shows that Halley was really a team player in the interest of science, and I think that is an honorable way of life; to put aside individual awards or honors in order to put forward the larger idea to the public, and still not losing any of the credit but simply sharing credit in being a part of some large idea, effort or production. I'm not saying that we should ignore what people are the first to identify new finds in science, I am simply saying that we should work together to make sure the ideas get to the public.
4 new shows
videos:
"secrets"
secrets of the CIA
Ex-Cia employees talk about the crimes they witness and took part in for the CIA. One person relates how they were ordered to put cement powder in milk meant for a village that included many children. A woman talks about how the CIA blew up a bridge and were happy about how a group of innocent women was killed in the process. One of the worst things is when violent law breakers are in our own government, the people supposed to be enforcing those important violent laws. Those violent laws are laws because the majority of average people support them and view violence as evil and wrong.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8085945499556832271&q=secrets&hl=en
9/11
Jim Fetzer
Fetzer is awesome. He should get some kind of award for standing up against these vicious murderers. That is amazing. Plus there's no BS with Fetzer, he tells the true story as best as any included person can. This is one of the rare videos where the actual events of 9/11 are theorized about. I looked into that operation by the Canadian scholar, and instead of substituting planes so the radar people could not detect them, that takes too much work, Cheney probably said, let's just pay the radar people off, or simply allow them to continue to keep the secrets they have up to now.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1997434783335560401&q=fetzer&hl=en
9/12/06
Im reading in the Tarpley book on Bush about how some employees of the CIA murdered a person in Washington DC with a car bomb (Orlando Letelier). And the point in my mind, also after seeing the "Secrets of the CIA" video where ex-CIA employee tell how they put cement mix in children's milk in Cuba, and other devious illegal things, that Watergate was the one time these criminals were actually caught in the act by police. Think of how many other times they weren't stopped, caught or even identified. And then not just planting cameras or stealing things, but planting explosives, and doing violent crime. It seems clear that the CIA is basically a 100% criminal law-breaking organization with some kind of shocking immunity from the most basic of planetary natural laws such as homicide, assault and property destruction. And much of this stuff they do, is the most petty stuff...slashing tires, just stupid a-hole type things to do, to add to the chaos of an already dangerous planet. And the Bush and Dulles families have been like family members of the CIA. I just read that Allan Dulles received the Vrba-Wexler report on Auschwitz in the 1940s...and isn't that ironic...here Dulles who was so closely working with Nazi bankers...a group that publically punished under the "trading with the enemy" law...working with Fritz Thiessan the primary funder of Hitler... is responsible for disseminating a report smuggled out from the Nazi death camps...I mean it's ironic to say the least.
Some people think I'm insane, but what about Bush and the republicans who hatched, developed and carried out the 9/11 plan. It wasn't enough to crash plans into the two WTCs they had to go the extra step and demolish the building...then with the people still in them! Now that is de-ranged. I mean what kind of mind puts together such a bloody criminal murderous vision? then executes it, supports and lies about it for years after the fact? (in addition to the Fiorini/JFK, Cesar/RFK great big lies and continuous acceossory to murder after the fact cover-ups). What average person would conceive of such a thing? Most average people are planning their dinner menu, not planning a massive bunch of murders. I think for democrats, liberals, libertarians, greens, etc. it has become very important to stop the republicans from holding power because look at what they are doing and have done. The republicans have always sent up people who have not only allowed but participated in violent crime. With the exception of LBJ, all the people the conservatives have chosen for president have been the dirtiest, most violent people of US history. Look at Nixon, Reagan who allowed John Lennon to be murdered, Bush Senior who was up to his neck in the JFK murder, and then Bush jr, who I think has to be the worst President of US history, and then these Republicans re-elect this monster! Not the tiniest doubt that Bush jr might have been at all even negligent on 9/11/01, let alone that they masterminded this mass Hitleresque-Pol-Potian murder. Now is not the time to support people who vote republican.
We need a president that is going to enact some public voting system, and by popular vote jail Thane Cesar, the murderers of the 9/11 victims, and all the other murderers still free in the USA, and then beyond that, end the drug war and lessen sentences for nonviolent crime, etc. The republicans have consistently elected the most monsterous people. Far from benign republican leaders, these people, like Bush jr have been vicious violent criminals of the worst variety.
Again, there is a similarity to the old idea of royalty versus rule by the people. In England there was a civil war in the 1600s, long before the US revolution, in this war the Parliamentarians defeated the Royalists. In Russia the overthrow of the Czar by the Communists was a similar struggle, but unfortunately with the Communist movement, they chose to go with individual monarchical leaders instead of rule by the people, and the leaders, in particular Stalin ruined any thought of democratic power of the people that was probably the foundation of the initial struggle and anger directed at the monarchy. And this has been a classic struggle, the people versus monarchy. And I think the Bush family really represents the royalists even to this day. Look how their family is immersed in the US government, two Presidents, both governors, a senator...why don't the people elect the best people for the job, not just those with the most money and tradition behind them? It's stupid to elect people from the same family, it's like inbreeding...why not spread around the power? instead of keeping it all in one tiny little group? And what a monsterous group the Bush family is to do 9/11, that is easily the biggest crime since WW2.
Many people are shocked and outraged to see humans locked in cages where they have very little room to move, but now I ask you to imagine, not being locked in a cage but being tied to a chair or bed with no room to even move your legs or arms, confined into a space even smaller than an animal cage. It appears to an onlooker as if a person has the entire room to move about, but in reality, they haven't even the space to even bend their legs and arms. In reality the space of confinement of four point restraints is smaller than a coffin, and allows even less freedom of movement. This punishment is legally cruel and unusual, in particular for nonviolent offenders, this type of restraint and confinement is not allowed even for violent criminals in the prisons of the planet.
I must tell you people something interesting, you know, ofcourse I see rude people all the time, and many of these people are rude people that shout out "leave!" when I go by, for example. I'm not joking, it's something to see. And I want to make the point that, these people who shout out "leave" and so on, are probably more likely to get a job than I am, and it seems wrong to me. I want to just make the point that, here, like this one guy, I have never seen before, sez "go!" instead of "here you go" when passing me some juice, and I said "thanks you neko-nazi" or something, I can't help it, one insult many times deserves another. But this guy was kind of a thick guy...and clearly a low brow kind of person...I mean to tell somebody you don't even know "go!"...I mean that is pretty aggressive. Usually, 99% of the time, I only respond in thought, but I was feeling that we liberals ought to support our side of the story...these were not co-workers just people I live near so I figure...who gives a shit? But the more I thought about it...you know...imagine if this ape-guy had then said..."man, fuck you...i'll kick yer ass"?...I mean then a fist fight would have started there right among the brunch....it would have been terrible I would be like "call the police!" and try to defend myself until they came 30 minutes later. But it raised the point in my mind...that ...hey, these are aggressive people, in particular the aggressive males...these people who are so rude out of nowhere just because they don't like my looks, or disagree with my religion and views on things. They really are an aggressive lot, and when it comes down to it, I am arguing here, perhaps for the first time, this case, that a first-degree rude person is a person that might potentially start a violent confrontation. Do you follow my logic? Most of us, avoid conflict like the plague...I know I do...I'm not looking to start an argument with people because I am always afraid of violence being done to me...I refused to fight even in high school when the kids and faculty circled around me and a different person who was trying to start a fight (ok there were no faculty there yet). So this is why I am submitting to the powers that be this argument that...let's think about these first degree rude people...many ofcourse that have a violent history should be avoided when hiring because you want to minimize the risk of violence in the work-place, but many of these people, while they don't have a past of actual violence may have a number of threats of violence...and that is almost as bad...it's like an incindiery device that many times does lead to a violent conflict if some victim chooses to take them up on their challange, and then beyond these people, there are people with no violence, no threats of violence, but who are very rude...and that alone can start violence, so those are people to avoid. Beyond that, as I stated above, we should be avoiding those who vote republican, because these republicans are violent criminals...it's like funding the Jesse James gang...I mean we want our meager funds to be helping those people and families who vote democratic, green, libertarian. If a republican has to be hired, let it be one who never votes for Bush jr, and by virtue of being against homicide is a defacto democrat.
I wrote an Amazon review for the book "Mad in America" and I want to add that, we as a people ought to be more tolerant of unusual behavior that is within the nonviolent and legal realm, and much much...did I mention much less tolerant of usual (or unusual) behavior in the violent and illegal realm. We have to get our priorities straightened out, first strike violence is the worse evil, anything else is less of a problem.
Here was one idea I came up with, these people that assault us with the laser beams...not only must there be ways to stop this (like maybe carrying around a big metal plate to hold over our heads...but there are even lasers in the floor as far as I can see...or somehow jumping up and down and removing our closed circuit to the ground...there must be some defense, some way of finding these lasers and dismanting them without damaging anything else). But I was thinking...these people that assault us with the lasers...the included incipid insiders all see them...maybe we can request that the insiders, the inlanders, ...put in a requisition for those violent laser assaulting people to be the first exposed for their assaults, perhaps before those miscreant people that make innocent people itch every 5 seconds.
I find myself harking back to a Brady Bunch episode in my memory, although I curse any knowledge of television programs in my memory, this one, I think is kind of interesting. This is the show where the Brady dad tries to explain that Jessie James was no hero, but was a vicious criminal not to be celebrated. What a statement for the nation. It applies so well to Sturgis, Thane Cesar, Nixon, the Bushes, Reagan, the whole nasty lot of them. It could even apply to OJ in his wife-beating days, and no doubt to many popular people that keep the secret about Pupin (if you know which one I mean, wink wink...yes the thought hearing one, damn!).
9/13/06
It's wonderful to see the new movie about John Lennon, and also awesome to see John Weiner featured on the uci.edu homepage and in the movie. I have a theory, and maybe it is far-fetched, but just from my own experience I can't rule it out of the realm of possibility and that is this: that people, probably in the CIA or some terrible group, actually wrote some of the music John Lennon composed without Lennon knowing it. As an excluded, we have to guess, only the included may know for sure. But any song where there is a message that sounds suicidal, for example "Yer Blues", if Lennon was excluded (in other words, he didn't get video beamed onto his eyes, and did not hear the thoughts of other people), it's entirely possible that some people put those thoughts in his head by beaming them there directly. I know from my own experience...do you ever find yourself with a song in your head? Many times it's some other person's song. Recently people have been playing a song with a female vocal, (there is a block on my brain [or simply those with the sound sending not sending this song] is not allowing me to remember the song, its a female, ) and I find myself humming it, it's very difficult to detect that somebody is beaming something on my head....I only realize after thinking about what I am singing for a second. Then I realize...hey this message is making fun of me ...or is not in my best interest...and I decisively switch to one of my own songs. Here is one I remember, they would keep making my hum "aint no woman like the one I got", and "I can't see me loving nobody but you for all my life", and I specifically had this in mind when I made the lyric "Love a million people or even just one". I want to provide people with an alternative. How many songs can you think of that promotes loving a million people? Another song that may have been "co-written" by criminals in the CIA without Lennon knowing it is a song like "Out the Blue", and "Mother". And here I was covering "Out the Blue" on acoustic...it has the nasty message "out the blue you came to me, and blew away life's misery"....some person could hear that, and just like Yer Blues "Yes, I'm lonely, what to die" could interpret that as ... hey this artist really does want to die or to be blown away". In fact, I think it's possible (again this is an excluded speculating so keep an open mind) that Make Chapman interpretted "Out the Blue" this way. Other songs like "Imagine", and the vast majority probably have very little CIA influence, and clearly represent a message unique to Lennon's mind (even potentially with some assistance from good people). But this stuff shows me what is becoming clearer, that the included intellectuals in the USA basically left the excluded intellectuals to the wolves in such a shockingly negligent unnecessary way. Some people in the CIA may want to legally change the credit to songs such as "Yer Blues" to "Lennon McCartney CIA" or "Lennon McCartney Jonesy from the CIA"... ". I think I will wonder for a long time if Lennon was included, and if his reference to "Oracle" had something to do with our little rag tag central NY band, or if it was just coincidence. One key point to understand for the excluded (outsiders) is this process of sound being sent to yer head and then you repeat it not knowing that somebody sent it there...and you therefore say precisely what they want you to say. Many times this has no effect, but many times this is used to manipulate people in bad ways. And many of us are victims of this...it's very difficult to not say what you hear in your head.
comment on recent NY voting: I think this is a disappointment for liberals of the variety I adhere to, because the anti-war democrat lost and Hillary voted to go along with the 9/11 bogus Iraq invasion scheme although she admits she thinks it was a bad decision now. I think the truth is that Hillary is a person, no doubt similar to Bill, a person that basically votes according to the way the majority feels (although clearly not on decriminalizing marijuana which has 72% approval, at least according to one Gallup poll). So, I think Hillary's voting reflects the majority opinions in NY (although MS-NBC related that 40% of the US think the government is covering something up about 9/11). And then Spitzer for Governor...you know I probably am going to sound like a sourpuss, but I don't have much trust or faith in most of the mainstream people, they have lied to us about hearing thought, they never talk about full democracy, full free info, stopping violence, they all appear to be the same, or with very minor differences while they sit back and watch all our thoughts with our own money. One thing that I think shows that Spitzer has a brutal side is that he voted to allow forced drug injections, I am in a minority in thinking that a person's choice to "just say no" should be respected. I might open the debate for people that appear to be in great pain and there is no time for consent, and then require simply no clear objection. And drugging a person without consent is not as bad as drugging a person against clear objection. I think I can summarize by saying things look dismal for NY and I'm glad I don't live there any more. Still, Hillary looks like a force to be reckoned with, many people think she may be the next and first female US president, and that is something that is interesting, I think it would be good for women's rights in the USA. I wouldn't expect any serious leadership from Hillary, but I think we could expect no new wars (contrary to Tarpley's unusual opinion that Hillary feels she could wage war more effectively than Bush jr) and perhaps an exit from Iraq and Afghanistan but I think whoever wins in 2008 will not want to risk the chaos of pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, although it's what needs to happen.
I've done some more analysis of the Newton equation accelm1=Gm2/r^2 (f=Gm1m2/r^2) and have found some interesting things:
1) for a "photon obeys Newton laws" model, theoretically all points equal the same mass (although perhaps there are photons of variable mass). We can't represent a large object with a single point of high mass (such as making a point represent a star with mass=2e30kg), and so we see that gravitation as applies to a universe of photons is a collective effect. In other words, to truly model a star we need 2e30 points of mass=1 each.
2) if we use a gravitational constant of 1, and a mass of 1 for all photons Newton's equation gets simpler: a=1/r^2 (a=r^-2) where a=acceleration on any light particle (again this presumes that light particles can change velocity like any other particle with mass). Working with this model we see a strong gravitational effect. Perhaps that is what is happening at that microscopic level. Here, distance between particles is the key to order (that is a photon maintaining it's constant velocity). A funny thing happens if the gravitational constant (G) is used. To see any gravitational effect, photons have to be 1e7kg in mass (and I think we can presume that this is false). For photons to be at an expected mass (1e-20kg or 1e-40kg, an electron is thought to be 1e-30kg), G would have to be very high to see any bending effect.
3) An important question arises in this modeling. Newton, to my knowlege, never mentioned what happens when two particles of light collide. Do they both exchange velocity? Clearly, two photons cannot occupy one space, and collisions are probably happening when particles of light are absorbed, reflected or emitted from atoms (which are presumably photons themselves).
1) 2) and 3) are in my mind, critical questions in this kind of modeling.
Just some other notes:
1) I have some videos:
G=6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s^2,Mass of photons=1kg (again this is very doubtful, but this is using the existing gravitational constant), ignoring collisions. Nothing bends at all, both the mass in the center (289 photons) and the beams of light are uneffected, and continue on preserving their initial velocity.
m1e0ic.avi
G=6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s^2,Mass of photons=100,000kg, ignoring collisions. Here we see the mass in the center (289 photons) move a tiny bit, but the beams of light are uneffected.
m1e5ic.avi
G=6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s^2,Mass of photons=10 million kg. Here we see the beams of photons bend slightly under the weight of the 289 photons (all photons are in a 2D plane with z=0) in the middle. This is without any collision effect (photons can occupy the same space)
m1e7ic.avi
G=1, Mass=1 (here only distance and quantity has any effect). You can see that at distances this close the full gravitational effect happens and there is no way for light beams to exist (at least apparently). This is with collisions on (photons bounce off each other).
m1g1.avi
G=1, Mass=1, distance from center mass to beams=5km. [here again this is unlikely...we see light beams sail past objects only millimeters away completely unbent]. We have to pull back to see the beams because they are far apart. To stop the photons in the beam from falling in on themselves they need to be around 100m apart. Basically in these G=1, Mass=1 models, gravity is very strong, but the farther the distance, the more likely the beams will continue on unbent. Here the beams bend a little, but basically continue on their way uneffected by the mass in the center.
g1m1d5e4.avi>
maybe I should experiment with giving the photons positions like 0.000001 and move everything to a microscale. In any event 1 pixel can equal anything wanted, and the effect is basically the same at any micro or magnification.
You may be wondering, did I measure any change in velocity, or stretching effects on the beams of light? I did check this, and just as an initial check it appears that the particles (photons) speed up a tiny bit as they become effected by gravity bending them. This effect would produce a stretched out beam...the photons behind are still going their regular velocity, but I am keeping an open mind, it seems doubtful to me that photons change velocity, but we know so little about the unvierse at this stage in our evolution.
Here are velocities (I used an initial velocity of 5.0 just to keep the beams moving. In one beam just as the first few photons start to bend I measured the following velocities from right to left: 5.012 5.03 5.04 This would cause a log jam up in front and would in theory be blue shifted, actually...I should add that the entire beam had picked up velocity simply from being to the left of the matter in the middle and even the end photons had velocity>5.0. For the most part it looks like the beams hold together. Perhaps I should measure distance between photons.
An interesting issue: if photon beams are made of photons without any space between them, the photons would show effects of gravitation.
gdiff2.avi shows this.
This vid is interesting, here beams with no space in between them collide with this block of photons at rest in the middle, with collision, it looks like the velocity is instantly transfered from one side to the other, but my code is probably wrong. It probably takes more time for photons to transfer velocity like this.
There are many questions about this Newton model for particles of light, for example, it's difficult to imagine that a photon moving 3e8m/s bounces into another photon on some water (or a mirror), comes to a stop, and then the other photon (perhaps in addition to photons behind it) push back with a velocity of 3e8m/s in the other direction....for example...when does the 3e8m/s velocity (or energy) reach an impenetrable wall with which to bounce it back in the other direction? It's a mind boggler to me. It must happen in the very first few layers of atoms.
09/14/06
Here is a series of videos with light beams where the mass in the center is gradually increased:
massb6e8.avi
massb6e9.avi
massb6e10.avi
massb6e11.avi
massb6e12.avi
9/11 Press for Truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along
A video where two women who witness the second plane collision into WTC2 while video taping both say "It was a military plane!" Even so, there is already a large amount of other evidence that suggests what they are saying is true. The "it wasn't no jet airliner..." guy, the "...that was not an american airlines..." lady, the "it didn't have any windows" guy, ... there were numerous eyewitnesses because after all this is NYC...it's huge!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-542183109714508590&q=911+duration%3Along
Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics debate
It's rare for evil people from behind the scenes to show their faces and openly lie to the public in front of the camera, so that is what makes this video interesting, because the two people from Popular Mechanics are just such people, lying openly infront of the camera. We really get a good look at what modern-day Goebbels-type nazis are like in these two men from Popular Fraudulent Mechanics. I think Popular Mechanics as a magazine is going to collapse, because they can't possibly sustain any kind of good reputation after actively supporting the 9/11 mass murder. And there are others just like them. I think one important point is to watch how they lie about the size of the hole in the Pentagon. There is no way that hole is bigger than 20 feet in diameter, it only covers 2 windows and those windows can't be bigger than 10 feet each. And I think the public has to stop and think about this hole in the Pentagon, because there is no way a 757 went through there, and if this part of the official story is a lie, I can't think of any kind of ligitimate story that would explain such a hole that killed a number of people in the Pentagon. I suppose they could come clean and say..."ok...it was an accident, and a missile did hit the Pentagon...we didn't want to admit that we accidentally caused the murder of some Pentagon employees, and so we lied and said a 757 hit it, and for that we needed to have volunteers to pretend they were on that flight." I think the public needs to think about this fact that the Pentagon hole is far too small to accomodate a 757. That is probably the best evidence that the official 9/11 story is not true. For me, just thinking...how could a steel building crumble into a pool of molten metal and dust from a plane crash is sufficient, and if not, the plumes of smoke, in some instances...far below as many as 50 stories below the falling debris only adds to the confirmation. This debate really is an example of honest versus liars, it's an interesting picture of decent above average people in regular clothes versus scummy decrepid establishment nazis in neck ties. How many times have we seen this comparison? The 9/11 truth is so frustrating, because for me, the evidence is overwhelming, but somehow the public is slower to wake up. Or maybe it's not the public as much as their represented officials. I think ultimately I have to place the responsibility on the public for now waking up and figuring this out, it's easy to understand after watching some of these 9/11 videos.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-901683049872134071&q=911+duration%3Along
There is an interesting phenomenon happing, and I want to describe it for a second. I've talked about this before, but I have more ideas. There is different advice out there, different opinions about what directions to go in, what needs attention, etc. For me, I have like a basic 10 point plan of identifying and stopping violence, freeing the nonviolent (drug war/prostitution), full free info, full and constant democracy, promote the history of science, of evolution, of the probable future, expose the thought-hearing/sending technology, expose the JFK murder/Fiorini, RFK/Cesar, 9/11 as a reichstag fire, exposing dishonesty, theft, ...that is basically my main focus. And it's interesting to me to notice what are the major focuses of other people active on the web. For example, many people focus heavily on the idea of "globalization" and "globalists" being a major issue, where for me, it's a very minor issue. To me violence is a major issue, free information are major issues to stand up and shout about, globalization isn't really a big deal for me. In one video a women worries about a planetary currency, and I feel like...you know...there already is a planetary currency...it's the credit card, but we have to now pay extra fees when buying something on the web from canada and it's ridiculous, open up the trade, I don't want to spend my time exchanging money all day. Some of these things are inevitable, it's a tiny planet. I think people are not identifying the actual ideas they are worried about, which I think are planetary power in the hands of a few, instead of the majority of people. I am the only person I have ever heard to suggest that the United Nations should be fully democratized and allow the public votes to be recorded and displayed for verification. That's not ever mentioned by anybody other than me. Also in this same video this woman relates that the globalists are trying to stop religion, and I think that is so wrong...you know...are people not identifying the globalists as Bush jr and these people...I mean these are the biggest proclaimers of the Christian religion. And I don't think smart people should view religion as a good thing anyway. Religion is terrible, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the constant racism and murder of Jewish and other non-Christians/non-Islamic, etc. the ludicrous ideas of Jesus as a 2000 year old cult leader that rose from the dead, and on and on...religion is terrible, and science and atheism (or being religion-free) is what all smart people should easily recognize as the future. It's a minor point, but it still amazes me that people find globalism of such great importance. One issue that Alex Jones worries about is the idea of military doing the work of police, and those are complicated ideas...although those with the weapons I think may always ultimately rule the planet because who can stop them without weapons? Some of the ideas I can definitely relate to for example I am against the Patriot Act like most of these people because the people in government and outside of government should have the same value and rights, it can't be imbalanced, or should be the least imbalanced as possible, and I am against drugging children (or people of any age) in these psychological evaluations Bush wants to roll out...those two things are common sense to me. Ultimately the public will determine what ideas are best, and hopefully those with the best ideas will rise up in wealth, but I think we are a long way away from that happening, but it seems inevitable that free info and democracy will prevail. It's interesting to see what direction all the people want to go in, clearly Bush and them want to get money and land to build up the military, other people want to spend time exposing the 9/11 lies, some people want to talk about sports, ... every body has a different set of priorities. For me, it's like being on a different planet with people that speak a different language, why don't they understand things that seem so simple to me? update 9/15/06 This video I refer to is a Power Hour production (which by the way is also an acronym for my initials TPH ;), and Dave vonKleist is a smart person (as is Alex Jones). vonKleist has a wonderful statement when he says in "In Plane Site", "we offer an open hand and not a closed fist" (and not to open hand slap people either...aha). That's the way I feel too, I'm for nonviolent disagreement and discussion. One person correctly recognized that the opposite of globalist is clearly a nationalist, and that fact is never mentioned by those opposed to globalization.
It's kind of interesting that religion carries the weight of solid ligitimate gold, religion is thought to be a mighty foundation, but then a person looks at the actual workings and it falls to pieces...the early religions of the Egyptians, how ridiculous those beliefs were, then the Hellenic and Roman polytheistic religions, how those stories were even believed to be mythical by contemporary people, then the stories of Judeism, Buddhism and Hinduism that are also very unbelievable, then finally the more recent Christianity with the stories of Jesus who supposedly brought people back from the dead, and became alive again after death himself, and Islam with it's mostly arab-based later copied version of Christianity, the persecutions and mass murders done in the name of a God and religion, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Reformation, the racial hatreds, the Sharia, even now the brutal persecution, the idiotic violence and obviously false stories persist. The word "religion" carries a lot of weight (as opposed to "atheism" which is viewed similar to disease), but the actual details and history of religions leave a lot to be desired.
Sometimes I'll talk to myself, just to hear some sparkly in my ear. My ear sensors get lonely if they don't hear something.
9/15/06
I have a feeling that if you are excluded from seeing video in your eyes and hearing thought, and you are a liberal you may seriously want to think about moving to a blue county, the only other choice is working to change your county to a liberal county and that is a slow haul.
9/3/06
I think it's definitely worth trying to design photon detectors as small as possible, in order to magnify light as much as possible [not only for magnifying the light from stars, but light reflected [or even emitted] from tiny objects]. In addition, lowering the pixels so that screens at least have the size detectors of humans [perhaps 10um?] It seems likely that the photon is the smallest particle in the universe, and so, it should, in theory be the particle that can reveal the most about an object [although perhaps electrons are easier to control the movement of].
9/10/06
idea of hiring humans on treadmills [voluntarily and then only in a way that is unhealthy] to generate electricity. Even a way that a person can charge a battery by running on a treadmill. [or using arms, and legs in some other way] A fitness place could in fact harness that work to charge (maybe only emergency) batteries. Humans might be able to be employed in this way, and besides prostitution, robots could do this too (it would be interesting...no doubt it would cost more electricity to run the robot than would be received from the running robot). Mainly electricity will probably come from separating atoms, and so this means humans iwll always be in a search for more atoms to pull apart. Putting photons together to form atoms can only cost photons, but it certainly will be useful to produce Hydrogen (if it can be found).
holy shit if you ever wanted to piss off the antisexual violent puritans just surround them with pictures of genitals..holy shit can you imagine people like Walsh, the murderer Murdoch, Cheney, Bush, the fuzz, and them just ripping apart the porno magazines with their teeth, tearing up the dildos, etc. oh man that would be one antisexual scene. maybe some nude statues could be thrown in their for them to smash and obliterate, with particular interest in breaking off the bonered penises and titties. and then the angry mothers and protesters..."down with sex! down with sex!...down with pleasure!...down with reproduction! down with life!...let's go extinct! let's go extinct! (hey it's better than having to suffer the embarassment of sex, eh?)" maybe some year "down with yer public sex! no fucking in public, assholes!...." and other kind of puritanical signs. just ripping up pornography with their teeth and so on. damn im glad there are many people ready to defend free speech to the death because there are almost as many people trying to shut it down to the death. And no doubt plenty of burning of pornographic material, and also science books and any color editions of the bible for being too modern.
One key technology is cameras, I think that is obvious. Photon detection is going to be a major science for many years. The smaller the detectors, for example, the more detail we can see in a microscope and telescope (which are basically the same thing, a small area of photons is being magnified). For all I know this technology already exists and is being kept secret. My vote is definitely that advances in photon detection have happened secretly, and the public has been left out. What we would expect is a camera that can take a 10,000x10,000 photo where each pixel represents maybe 10um^2. In conjunction with this photon detection technology has got to be advances in displays where I think its already very likely that there are displays that have pixels equivalent to the human eye at 10um^2/dot. A 1024x800 image would take up a tenth of the screen for example, and the screen would be an average sized screen. i think its likely this exists because for people to send images onto our visual cortex they need to have 1 pixel resolution, and that means that projecting images has become very precise. Maybe the technology to project images onto our visual cortex is different from an LCD screen, but I wouldn't be surprised if such technology already exists somewhere on earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3664453.stm
has some interesting news on aging
the accelerated aging (progeria PrOJEREu) happens because a chemical causes cells to divide faster than usual, according to the findings of Dr. Kill and another researcher.
This really is an interesting phenomenon. This is the result of a mutated gene "Lamin A". The natural question now would be is there some way of reversing the process to stretch out the cell divisions to increase the life span? I think that this phenomenon has to be more than just cell division, because there are clear structure changes to the skull, for example. People with this condition look identical to people aged 80 and older, in particular the changes that happen to the head. Much of the noticable structural change in aging happens to the head (perhaps even just the skull?). To me I think the program of DNA is being run more quickly, in other words, later stages in the DNA code are being reached faster...because clearly stages are being reached...or else this would simply be a phenomenon of the same cells quickly reproducing and the person looking the same but dying of old age (heart failure, etc), but what we see are structural changes that imply more than only an accelerated cell copying, but an accelerated development (as I compare it to, an accelerated running of a DNA program that includes these structural changes, and my latest feeling on this program is that it may be a program that is run by a set of protein triggers and inhibitors..that run in a chain-linked way in stages). And my conclusion is that these structure changes that appear to be part of the fabric of DNA are what cause people to age and die, our own DNA is what is killing us. But I think its definitely stoppable, I feel confident that humans will (within 1000 years) figure out how to stop aging all together by developing to some age, for example 20, and then maintaining a complete healthy, ever reproducable, identical working set of cells. Programmed cell death is more evidence that death is part of the current design for all living objects besides prokaryotes (bacteria).
The multicellular design is really an amazing design. At one time in the evolution of life, there were only single celled organisms, but at some point a cell copied, and the cells it divided into stuck together. And so it's interesting that some cells keep dividing, but others are more or less dead ends that don't reproduce.
09-08-2006
8/28
TP Spam tip 14:
In the spambody list, you only need to put the last two parts of the URL:
http://ensvrm.tailct.com
is best added as simply:
tailct.com
because one spam technique is to simply change the first name to something like:
http://ensvrn.tailct.com, and this would not be caught, but with "tailct.com" it is caught. And basically this is saying, a person usually can only use a few actual domain names for their spam business, even though they can use many subnames, etc. The key is that somebody that bought tailct.com is using this name for spam, and the trajedy is that is somebody later domes along and buys this domain name, their email will be probably viewed as spam by many programs, if they work the way the very simple program I made does.
I think in astronomy and physics we should question many of the prevailing views because, for sure: 1) they missed a photon being matter and the root of all matter, one of Einsteins greatest mistakes was separating light from matter, 2) they are wrong on the big bang; the universe is probably infinite, because there have to be galaxies so far that not one particle of light reaches us, to think the farthest galaxies we see is the beginning of time is very doubtful. 3) it's doubtful that the red-shift of distant galaxies is due strictly to velocity.
So with these 3 basics in mind, I want to add:
1) I think the idea that a supernova is inevitable and based on star size is doubtful. *I think a supernova (or any nova) is due probably to some physical instability inside the star that causes an explosion.
a) *infact there may be planets that explode from similar circumstances.
2) I think we need to analyze the accepted view of a star's life cycle. This view where most stars become red giants (although the accepted exact system is not entirely clear to me). I think for example:
a) *Many stars may simply turn into dead stars, or become more like planets. *They may take on an outer crust just like the earth and the other terrestrial planets have (while still maintaining a red hot liquid iron inside. As an aside to add to the fear of hurdling through space on a rock, now add that this rock is really a molten ball of red hot liquid iron with a flimsy cooled crust). *By this view, somewhere of the stars we continuously observe, there may be those that "burn out". We have probably not been looking at stars long enough to see even 1, but perhaps we may measure some amount of dimming of some stars over the centuries. *Perhaps the brown dwarf stars we see are very long lived stars in their old age, no longer blue or yellow after shedding off matter in the form of photons, they become smaller and take on a lower frequency emission of photons in accordance with Plank's black body distribution.
3) I think we need to understand and explain more, that the brighter a star, the closer and/or larger. Because there are two variables, we can't be certain (other than from those stars where parallax can be measured) if a bright star is larger or closer. I guess from using parallax we could in theory determine what kind of differences in brightness can happen between stars. I think a good guide may be star color. The bluer a star (minus Doppler shifting due to relative velocity) probably the larger the star, since more photons/second are being emitted, but it's not certain. But what about a very bright red star? People interpret these stars as "red giants", and I think that may be true...maybe they are very large stars, but with a lower density and so emit most photons less often, they burn at a lower temperature, and are more like the inside of the earth (in my minority view). But what about some other explanation for a bright red star (like Betelgeuse)? Wikipedia has "Though only 15 times more massive than the Sun, it is as much as 40 million times greater in volume" Maybe these bright red stars are simply closer than currently thought,
4) I have doubts about the idea of H+H=He nuclear fusion being the source of all the photons emitted from stars, and think a star is similar to the inside of the earth, molten red hot liquid iron. I think the very inside of a star is not a Hydrogen to Helium fusion chamber, but is mostly liquid iron, and the denser atoms.
a) The question of how do photons form atoms still remains unknown in my mind. But it must be possible. Perhaps photons to protons from gravity is only possible in a large density like a star, I think that may be possible. I think it's possible that protons are being fused together, and perhaps even atoms inside stars. This is really one of the big questions, clearly we can rip apart already made atoms, but can be put them back together? And this has been a very difficult thing, although the cold-fusion successful experiments of physicist and 9/11 researcher Steven Jones, may imply that fusing of atoms (and perhaps photons) does not require the pressure of very large matter like a star.
5) I reject, for the most part, the idea that the heavy atoms beyond iron are only made in supernovas. I think they may be made in stars, or even by some other methods, we shouldn't rule this out without extensive and public proof.
If we were to presume (and no doubt wrongly) that all stars are the same brightness (obviously there are, for example, dim red dwarf stars that are very dim, but still close) then distance might be related simply to apparent brightness. That is certainly one way of determing distance, but it would be an inaccurate map (but it might be nice as a reference). If we then add in a factor that depends only on color (in otherwords bluer color meaning larger size and brighter emission) then we would have another distance map of the stars. (again, the claim of red giants stands against the claim of this map being accurate, in other words there is a red star that is brighter than a blue star but is also farther away than the blue star; it's a simple point, but never explained to my knowledge. Incidentally, Asimov explains a similar thing in his small book "Alpha Centauri", and is a partial motivation on this topic). *So I think if there is a red star that is brighter than a blue star (more photons in the xy plane) but yet farther (as measured by parallax, not Doppler shift) than a less bright blue star, we should accept that there are very bright red stars which may be due to their size, but if not then perhaps a star's brightness relates only to it's distance and size (as determined by color only). Perhaps there is some phenomenon that as a star lowers it's frequency of photon emission into a red color, it becomes more intense. In other words, there are the same number of photons being emitted, but only in lower frequencies, making red stars tend to be brighter than blue stars. I kind of doubt it, but few people think of light in photons, and I think viewing light as photons opens new doors of theorizing. I certainly don't rule out the red-giant theory, and currently lean towards that explanation, I just think we need to keep an open mind and explore other explanations.
*key new ideas/explanations here
8/29
I am thinking to form a 3rd group "PST" People for Seeing and Hearing Thought
It's clear that it is very difficult to believe that people have figured out how to hear thought. If only there was this much skepticism concerning the wildly unusual claims of the religions. The skepticism about the possibility of people figuring out how to hear thought is one large aspect of the continued secret, but also psychology and the "mental" stigma keeps many silent too since nobody wants to be labeled insane which is perhaps the first theory excluded people think of when they hear somebody claiming that people figured out how to hear thought.
It's interesting that living in low gravity, as will be the rule and not the exception probably, eventually, in a very very long term, I think we will see the evolution of humans (our descendants) take on more of an "ocean-like" evolution, where radial (circular or spherical) symmetry as opposed to bilaterial (2 sided) symmetry may reevolve, or perhaps they will keep the bilaterial plan but take on more of a spherical shape. In addition, I think since brains are getting bigger, it means either vaginas are going to have to get bigger, and how they will do that, most likely is that the entire human form will continue to increase in size. We may appear like tiny monkeys to humans a few million years from now. Interestingly neuron size might stay the same, or even decrease, so that more memory can be fit inside the human head.
In addition, we are looking at an interesting future if the view that humans figure out how to stop development after 20 years of growth, and humans, like bacteria basically live forever aside from accidents, is true. If humans over time eventually reach this goal of living forever. It would stop the millions and millions of years cycle of replenishment from death. In other words, the people alive at that point would be the people who live into the future, and growth would be limited by amount of food and water. No doubt reproduction and making of new humans might be highly regulated (but perhaps the growth to other stars will be such that unlimited growth is possible and encouraged). But at some point in the long long term future, for example when the Milky Way is all globular clusters, all the stars have been divided up between the most dominant advanced civilizations, then continuous reproduction probably ends, accept for a small amount that may be created to replace those accidentally destroyed, which probably is rare as an advanced civilization evolves, but perhaps inevitable that a few organisms would be killed over time and then could be replaced with a new organism without any loss of food, water, air, etc.
If Betelgeuse does go supernova at 500 light years away would we survive? According to one page, it would simply look as bright as the moon: http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/betelgeuse.html this link says Betelgeuse is brighter, and http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980419.html says our sun is hotter, maybe photons/second would be revealing.
I was thinking that, in my experience of constant abuse in the form of out-of-the-blue put-downs, that there really is a phenomenon beyond the pay-for-put-downs scheme. It seems that there is a historical phenomenon that I honestly do not find in myself (perhaps when I was younger, and no doubt in small amounts it may exist), but appears to be largely present in many other people. And that phenomenon is the need to "blame somebody" and more specifically many people need for there to be somebody to "vent their anger" and hostility at, because many many times, insults come absolutely unprovoked, I will simply be walking past, or sitting near a person for example, not having said anything to them at all. And this has been a traditional role played by many persecuted and weaker people, Jewish people are a traditional group to blame, for example the early Christian fathers despised the Jewish people, ironically, since Jesus and most of his diciples were Jewish, and ofcourse the Nazis also chose Jewish people, Homosexual people, and political opponents for example social democrats, those for democracy even in a limited form. It's an interesting phenomenon. People thought to be Heretics and Witches were singled out for blame and persecution. It appears that people can never blame the gods, or simply relate disaster with random chance. One prime example is 9/11. Look how few blamed the government for not being better at stopping violence, instead choosing to direct their anger at Arab people, and now ofcourse we find out that white Christian conservatives did the mass murder of 9/11 and are the people to blame, but clearly Christian people cannot be blamed in the minds of the public. It's interesting that the 9/11 plotters, the white Christian (and no doubt some followers of Judaism, at least Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. If they are actively religion I don't know. It matters more that they are conservatives and advocates of first degree mass murder of lawful people) people chose arab and Islamic (at least in theory, although it appears Atta at least was not a strict follower of Islam) people to be the pattsies. It must have been a logical choice to frame Arab people as the murderers. But then they choice Saudi people, which is interesting, and as I have said, perhaps those were the only people the CIA could enlist as excluded stand-ins to unknowingly die (perhaps) in 9/11. It seems clear that, I just realized last night...it takes me a while for included hints to sink in...but that Sheen supported the claim that the 2 WTC planes are military planes, which I am starting to accept as true. Adding to that the report of Bush jr suggesting painting planes in UN colors. So I think that is a relatively clear part of the story. Still the biggest question then is: what is the deal on the people in the 4 planes claimed to be destroyed? Clearly they are either being held or were murdered. They were either made up (very doubtful since, for example, Barabara Olsen was definitely a real person, and there are videos of the mother of Todd Beamer), were murdered by some other method, or are in some camp (willingly or unwillingly). That really is the only remaining question, the two planes in the WTC were military planes, the WTC come down with explosives and thermate, the Pentagon got missiled by neocon people and then exploded to increase the hole size, a bomb was exploded in Shanksville, and the final piece: the 4 supposed hijacked planes were landed and the people a) are being held or b) murdered (perhaps with explosives).
It really comes down to either their are no remains from people from each plane and they are being held, or there are remains and they were murdered by neocon people. update: A few people have hinted at option A. To supplement that option, fraudulently verifying remains has to be easily done by those in the camera thought net. Look how 9 of 10 forensic pathologists supported the single bullet theory for the Warren Commission. People can easily lie about identifying remains. It's possible that some people who think their friend died on the 9/11 planes may be happy to learn that their friend may still be alive. Or perhaps these people are all included and agreed to participate in such a thing, in this case I think we would see many people, characteristically easily mislead, risk takers perhaps, probably many very conservative people religious republicans, believers in such a grotesque cause. Speaking of grotesque it appears that Grosseteste in the 1200s may have been one of the first humans to recognize that all matter is made of light (although it's doubtful he thought light was a particle...but maybe). Jimmy Walters claimed that the people on the planes were working for the government, and he appears to be a smart guy with insider knowledge.
I was thinking too, that for those watching in the camera thought pupin net, the WTC destruction must have been just like an open military assault on the traditionally blue liberal half by the (traditionally) red racist conservative half; the red saying basically "we are going to destroy two of your buildings and you are going to sit on your blue pansy liberal ass and accept it", which is basically what happened. But maybe there was an element of the red group saying "we iz gunna blo up them towerz!" and just simply getting away with it because the excluded public is just as stupid, or in any event, extraordinarily stupid. I don't really know...on the one hand everything had to be out in the open...there was no surprise (although even to the end there must have been many people that thought the red would never actually collapse the 2 WTC buildings...that they would never actually go through with the final gruesome part of their evil plan), but then...it appears so stupid and risky to bring down the 2 WTC towers in open view...clearly people will figure it out...there is far too much video evidence of the collapses...only an idiot would think they could get away with it. So I am not sure what scenario is more accurate, the invincable red army pushing around the weak blue army however they want, or the idiot red army making such a major mistake that they will be certainly doomed to collapse themselves.
08/30/06
I see on the BBC this story about the attempt to ban owning images of violent sex, and I ofcourse am for full, complete, and total freedom of all information, so I am against this effort to make it illegal to own images showing violent sex. The easiest comparison, is images of boxing which is consensual violence but without any sexual component. Images of boxing should not be illegal to own, so why should images of consensual violence with a sexual component? It shows clearly the illogical prejudice against sex that appears to be more important than violence since nonsexual consensual violence, like images of boxing are not at issue here. Unconsensual violence is terrible, there is no question of that. These people are trying to work the corners of stopping free information, so to have a monopoly on the pupin camera thought net, to make it so that only people in police can own certain images, to protect people doing violent crimes for them. Next they will probably go after images of any violence, so for example, the news companies and even just regular people will be jailed for showing images of, for example wounded or murdered soldiers in Iraq, victims of 9/11, ... again even images they take themselves will be confiscated and perhaps burned, so that no images of violence can be owned. I am thinking of founding yet another group, and I don't want to make frivolous groups, but this group has a good purpose, some kind of people for complete freedom of all information group, and our first goal will be to secure state ballot measures stopping a person from being jailed or fined for any image owned (perhaps initially making them only uncopyrighted images, but even those eventually...perhaps only 1 copy per person as a compromise), and then on to national laws. The free info people need a martyr as spokesperson...how about a person murdered that the public would have jailed the murderer had they seen a simple street camera for example, had the police made images of the evidence and the trial available to the public...for example Nicole Simpson, Bonnie Bakely, Jam Master Jay whose murderers are still on the loose...had we had free information and street cameras with images archived and online for the public those killers would be in jail now.
I think another group that has a good value is the "people for total and constant full democracy" PCFD or PFCD people for constant democracy, PFD people for full democracy PCD=people for constant democracy. I think PCFD (although I like 3 letter better oh well). it's like Pick Food, which we ought to as opposed to violence and jailing nonviolent.
I am thinking PST (ppl for seeing and hearing thought) could also be PSHT and called PEE-SHIT. And we can have a small march in a tiny parade perhaps, with signs of pupin, and thought hearing, etc....we might look like the "UFO" people.
imagine a computer game where you have a certain number of government employees, you have a tiny town of people in houses (perhaps 1000 houses and 3000 people), and your job is to enforce laws, on each house a "D" will appear when a drug law is being violated, a "P" for prostitution (or illegal pornography), an "A" will appear for an assault, a "M" will blink when a murder is being committed and then stay solid once a person has been murdered. Then you have a tiny jail that can hold 100 people for example. Now you have to assign your employees to these various houses with the letters. So of the 10 people you can assign you send them out. But what if you have more D's, P's, A's and perhaps even blinking M's then you have employees? Then you have to set some kind of priorities. If you feel that the D laws are the most important you would allow the P A and M violations to continue, but if you feel for example the A laws are the most important you would have to allow the D P and M laws to continue. For me, clearly the M would be first then the A, and I would not bother with D or P. And no doubt I would find that even when sending a person (or maybe 2 are required for each event) to each M and A house, that there would not be enough people to arrest even those people, then there would not be enough space in the 100 person jail to hold all the people violating D, P, A, and M laws. My own conclusion is that the 100 spaces in the prison are for the M and A, not for the D and P.
This has always been the interesting coincidence, that when everybody gets to see, that if they simply freed all the people in jail for drugs and prostitution, there would then be enough space (and we are talking millions of jail cells) for those people who did violence but were protected by the camera net, and also including those who were accessoried before the fact and part of the planning of the murder or assault. Because of the inflated drug arrests and bloated prison sizes, there is just enough to accomodate all those violent criminals in the republican party (mainly) like Sturgis, Thane Cesar, the killers of Nicole Simpson, Bonnie Bakely, Jam Jay, all who are known in the camera net....and then think of all those who were accessories before the fact and actively participated in first degree murder...it is just a nice fit that there are millions of empty prison cells when people end the drug war and nonviolent people only hurting themselves go free, that the number of cells will probably perfectly match the eyenet camera thought net violent criminals who currently number in the millions. Here we are being assaulted with lasers (or something), make to scratch every 10 seconds, all of our thoughts are known by some elite fascist group we can't see, and I hope that the public does eventually get to see who is secretly assaulting and molesting them with lasers of some kind, and this move to close down free information is only delaying that inevitable day when all people can see and hear thought, and know, finally know after centuries of surfdom and lies, who has been doing all the murdering and assaulting on the earth.
I think it's ludicrous, it's unbelievable the way democrats and liberals have not lifted a finger in defense or offense to defend or promote the issues they care about. For example, Ted Charach is a classic example...why didn't they take his video and show it to the planet? Why didn't they put it on national television every year on the RFK anniversary until Thane Cesar was jailed? Why was he ignored completely at the time of the release of "The Second Gun"? And I am not saying people have to openly put their name onto it, but can simply collectively secretly fund such enterprises through third parties. There are unending examples...look at John Hankey and JFK II, hiw video is all over the Internet because of his own effort, and what a devastating blow that is to Bush senior, although way too late...look at all the links between Bush senior and the JFK murder, how his name appears on a FBI memo the day after, and he has nothing but CIA links, was down near Cuba working with Hunt and the anticastro cubans which is all CIA, and ofcourse Hankey has received no support whatsoever...why didn't Dukakis publicize that fact...why not Clinton, Carter, Gore....why not expose Precott Bush and Thiessan the Nazi financier? Wouldn't that help the liberal democratic cause? yes, ofcourse it does. George Bush Senior got the biggest free ride of any person known to history...his reputation, which has nothing but murder and lies was not questioned at any time by the "opposition"...it's almost as if they want to lose. It goes beyond fear...and is simply stupidity I think because what fear is there to simply promote some images as Charach has done for years, simply to make some claims publically? no fear whatsoever...it is just pure stupidity and perhaps laziness. Then look at the 9/11 scholars for truth group...they are not funded by liberals and the democratic party, they are doing everything themselves. The republicans and conservatives do not simply lay down and do nothing, they proactively buy up lies on the major media, buy up propaganda on national television...it seems to me the only thing that is in the interest of the liberals and truth is when the people in the media reject a bribe to lie because of what tiny amount of integrity they may have...that is the only time it may appear as though the liberal cause has not lost. Dave vonKleist is a perfect example, and again 9/11 is such a perfect example, these neocon republicans religious right, murder 3000 people and the democrats are simply going to lay down and do nothing?! It's a mass murder of 3000 people! Can they not even put forward some kind of public national effort to questions the republican version of the story? Can they not put together their own independent commission to publish a book based on the truth? Make a national television special to examine the physical evidence as the makers of "Loose Change" and others have done? Again, it just seems like they are stupid and bent on losing, or care little for truth and justice...who can understand it?
There was a courttv forensic files (or maybe psychic detective...it's still shocking that "psychics" are paid for by our tax money) show that had a 40-50 year old white male in the Elmira police who sez "freak went Lee", and I then realized that this was probably a conservative republican who like so many republicans are supporters of doing homicide and then covering it up (maybe somebody can put it into nicer words...like politically adjusting the politics in the USA, or something). And this guy is in the police! and no doubt with a job that can never be lost or even demoted. I didn't get this person's name, and maybe "frequently" was not meant to be kill smart people who don't shutup about the 100 year secret of how they hear thought using the classic Lee Oswald technique of murdering liberals and then covering it up with paid for major media stories. It's just the blood-thirstyness of these people...and then they are in the police! It's shocking and frightening...but the excluded public just sails on like they are in a cloud...not a worry about oswald this...or camera net..violence bad? nooooo!...why, pleasure is bad!...sex and drugs are the big evil...not our precious beloved violence....just total idiots...sheeple without a doubt. This murder people with the old Oswald/Sturgi method guy, in the police...I mean that is terrible...it's free speech (although planning murder is definitely illegal and probably should be for a few more centuries), but since people in police are supposed to be solving murders, not doing them, it's again a case (like the bush jr election) of handing over the keys to the hen house to the wolves and trusting that they will take of the place, they will make sure that no homicide happens on their thought network watch. But what we see is the exact opposite, they take full advantage of the thought network to plan, carry out and keep secret murders such as that of JFK and 9/11. Think of how long it's going to take to identify all these people once everybody gets to see...get an abacus because we are talking about hundreds of thousands of eye-net people that participated in murders, assaults and the cover up of those acts of violence that need to be hauled into prison by what remains of the lawful, fortunately, as I noted, presuming a popular voted end to the drug war, there may just be enough space in the massive prison-complex in the USA. If any cells are left over, I vote for the cells to be converted to free rooms for poor people. Yeah get an abacus ready when it's time to clean out the government, that is going to be some massive job, but it should not be complicated once everybody sees, we just simply need to support the constant vote counting system.
8/31/06
I have been reading the reconstructed "Against the Galileans" by the emperor Julian, and it is interesting, some parts are clearly uninteresting, but some are very interesting. For example, I just realized for the first time that the Genesis story, when the author refers to the spirit of God moved upon the waters, for years I thought in terms of an empty universe...just like darkness...but now I see that...these were people who actually believed that the earth was the center of everything, that the earth was the center of the universe and the stars went around it. So ofcourse they would have a God starting with a planet of water and then placing land on it. So for them, God would be first working with the tiny planet earth, a planet, we now know, is only one of an apparent infinite amount of planets orbiting a star...earth is a tiny tiny planet compared to the sun (1 million times smaller) and planet Jupiter (1000 times smaller). So that is one interesting point...they had God's spirit moving upon the face of the waters...the oceans of earth, not any other water, or empty space, or anything to do with the universe or stars. It's a simple point but one I missed before.
The second point that is really interesting is that Julian makes a strong argument that the God of Judeism was a local God, a God that ruled over the Jewish lands (Judea and Israel), but that other Gods ruled over other lands...apparently this is written in the Old Testiment or anceint Hebrew writings (I wish I was more well versed in these texts, but I presume Julian is, and others I have read have argued this same point). So, a very interesting point occurs if a person accepts that Jesus refered to his God, as the Judean God (Eloi), as I think is obvious, because Jesus calls out to "Eloi", which is definitely the Judean God, then if this view that the Judean God was only ruler of the Judean lands, and other Gods ruled other lands, then an interesting truth may be revealed about the God of Jesus...that probably or perhaps (I'm not an expert, but the evidence appears relatively simple) the actual view of the God Jesus worshipped, and talked about was a God only over the Judeist lands. I think there is a strong case for this, and only later did Hellenistic people change the story. Julian quotes Paul as saying...(paraphrasing) "The God of the Jewish and also the God of the Gentile", so clearly in those very early years after the death of Jesus...this was a question among people. The Judean God was god over a local territory and people (and for all I know still is...but I doubt it...modern people adjust their God's realm onto the current understanding of the largest universe...they will next move God from creator of the Big Bang to creator of the infinite universe that apparently had no beginning). Very astute point, but then it must have been obvious for people in the time of Julian (331/2-363) only 300 years after Jesus. That was when Jesus was still fresh, now 2000 damn years later...it's stanky and old. I hope people lose their religion, we are hurdling through space on a ball of red hot liquid metal and we don't have time to waste, we've got to get our tiny asses onto other planets and soon!
On this really interesting theme, of he drastic evolutionary changes that will probably happen to humans in thousands of years. There are some interesting points. Clearly humans will lose our "leg" vertical structure, I think initially, some kind of hand for foot replacement will be a selective advantage for faster movement (in some way we may evolve back to a monkey like foot...and ultimately back [in some sense, but into the future in reality]to an ocean like organism). So I can see that there will be a major disagreement in the far far future, or perhaps the disagreement will be easily settled, I don't know, but it's that there will be offspring of humans that are adapted to terrestrial living, which is really a luxury, because all the matter inside a terrestrial planet is not being used, versus those evolved for low gravity. Our offspring that are adapted for low gravity will probably become more spherical with branches of arms, genitals, probably eventually, the largest brains will be selected as favorable (although we need to also take into account the reality that a design may be made that dramatically slows the progress of natural selection because of it's ever-living quality...in other words if organisms rarely die, the new designs will be more slowly produced depending on available matter). So these spherical bodies, and maybe they will look muscular and attractive...we have to think more about this...will clearly win over our terrestrial descendents...perhaps though, they will leave the terrestrials and move on to other star systems. I could see that happening, simply leaving this star system intact...but clearly the next star system would have no terrestrials, and all terrestrial planets would be converted into matter for use in building ships. These low gravity organisms would be "ship species", builders of ships between the stars (it's possible that with acceleration ships between the stars can simulate terrestrial living, and there may be terrestrial species that succeed in conquering some star systems). Perhaps even a clear split will happen between those more evolved for low gravity versus those that prefer high gravity.
Somebody should parody the antisexuals. They are such hypocrites. People that openly hate sex "we hate sex..." everybody is a slut, whore, pervert and pedophile to them. They are pristine and unsexually clean. Somehow, though ironically, they must bump into each other, in their disgust of all the pornography and sexuality around them, and then lo and behold, they have sex and reproduce...how can it be...suddenly they secretly admit through action alone that, infact, yes, they are sexual beings. One aspect is how it is ultra critical that a female only have sex with one person her entire life, once that partner is chosen, that will be the only sex either can have until dead, not matter how dull, not matter how unexciting. Anything else would result in them being social outcasts and societal rejects, not a member of the perfectly pure set who have endured such punishment.
For those excluded out there, one idea to equip you with is this: included will give all kinds of reason why you are excluded, refering to your childhood (which they all see video of) and any tiny unusual thing you've ever done or said, but remember this: maybe you are to be excluded...but what about the rest of the general public? They can't all be inferior criminals...why isn't hearing thought commonly show on television, in the newspapers...why exclude the general public? Maybe you aren't the most lawful and decent person, but surely there are excluded people out that are. And ofcourse, in reality, most of the included are the lawless barbarian criminals, who sat back and murder, assault, lie and watch all of it...they can't even force the included to arrest murderers...and it appears they don't even try to. So, chances are the excluded are the honest decent interesting smart people and the included are the violent, dishonest, dull, dumb people...in addition since the pupin net grew out of Columbia and waas promptly taken from there and brought into the military and police forms of government, it fell into the hands of the most conservative brutal uneducated of the planet...the enlightened and educated, for the most part, are excluded as being dangerous, arrogant and faggy...they basically hate intellectuals because they are uneducated people who live by rule of violence and conformity. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times...we excluded may be bad, but hello 9/11 was the murder of 3000 people...we've never done anything like that let alone 1 murder, so preach on about how bad and low we are, but for myself, I will remember that, and all violence as being the ultimate bad.
Watch out for those who are big believers of "sane" and psychology. These are the people that will dismantle the anti-sturgis, 9/11 truth, and all other honest people, all the while they will be claiming to be liberals. Ofcourse their views on the universe are always 100% crystaline perfection, and their behavior and beliefs are 100% usual, it's other people that have the flawed impure beliefs and behaviors. Certainly to believe in psychiatric theory (psychosis, neurosis, etc), witches, horoscopes, psychics (this appears to be a big money making business now!), Jesus rose from the dead, a God or Gods are in the clouds, whatever...it's all freedom of thought and freedom of speech...freedom and lawful behavior...there are no laws against having those beliefs, and if there are, prison is the place to take those law breakers, but to my knowledge, at least officially, atheism, for example is not illegal or imprisonable. All I say is...ok believe in all those things and psychology too, but just don't drug'em...don't you damn drug them....don't drug'em! unless, ofcourse there is consent to being drugged and I mean clear consent, not some trick form.
You know what time it is here? The same time it is there!
Have you ever noticed how the secretive rule the world? Anybody that carefully explains and expresses their views, on web pages, videos, (perhaps the exceptions are those who express themselves in books, newspapers, radio, television show, and movies), poses nude, admits they are bisexual, tends to not climb to the economic top even though they are interesting smart funny people. Those who climb to the top of wealth and popularity tend to not reveal their opinions publically. The real secret to success is not expressing any opinions. A perfect example is how Kerry and Bush jr both used marijuana, but only Kerry admitted it, Bush refused to answer, and so Bush jr appears like the non-drug user, but the truth is that they both were drug users. How many wealthy people have web pages? almost none, who has all the web pages? poor people, mainly. If welathy successful people do have webpages...it's like the one page, blank one, no photo, just some bland text. For me, if I were at the top of some massive walking robot huge company, I would be looking for those who express themselves, not the people that have no web page, have no public opinions to speak of, and hide in secrecy. The secrecy definitely hurts the cause of truth, take for example all those who voted for Nixon, would they have voted knowing everything Nixon was seen doing by cameras kept in secret? Would they have voted for Bush jr, knowing he orchestrated 9/11? If yes, then why would they lie about 9/11? The truth is that they have to lie about 9/11 and a million other murders, because the public would never elect them if there was no secret and the truth was explained and shown to them. We have to stop promoting and electing the secretive, and start tolerating and promoting the expressive, open and honest. Maybe it's possibly just the massive popularity of religion, antisexuality, and anti-science that seems to dominate the earth for centuries. It really, is in my opinion, scientists versus antiscientists, wise versus anti-wise...you know...some of us want all science, pleasure, truth, justice, stopping violence, free info, and on the opposite side they want religion, suffering/anti-pleasure, lies, injustice, to do violence, and stop free info. Right now the opposite side is heavily dominating, but eventually science, truth, pleasure, etc. will win. My estimates are, as I have said, by 2800 a majority of people in civilized nations will be atheist, and no doubt believe in evolution...the creationists will be a tiny sect, mainly a people of the distant past.
q: Here I am stuck between those who think I am insane for publically claiming that thought can be heard and those who think I am a rat for publically claiming that thought can be heard.
My current opinion on "Energy": it's a human made idea or invention that certainly can be used in calculation, but it does not apply to any physical matter. At most, energy is a useful tool, or concept.
removed quote:
People that can condone unquestionably first degree homocide of nonviolent people are a phenomenon of the right wing only.
just too polar, I am simply against people who condone first degree violence with less regard to their other views.
It's amazing to me that here these people the republicans voted for are simply stuffing their pockets full of defense industry money from the taxpayers, and then using children to kill and be killed in these bloody wars...all for money. I mean we could be working to be the first to conquer the moon and all that prime real estate, [maybe the Pope will declare all parts of the moon west of the Tycho crator to be the property of Spain and all east that of Portugal, as was done when the new land, America was found by Europeans in 1492]. Defense industry and the oil industry, here they take over massive oil deposits, add new pipelines to lower the cost of moving the oil, increased supply, lower cost, but somehow, the prices for gas go up for US consumers. They are just filling their pockets full of money, and using young children to kill for them, and here these kids are being blown up, losing arms and legs...its terrible, and they want now even the photographic evidence of this made illegal...and then just so these wealthy bastards at the top can get more money in the defense industry holdings. Here they did the 9/11 just to have an excuse to build up the military that they have all their investments in and play war, but with young kids as the chess pieces. Young people shouldn't be killing and getting killed, they ought to be having casual pleasure and vacationing on the moon. And here we are entering an age where walking robots are going to be doing all the manual labor. We need leaders that are not so greedy and brutal, that recognize the value of developing US property on the moon and mars more than the current group who wants to take over underdeveloped (and I might add religiously violent) nations, we need leaders that are focused on free info, progress towards truth, full democracy, and stopping violence, instead of this bulking up the military and taking over undeveloped dangerous nations by force. The real future is on those other planets and moons, and less here on earth, but even here we could be doing our small part to work together with other nations democratically to guarantee the basic right to life, free from violence around the planet, basically establishing solid democratic guidelines for planetary homicide and assault laws that protect people whereever they go (or at least cooperate to identify and jail those who violate homocide and assault laws if they ever enter into an area where such identification and capture is possible), we can disagree about drug laws, prostitution laws, information laws, but I think we can agree on homicide and assault laws.
As I said before, whatever we do, we can disagree about every issue under the sun, but let's make damn sure that murderers get caught and go to jail.
Kind of interesting about the "Muon-catalized fusion" done by Steven Jones:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v321/n6066/abs/321127a0.html
First I know that there has to be a large amount of secret science that has not reached the public, that is clear everytime somebody tells me what I just thought, I feel a laser beam tickling my nose, or my eyelid muscle involuntarily twitches, etc. clearly there is a lot going on the public doesn't know about, then throw in Frank Fiorini and Thane Cesar and you can see there are many secrets the public doesn't know about. Clearly, there has to have been some major reasearch into transmutation (combining atoms) starting at least with Enrico Fermi, and no doubt even before. Andre Maurois explicity uses the word "transmutation" in "The Thought-Hearing Machine" and so clearly something important must be happening there. But with the Jones experiment I think there is something important even publically explained, and that is that combining atoms of Hydrogen into Helium is possible at room temperature, simply using muons (which are like big electrons according to the public theory). And as far as I can see, the maajority of people agree that this is true. Perhaps people should go farther and find other ways (besides what appears to be detecting neutrons) to verify that Helium is produced, perhaps by spectra. Still, I think there is always this struggle to reveal the truth to the public, just like Carl Sagan hints in Cosmos "we may one day be able to hear thought"...clearly he is trying to bridge the space between the public and the run-away-technology insiders. So, now that Jones has clearly shown himself to be a leader in the struggle for the truth about the 9/11 mass murder, I think it's clear that he is a person who would be a good candidate for releasing some of those secrets. It is just an interesting observation. Clearly atoms can be put together with a simple beam of muons, and this is a classic thing, Fermi mainly split atoms into smaller parts to my knowledge. As I have said one of the most important technological advances is when we can build atoms from photons, if that is possible, and then ofcourse, build up atoms from H to Plutonium and then back down again. Mainly, the important changes will be from common atoms like Iron to more useful atoms like Oxygen and Hydrogen. Then humans will be able to convert iron (or silicon Aluminum and other atoms that are abundant on planets) of other planets and moons into water and air.
09/05/06
I looked at the videos released (in .mpg) format from the Moussaoui trial, and this is the first video where I could actually look at the video (the CNN disk I bought has copy protection that prevents any part of it from being copied) of the plane crashes, and looking at this video, even after being compresses, it is still clear that there is a flash of light when each plane contacts the WTC building. (Before I couldn't see the flash because the quality was too low when I captured the video from analog). In addition, clearly there are white flashes as the WTC buildings are being brought down. To me this is secondary evidence, because first and foremost, there is no way a steel structure building would fall into dust from a plane crash, that is beyond obvious, so this evidence is secondary, and also compelling. There are tiny flashes of light around the frame of the WTC, but I am sure the 911 plotters and their millions of accomplices after the fact will claim that those are pieces of paper and debris reflecting light. But I think the problem with that claim is that the light pulses are very quick, all equally timed in duration, very bright, typical of controlled demolition explosions in appearance, and appear nowhere else in the video except in the central portion of the collapsing towers. One video of the WTC1 demolition shows exactly where they started the detonation, it is basically every floor of the damaged dark band and even a few floors above, one of the Moussaoui trial videos shows this clearly, it's not as clear in the video of WTC2, but it still is evident that the damaged area is the first to be blown out.
I was thinking more about a generator that uses gravity and/or electromagnetism to generate electricity, and it's interesting, that there is even a simpler design (no doubt somebody must have thought about before me, but still it's a very interesting thing). The force of the massive earth's gravity (or even the moon) can be used as a power source, just as it is for water powered motors. Before I had a circle of magnets (although also a see-saw of magnets may work too), but now I can see just simply some magnets (or even an electromagnet system) to pull the pendulum bob up and back over the little way to swing down from the force of gravity, the magnets are used to give the pendulum the little extra push over the top to fall down again. Friction is one problem, but still I think there could be more electricity generated than used, in particular if done with permanent magnets. Here is a little drawing:
It would make an interesting perpetual motion toy anyway. Again, the interesting point to me is that anywhere there is a force, it should be possible to use the force to generate electricity. The advantage of the huge earth is it's gravitational force, we could perhaps just as easily have two masses orbiting that pull a generator too...(I am thinking that the gravitational force of one would cause a pendulum to swing in a circle..but no doubt it is complicated) all simply from the force of gravity and the lack of any kind of friction. I can envision a huge pendulum generator just using the force of gravity and a tiny magnetic assist to generate electricity on a moon station, or even on earth. I'm not sure how much electricity could be generated from such a device, but it would be interesting. The most difficult part is figuring out the electrmagnetic force portion. Probably a series of electrically controlled electromagnets would be the easiest to figure out and scale. But strong permanent magnets eliminates the amount of electricity needed for the extra push of the pendulum bob over the top.
For people looking to embed music in the myspace page, I found:
http://musicplayer.sourceforge.net/#download which is open source and has all the basic features. I just added this to myspace:
<embed allowScriptAccess="never" allowNetworking="internal" src="http://www.yourpage.com/xspf_player.swf?playlist_url=http://www.yourpage.com/playlist3.xspf&autoplay=true"
quality="high" bgcolor="#E6E6E6" name="xspf_player" allowScriptAccess="never"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
align="center" height="168" width="400"> </embed>
Copy the xspf_player.swf and a playlist file (playlist3.xspf) like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<playlist xmlns = "http://xspf.org/ns/0/">
<trackList>
<track>
<location>http://www.tedhuntington.com/wnalol6df.mp3</location>

<annotation>We Need A Lot of Love
</track>
<track>
<location>http://www.tedhuntington.com/Ted Huntington - Stars.mp3
<image>http://www.tedhuntington.com/generator.jpg
<annotation>Stars
</track>
</trackList>
</playlist>
and yo? that's it!
9/6/06
I Filed BBB complaint against Parago (rebateshq.com), Verbatim and Linkyo (Supermediastore.com) for a rebate scam. They rejected my $10 rebate which was sent with all correct materials within the time period, it's obvious it's just corrupt eye-net criminals, those who have been protecting Sturgis, Cesar, the 9/11 murderers, and plenty of other cold blooded first degree murderers for years:
Parago
1421 S Belt Line Rd Ste 400
Coppell TX 75019-4933
Letter to Parago, Linkyo (SupermediaStore), and Verbatim:
9/5/06
I reported you scum bags to the Better Business Bureau. Even though it's $10, I want to record my vote that you should be fined for dishonesty and reimburse me $110 for my time, and never supported in any way by honest people. My message is to other companies out there: DONT WORK WITH PARAGO (also operating as rebateshq.com), SUPERMEDAISTORE (Linkyo), and VERBATIM (if possible, I understand there are not many disk companies, by the way I can tell you that TDK is corrupt full of camera-net criminals too) they are dishonest and are running a scam. They are probably participants in the mass murder Bush jr and the neocons did on 9/11. You will get caught, there is too much evidence the WTC was controlled demolition, and all the Parago, Linkyo, Verbatim, Oil, Republicans, police and military criminals are not going to be able to bail you all out of this one once the public gets to see all you dirty secretive foul bastards. Oh yeah, and we're coming for Fiorini and Cesar, and all the other murderers you all paid and protect.
Shame on those people at Verbatim, Linkyo (Supermediastore.com), and Parago, obviously a dirty bunch of liars and crooks in the Pupin network.
Perhaps they all divide up the many $10 rebates between themselves, but then who gets the extra $1 ($3+$3+$3 only = $9)? Maybe you all give that $1 to the neocons for more murder of the innocentm what's next nuking a US city and blaming terrorists? With 50,000 people victim of this scam that equals $500,000 they probably divide between themselves.
-------
Gee what a surprise about the Mexican recount. I think history will view this election in Mexico as a fraudulent election, caused mainly by conservatives in the USA who oppose democracy in favor of a corrupt wealthy murderous criminal minority. It was interesting that somebody was saying that Obrador might rule from the street, and I think this may be the theme of the emergence of true and full democracy, where the popular majority operates without being an actual part of the corrupt formal government. But this must happen anyway on a planet with such massive communications networks, clearly people in the government express their views and have allegiance towards the majority that share their view, however the beaurocratic authority and monetary wealth of the minority in power has a corrupting influence.
----------
Probably the slogan for the US military is: "we commit more violent crime before 6 am than most people do in their entire lives"
----------
I was review my intro for the tabash lecture and what a nice quote "The war against sex is the war to end life".
-----------
It's kind of interesting that we can recognize the age of our planet, and therefore estimate the age of the sun, but estimating the age of the Galaxy is more difficult. I think we can count the age of galaxies by the number of globular clusters. The most globular clusters the older a galaxy, also the less dust the older. And the reason why in my opinion, is a reason that most humans on earth reject like some kind of new-age heliocentric theory. The reason is that advanced life, that no thinking logical person can deny the existence of (and therefore, why don't they go to the next logical conclusion? that advanced life succeeds to move stars around...they believe in life of other stars, but only "dumb life", or something...or probably as early in technological development as we are, no possibility of being farther along than us). It's clear to me, and no doubt secretly other believe this (after all, the first signal sent was to a globular cluster of this galaxy...I doubt it was by random choice, but why the secrecy about it, even now?). So we can see that compared to M87, the Milky Way is a young galaxy. We only have 300 globular clusters, other galaxies have more, although some have less. The Magellanic Cloud galaxies are very young without any globular clusters to my knowledge, and perhaps they have yet to form spiral galaxies. But how old is the Milky Way? and then How old is the oldest Galaxy? I think the oldest galaxy is probably the biggest globular/elliptical galaxy we see, and for us, that is M87 in the center of the Virgo cluster. The interesting thing about so many things in life, is that they take time. It takes time to pull stars together, trendous amounts of time. It's like scanning a book, you know when you are going 3 pages/minute that a 100 page book is going to take at least 30 minutes. There is no way around it. So it's interesting that maybe every so often in the universe there is an M87, a massive globular galaxy. I am not aware of any larger elliptical (or spiral) galaxy for that matter (but I haven't looked into it). Perhaps these massive galaxies form in a lattice, for all I know, where the next major super giant elliptical galaxy is beyond, in a part of the universe we can't see because photons don't get here from there. It's amazing to think how far we have to go even to simply secure our species off this planet, and then our species will change drastically in the next million years, presuming we survive. It's an amazing fact that most species, 99% of the species that have lived on earth are no extinct, and the way people vote, and their beliefs on this planet are frightening, they are so chaotic and destructive. Look at the bombing of WW2, had their been nuclear bombs, think of the destruction...and then it would be done in seconds, and last for centuries.
---------
Speaking of secrecy, I am reading in the Tarpley biography on Bush Senior, about the rise of Pol Pot, and this reminds me of something. When do you think people in the USA learned about their process of mass murder of the Cambodian people? After the first 100 murdered? after the first 1000? And then not just random people, and that certainly would be evil enough, but the intellectuals and educated were targeted in the mass murdering. I am not saying that Cambodia should have been invaded, or worse: bombed, but what is shocking to me, is that the people in the US government and media chose not to even show the public this news. Not only did (in theory) intellectuals in the USA not come to the defense of other educated intellectuals being murdered in Cambodia by Pol Pot, but they didn't even show any of the numerous satellite images of the murders. That to me shows how monsterous these people are. Monsterous, apathetic, secretive. It reminds me too of how JFK chose to show the public the images of nuclear missiles in Cuba. It makes me think that JFK wanted to move in to the future all together as a nation and planet, unlike the current people at the top who want just their elite group to see the satellite images and hear thoughts, and the rest can eat backwards substandard, no electricity, no clean water, or satellite image cake.
---------
I was thinking that these neocon mass murderers appear to be blood thirsty...they enjoy murder, suicide, death, secrecy, blood, shocking deaths, etc. and after murdering individual people, to fulfill their need to see people murdered (albeit secretly, beamed onto their heads), they came up with 9/11, and that satisfied their disgusting blood needs for awhile...I mean they were thrilled to see real live humans jumping and being thrown off a 100 story building, to see and know how they blew up 2 huge buildings symbolic of the USA, mainly the explosions, the body parts...this is what these neocons enjoy and the videos they tend to get into (no doubt many people like to see shocking video, it's like america's most funny videos, but it americas most sexual, violence, gross, unusual, etc. taken from the massive unending archives of thought videos and hidden visible light videos...but only for the elite in the criminal net), but how can the republicans one-up 9/11? I mean 3000 people murdered...that is hard to surpass...sure they are partially satiated by live images of people being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq...they are probably tired of seeing arab bodies (the old, young, female, children) getting killed, cut up, and perhaps even eaten, and the other species. So what really could satiate these lawless secret violent criminals that number in the millions? And I think it has to be a nuclear bomb, where else could the see a city of people murdered? Think of the videos of that, it would fulfill their grotesque fantasies in a way that horror movies can't, in particular because these would be real murders of innocent men, women and children. People that don't understand that the republicans killed JFK, MLK, RFK and the killers (at least sturgis and cesar) are still on the loose, protected by the republican camera thought net probably don't understand...ofcourse many excluded believe the lies that flood the national media, but you have to remember that they are all, like invasion of the body-snatchers...they are all corrupted by the Pupin net...it's like on SCTV where they all got a cabage on the back of their heads and become unthinking zombies of evil, although to their credit many only advocate murder, make murder all but impossible by using secret advanced technology beamed right onto uninformed innocent people, and lie about murders....but they don't actually commit physical murder with their own bodies, so there is some amount of redeemable value to them I guess.
I put a video of me playing acoustic guitar in 1994 on video.google.com:
Ted Huntington at the Goldfish Cafe in La Jolla, California
Acoustic (unplugged), Huntington performs a large portion of his songs. Many songs have been adapted for acoustic guitar and so sound different from the recorded versions. A few songs by other artists have been removed from this video. In this video there is a rednecky guy who happened to show up and occassionally heckles Huntington. This recording was in 1994, around the time Jewel Kilcher was playing in a coffee house in Pacific Beach. The majority, which are conservative Christians supported Jewel, but they rejected and still officially reject (although secretly watching) Huntington's music to this day. Because Huntington is critical of religion, the drug war, antisexuality, and the violent secretive establishment, his music has never gained widepread support among the wealthy that control the music industry, nor the public who rejects any kind of intelligent messages and prefers bland music that does not question the majority views. So, it's a very rare pleasure to experience the original music of Huntington, given that music for smart people does not reach the mainstream media, even if millions may secretly be interested in such messages. There is evidence of this secret appreciation of Huntington's music, for example Huntington's "How Long" sounds similar to Lenny Kravitz's "How Many Tears...", Huntington wrote "Hands" (performed in this video), and Jewel may have secretly been aware of this song when she recorded her "Hands" song, Huntington's "Evolution" came before the wonderful effort "Do the Evolution" by Pearl Jam, Huntington wrote "To Make You Stay", and then Sixpense None the Richer recorded a song with the same title, "The Sun" (here performed) may have been tributed by Curt Kobain and Weezer, an older form of "Loving Life" was celebrated by Ace of Base, there are other examples, but these alone show that there are people performing music that recognize the works of Ted Huntington even if the majority of the public and the music industry exectutives consistently reject any kind of support or public recognition.
9/7/06
I saw a debate with Eddie Tabash, where the Christian person Tabash debated claimed that without belief in a God there is no basis for right and wrong. And I disagree with that, nobody needs fear or love of a God or Gods to do good or evil, people do good for a number of reasons, to receive the same good treatment that they exhibit, for example, and in addition to that, what is "good" is purely a human prejudice. But I want to make a point that seems clear to me, and that is that when you remove the homicide law, as Bush jr and his millions and millions of supporters have done, where the homicide law is not enforced, then, I argue that you are removing the basis of ethics, because the biggest evil obviously is murder, it's worse than assault, abduction, theft, drug use, any other law we can think of. So when you remove that principle that murder is the highest evil, as is being done for the 9/11 muder of 3000 innocent people (or JFK, or RFK, Nicole Simpson, any person where the person that murdered them is not in jail), the basis for all morals and ethics are removed, because all other activities fall under murder in order of what is most evil. And so the result is what we have now, kind of an anarchy, because everybody that knows 9/11 was an inside job and the murderers who did the controlled demolition are not in jail, has to realize that cold-blooded first degree murder is a possibility, that it is not being upheld as too far into the illegal. What kind of society are those people envisioning? Clearly, a society where the homicide law does not apply on every occassion of homicide. It's just like the society Hitler envisioned and created, where murder was always a possibility, it was a vicious system, and I'm glad, ofcourse that it fell. A survivor from Auschwitz put it so well (paraphrasing from Anne Frank documentary) "When I arrived at Auschwitz I learned that whatever I had learned was of no importance anymore and that a new system of values had to be learned". But Bush jr and his supporters are doing a very similar thing. And I think it will fail because it's too brutal, even those in the system can't be happy with it...always looking behind your back, always wondering who will be murdered next, hoping it's not you or somebody you care for.
I'd like to report a stolen or missing credit card. It's the credit card owned by the US public. Apparently somebody has charged up 2 trillion dollars on it, the charges come from places in Iraq and Afghanistan and appear to be credited to major defense industry megacorporations. I certainly never authorized those charges, nor would I ever authorize that kind of charge. Although there are 300 million of us on the card, I don't remember any of us voting on these charges.
How about the billion dollar moon vehicle contract...goes to ... drum roll...big surprise coming....gee the mega racist christian conservative home of the Nazi Thane Cesar, Lockheed, what a surprise there, then they paste a $20 "Orion" sticker on it. You know what they should have done is saved us $1 billion and $500 million and just given Burt Rutan $500 million to do what he did with $3 million of Paul Allen's money, but to the moon. It still amazes me how Lockheed hired Cesar knowing he was actively in the Nazi party, and openly said "JFK literally gave it [the government] to the minority..." and was preparing for a race war, then the other racist guy who they hired in Louisiana who shot the black people he worked with.
I'm just reading in the Tarpley biography on Bush Senya, how Strom Thurmon was a big vocal supporter of Bush for CIA, and you know Thurmon was a total scum bag, he was openly racist, personally investigated John Lennon, then lied about impregnating a black woman, what a total hypocrite shyte-filled evil violence criminal bastard...and ofcourse he strongly supported Bush senior, who is more of a mellow nazi, who doesn't do a lot of yelling, Bush senior is the casual nazi.
It's interesting to me, that people constantly label me insane, but they have diseases like stupiditis, greedy-tosis, lying-sack-of-shytis, chronic random rudeness, Jesus roseophilia, violentaholicism, and then take a person like the multimillion dollar Penn Gillette who in one video advocates legalizing prostitution...yeah everything seems to be in order there...but what is this? In another video he advocates the assault and possible murder of a lawful citizen who took the time and had the bravery to expose the 9/11 murderers? (Eric Hufschmid). I mean I disagree with Hufschmid's views on race, but still, nobody deserves to be assaulted, thrown down stairs (my mom was almost killed by neocons throwing her down the stairs using muscle-moving post-galvani technology). But he is the picture of sanity, he's sanity like hannity I guess. I have never advocated first degree violence in any video, and that is consistent with much of my life of anti-violence...I am consistent in my views. Look again at Michael Shermer, another person many proclaim to be sane, and the owners of Scientific American, Popular Mechanics and Jay Leno, here they up and actively participate in the coverup of the truth about 9/11. Is that logical behavior? Is that consistent with their principles of allegience to science, truth and law? To me, the bizarre lying, even if for money, is irrational if anything is, it's completely random...yer eating food with yer buddy then they turn around and stab you in the side with the ketchup fork...like yer in the WTC...what the...? I like and trust people that are consistent...they opposed mass murder yesterday, today and no doubt will reject mass murder tomorrow....and then...even for money...can you believe it...they even reject offers of money to participate in homicide. But all those people that are honest and have integrity are falling out of the mainstream like Meecher in Great Britain, Morgan Reynolds, Kevin Ryan, and Paul O'Neil, Willie Rodriguez, etc. You see this characteristic in Nazistic society, where the violent ass-kissing criminals rise up, and the honest drop down...it's totally backward, we ought to have the most lawful and honest at the top, the people with unimpeachable integrity, not the exact opposite! But I guess occassionaly the tables turn and for a change of venue, evil rules for a century. Then the magnetic field reverses again and the sugary sweet goodness rules for a century (and let's hope the next evil after that is only evil-lite, vastly evolved, and ready for a rematch.)
It's like that Phil Collins song, "Give me just one more mil" "just a one more mil..." "this 20th castle don't pay for itself"..."one more mil", "one more mil", "cmon granny and kids you've got some more pennies I see in yer draas...buy my album even though I see you for free or even worse I have to pay these pupin stealing thugs in order to see", or any other mega epic mega star songs, lets see who else is ripe for the picking...you get the drift, they deserve more millions from the people with the pennies. Now go, and write you some parodies. In all fairness somebody beamed this song on my brain, so I feel it is my right to parody it.
It still titillates and disgusts me that we are actually funding our own assaults with the laser net, our own harassment with lasers that make us itch, and funding this massive group of uneducated thug-nazis in our government to buy them more cameras to secretly watch us and our thoughts with, while we don't get a dime, or one webcam on them for all that money.
-----------
Snappy comebacks for those who live for constant verbal warfare:
thou repeat thineself:
how you doin? "nice to hear it" (because yiz has to say it [their thoughts] too)
how you doin? "I hear yiz" (because I dont! [hear their thoughts])
how you doin? "you don't say...." (no, wait, they do say! [their thoughts])
yer a pervert:
"we don't know where it comes from!"
"where does it come from?"
"cut it out"
"cut it off"
yer insane:
"yeah it's torture" (torturous)
9/8/6
I see that Ellen Degeneres is hosting the Oscars, and you know, the Oscars and 99.9% of the entertainment industry, and major media is totally corrupt, look how Star Wars was the largest grossing movie of all time, but they lose to some crap earth-only relationship movie like "Drive" or whatever it was. It's all corrupt and I don't bother to even turn on my television, except to watch repeats on cable of my own "Stop Violence, Teach Science" show. But I wouldn't be surprised if these millionaire uneducated scumbags get a dishonest millionaire uneducated scumbag like Degeneres to use as a weapon against my popularity. They see the rising popularity of the truth I and other are revealing (although I am basically alone in revealing the truth about Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar - ok except Charach, Pupin...absolutely not one other person on the face of the earth to my knowledge is revealing the truth about hearing thought, about full democracy...again not one person is suggesting the public can be voting directly on the laws, against violence...very few do, against the drug war...here there are a few that speak out, for history of science and evolution...not many do this), and so next I predict that the bitten nipple woman, the guy I poked, the lady I told to f' off will appear as special guests, or maybe hosts next year in an effort to lower my popularity. I was thinking, that the scumbags in the entertainment industry are really caught in a catch-22, the public wants to hear what I am saying and what I am saying is wildly popular since it's the truth, but they see that I am calling for an end to copyright, and basically the end to the scum industry of people in acting and movie and television shows (and software moguls like Bill Gates, the single-most wealthy human on earth, who got his wealth from the copyright law, while simulataneously violating any thought of copyright that may have ever existed by participating in the secret pupin thought networks)....they see that to show me, is to be their end...the end of the massive money train of secret thought watching when all people get to see....and so it's ironic. To get good ratings they need to show me, but that promptly will end their business, so they strive to delay the inevitable as much as possible. And so all we hear are people who refer to somebody who refered to somebody that refered to me or something I am saying. We don't get to hear directly from me, which must be like some kind of intellectual truth cocaine for the truth starved public. Those people in acting, and sports have enough, they have more than enough, they have far too much for what they do for the public. I realize it, but when will the public understand? I think they will catch on eventually, but obviously entirely way too late.
People say I am bitter about being excluded from hearing thought, but let them never forget that phrase when the time comes for them to be excluded, let's hope they don't become bitter. Besides, whether I am bitter or not, I am simply working to expose the truth about hearing thought, and there is nothing wrong with that. And I am not as much bitter as very interested in the truth being shown to the public, and those who are abusing the public to be punished with fines. If anything I'm scared and worried...we can't let people like Thane Cesar and the 9/11 murderers go free and continue on this way...that is a lawless, violent, dangerous society you people are envisioning.
What a large lesson I have learned in 30 years, all about how the major media is all filth and lies, how fiorini killed JFK and everybody lied about it for 40 years, how cesar killed RFK and they lied and cover it up, how thought can be heard, how the drug war is evil and brutal in arresting people simply drinking a beer, how antisexuality is the plague of this time, how the history of science and evolution are almost unknown and never told, how the majority of people in acting, sports and music are scum bags who lie to the public for money, have no education, and have never even spoken out against something as simple as violence, that religion is a total scam and full of obvious and idiotic lies, ... all this stuff I learned...and what a huge amount to learn...it's the complete a absolute opposite from the message the major media and most people tell.
Much of what is going on now, is similar to the overthrow of monarchy by democratists. Why are we to worship these people on television, in movies, in government? Just because they are from royalty? Just because they are thrust in front of us? I think many people are realizing that, no, we should respect people because of the integrity, their honesty, their achievements in science, for telling us the truth about hearing thought, about 9/11, etc. and to the bottom with those who lie and told us nothing and did nothing. And there are always those who lick up the ass drippings of the Queens and Kings, the Royalists, who have the traditional enemy in the Parliamentarians...or nowadays the leaders of the public....the democratists, the 9/11 truth, the JFK, MLK and RFK conspiracy exposers, the open source movement, the thought machine Pupin revealers, etc.
For me the real heros and people I respect are people that told about hearing thought...ok there are none, but there are those like Carl Sagan and JFK who hinted at such a thing. And then beyond that those who spoke out about the truth about 9/11, now those people deserve our respect and support. Those who inform us that we should have the right to vote directly on the laws and government decisions...again ok that is only me, and then those who support free information and are critical of copyright...against forced treatment...those who didn't use the power of the psychological stigma to stop the people telling the truth about 9/11 and the murder of JFK and hearing thought... they deserve our respect and support for that...not the brain dead people in acting who say and do nothing and continue the evil system...not those in government who consistently lie, or those in sports who like all the rest do and say nothing...they don't deserve our money, support and admiration.
People may say...oh you should deeply respect those famous people, and to that I say that you have to remember something important, and that is this. These people sat back and still sit back and watch you and your thoughts, without letting you see a single polaroid of their thoughts. They don't care enough about you to give you the same opportunity to see them and their thoughts, why should you care at all for them? They have basically viewed you like the white elites view the black people in South Africa, like some kind of second class citizen, why would you view them as superior? or even equal? The truth, that most can not possibly accept, is that those people in the camera net are total scum bags who have lied and taken full advantage of seeing and hearing thought for years, while denying the excluded public the same opportunity. They have enough, they have more than enough, they have way too much, and they should be fined as a penalty for the unfair advantage they have greedily usurped... you have to remember they people all supported the extension of the copyright to 95 years...and other similar activities where they fought for even more secrecy and unfair advantages. And I encourage the public to understand that these people that hear their thoughts and illegally and secretly watch them in their houses are masterminds of deception...they will argue their innocense until the end, and I think the public needs to remember that before they were caught they took every advantage and lied on every possible occassion. The point I am trying to make is that they will put forward all kinds of arguments...what could they do? there was nothing they could do...they didn't commit any violent crime...and you know to some extent those are true, you will hear all kinds of unending excuses...and you just have to remember that this is coming from a person who was in the network...ofcourse they are going to be biased, what we need to hear from are people who were excluded, their view will no doubt be a polar opposite. I am simply saying let's not hold the included up as popular (which is virtually impossible at this point...Gates will always have billions, those wealthy famous people will forever be popular...the system will die a slow vaudeville death...with them no doubt keeping all or most of their ill-gotten gains). Don't keep the system going, bring it down as soon as possible, end it now, so now more dim-wit uneducated acting, sports and government people get undeserved popularity, and for the love of truth, how about supporting those who have been telling the truth all this time...about hearing thought...about 9/11...at great risk to their careers and lives...maybe some kind of democratically voted government stipend...some kind of government monetary award for their honesty and bravery...maybe it can be taken from the fines on those that heard thought and promoted secrecy and copyrights, etc or said nothing.
I won't be happy until Sturgis is dug up and jailed, Thane Cesar is in jail, the story about Pupin and hearing thought is 100% public, that everybody is allowed to see and hear thought, until total free info, no more copyrights, all the 9/11 killers and plotters are in jail, all the murderers of the innocent are identified to the public and jailed, until the end of the arrests for using drugs and prostitution, until all people can vote on all government decisions, until the history of science and evolution is publically available, until walking robots are available to all, until people can go into orbit and to the moon, until all those pieces of shit that secretly zap people that bother then with lasers that make them itch are exposed and imprisoned, and even then.
I think we need to always remember, and future people should also remember, how the theories of psychology were used by nazis, by those in the secret pupin camera thought net, by the Warren Commission supporters, the protectors of Fiorini and Cesar, the protectors of the 9/11 murderers...the best weapon in their arsenal was simply to label any person telling the truth as "needing medication", as "insane", etc. and millions believe them. That is why to remove forced treatment, to question charges of insanity is an important effort that few involve themselves with, because to start to question the theories of psychology is to appear to be a victim of them. It's like being against the drug war, all the sudden people think that you use drugs. To me it's obvious how evil psychology and the psychiatric stigma is, and I don't hide my opinions about it. It's obvious that there is a system (I mean beyond the history of psychology which is shockingly disgusting) where people use the power of calling people crazy to defeat their arguments, even when the arguments are perfectly honest and truthful. Labeling a person crazy or insane, is simply a label...it doesn't address the actual physical evidence of the claim, it's like a distraction technique. It's like somebody who says...it appears Sturgis killed JFK, and they say..."well you are fat and so therefore we should dismiss what you say"...it has nothing to do with the physical evidence or the truth. One key thing to understand, and here I think I've solved the entire issue, because I have given it alot of thought. Clearly there are many people with inaccurate views, with unusual behavior, but all of that is clearly legal. If a person violates a law they should simply receive a fair democratic trial. If we want to address the perceived reasons why they committed their crime we can spend money on voluntary, and I want to stress the idea of "voluntary-only", prescriptions or even simply talking therapy, etc. so-called "treatment". I absolutely reject "forced treatment" as a violation of basic and natural human rights. In addition, I reject incarceration of any lawful citizen. If some activity a person is doing is legal, but annoying, people should work to make it illegal. I've gone over this 1000 times, and I plan to continue even to improve. Now I have a song "just don't drugg'm" and I think that is a weapon against these mind policing nazis. For most people calling somebody a nazi is about the lowest insult a person can give...it's used all the time...but for many of those people they might identify with that view and not view it as an insult at all...and you come to see that the sides are still the same...the antiracists versus the racists...although they don't want to asscoiate with the nazis because the nazis lost and are viewed as losers, the same for the confederates...it makes them appear weak...but they are still just as confederate and nazistic as ever..but now they use the term "republican", "conservative", "neocon", etc.
I think the important order of events is:
1) jail the murderers (those who commit first degree murder with their own hands, not those who order or pay for it)
2) jail the assaulters (again those who assault with their own body, not those who order or pay for it. And with this group it must definitely be said that the time in prison should be directly related to the number and severity in terms of pain of the assault(s). I vote against a statute of limitations on any violent crime.)
3) jail those who order and fund murder (here you finally get to the high level 9/11 criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, etc. ... because it is in some way probably like chess, the pawns are the poor people that those wealthy pay to do violence for them...you know...they aren't going to actually engage in violence, except maybe Rumsfeld, ... most of them are like the nazi leaders who accept defeat....it's like the Queen and King on the chess board they will prbably go down in handcuffs, not resisting with violence. They understand that when they are being arrested that their cause is lost, they arent' going to resort to physical violence...they are the orderers of physical violence, the figureheads of the massive violent criminal organization. Like Goering, Goebbells, etc. they are the architects of murder not the active participants in the actual murdering, which is usually done by children for low wage. The high preists of murder and destruction, the most popular of the decrepid criminal network...they don't dirty their hands in the actual trenches, they either commit suicide or are escorted to prison in hand-cuffs. So my point is that...you have to stop their henchpeople/cogs/pawns first and that is why the order of 1 and 2, with all murderers and assaulters in jail...its a simple matter of capturing and jailing the then powerless to do violence leaders. One complication is the nonviolent jailing of people...that is an interesting and complex war, and in fact the arresting of nonviolent plotters and funders of murder is part of that...the part waged by our side...their side wages the nonviolent "arrest and fine war" [yes, it's a fine "arrest and fine" war] against ours but for bogus nonviolent reasons like theft, treason, porno, prost, drugs, lying, etc). In fact we don't see much of a fine and or arrest war currently...and ofcourse most of us hope not to see any kind of thing like that...prison and fines are terrible. But you can see it was waged against ABC for the superbowl...that was one where the side I support lost (although ofcourse tv people are scum, but still the war against censorship of boobs is clearly on the side I am on). The arrests of Martha Stewert and Tommy Chong (both silent on hearing thought by the way, for all their contributions to life, we should never forget that they were secretly watching our thoughts) are part of that war...again I vote against these bogus arrests or any kind of bogus fine that is not fair. Now a fine for being the in secret camera net, for copyright, privacy violation, etc I can support until there is no secret net, no copyright, no privacy laws.
4) Jail those who funded or ordered assault
5) Fine those in the secret pupin camera thought net (with the potential exception of people like the Eletronic Frontier Foundation and others who openly advocated free info, for example the nazi RIAA bastards should be fined into absolute poverty.)
6) reward those who exposed the pupin net
7) return stolen property
8) Jail those who wrongly contain people or restrict the movement of people for a time related to the number and duration of wrongful containing and/or restriction events.
9) Jail those who repeatedly steal property for a time related to the number and value of thefts
One thing about this neocons using children to kill for them...if people really cared, as I do, they would work to support a "people in the army can quit at anytime without punishment" law (or state ballot measure), but they honestly do not care enough, or simply are not aware of such a posibility.
I think we should try to figure out what the electric (electromagnetic) effect really is and how it relates to the force of gravity. I think, for example, that perhaps the force of attraction and repulsion between two permanent magnets may be from the position of particles (perhaps atoms) that cannot be seen, but by all means we should flush out all possible answers and allow total freedom of thought on this and all topics. For example, maybe trying to push together two magnets of the same polarity is like trying to put these atoms or particles positioned in the electric (magnetic) field into already occupied positions, where putting together two permanent magnets of opposite charge is perhaps making a perfect fit for the atoms in the magnetic field that extends beyond the visible portion of both magnets. So then, the force we experience as magnetism (which I reduce simply to electrical force), is the force of atoms (or other particles) moving to find an equal spacial balance. It might be the force that atoms exhibit to remain in their lattice. I am looking forward to hearing some simple explanation of the electrical phenomenon that everybody can understand that is not complex in anyway, that perfectly explains all phenomena, but we may not reach that point for centuries. For the most part I am highly skeptical of the orbiting electron, and spinning electron theories, in addition to the electron energy levels theory...I mean I think the observable and experimental evidence is valid, I just question the theoretical explanation, again remembering that we cannot physically see these particles and can only guess about much of their movements in atoms.
A Nazi scumbag employee in the "security" (reich-land thug) department at Cox Communications in Rancho Santa Margarita followed me and Yi-Chun out of the building, stopped and confronted us. Then browbeat us with questions he already knew the answers to such as "are you here for the blood drive?", "why are you here?" but then stopped harassing us when I said what he already knew from the pupin secret camera thought camera network that I was there to use the public access edit room since Cox for some back-ass backward reason, unlike Comcast does not accept DVDs people can make on their own...but then the public might actually start showing their videos on cable access in the way they are legally allowed to, and Cox is legally required to provide this service for. So ofcourse I vote for this person, who was a 40 to 50 year old caucasian male, with black hair, somewhat overweight to be fired and a hiring ban on him and all involved in this intentional harassment and intimidation. Those people are too dangerous to have in the camera network, or working security.
For much of my youth I was given the "RFK security"...you know absolutely at the hands of wolves most if not all of my life. It's total idiocy and ineptitude on the part of intellectuals and liberals in the USA to leave other intellectuals under the guidance of conservative violence loving antisexual wolves who abuse the hyper advanced thought seeing and sending technology to their full advantage in causing chaos and suffering. I am many others do not even get so much as a molecule of shielding or protection with which to defend ourselves. That is one reason why I spend so much time trying to inform the excluded public of the wolves in the camera network...at least know that such technology exists, even if there is very little we can do...besides voting once every 4 years...or making videos...trying to duplicate the technology....ballot measures for full free info and democracy, etc. Warning and informing all the others in a way that doesn't sound unusual, in a way that might actually convince them that techhnology like seeing thought and moving muscles was figured out secretly. Those in the camera net will not even so much as tell the excluded that such technology even exists...and it's evidence of how monsterous and terrible these people are...at best..how totally and absolutely negligent, callous and thoughtless they are. Let's hope and vote that that callousness comes back at them, and I encourage people to be completely unforgiving...you have to get tough on these people even though most of us are friendly and happy by nature...we can't let these people walk away without any kind of punishment and let bygons be bygons, we need to enforce some kind of order and logical system for now and for the future. Let's do the best we can to penalize those in the camera net when we are eventually get to see, and certainly even now...don't reward those in the net...you know who they are...any wealthy and famous person...ofcourse they have to be included....and who do we reward? Ofcourse those who reveal the truth to us...about 9/11 about hearing thought (ok there is only one person to reward there...), about JFK, and all other lies.
I want to remind people that with me, you won't be locked in a hospital, drugged, tortured and held indefinitely without trial if you say something critical of me or anybody else, with other people I don't think we can be so sure. If you say something that bothers them, they may make use of the psychiatric stigma, start waving their finger around their ear, and vote to have you locked in a hospital for however long. And the same is true in terms of violence, with me, you can criticize and disagree with me all you want, and I will never pursue a path of violence, but with other people, you can't be so sure, you say something nonviolent that bothers them, and they want to have your ass kicked...violence may be the only way they can remove the anger they feel at you for criticizing them or not playing along with them, etc. Again, with me, violence is never an option, you won't get your ass kicked by me, with other people, in particular people who constanly resort to threats of or allusions to violence (and these are more numerous than you might imagine...think of how many people routinely talk about mutilating the genitals of those they disagree with? or that use the phrase "kick or beat their ass", it's common because we live in a society that, although completely illegal, has always tolerated violence).
08-11-2006
here are the spam that are tough to recognize:
1) everything in image: now spam checker needs to do ocr on images.
You can actually match all or portions of the ascii characters that compose the jpg image. It's the stuff that looks like this: XU0Xqm3AWlmjFkw3M8eSZpWLDrP7seQ7RQUMPkGNsukOQsv3ts18tqh8
In most jpg images you can easily match only 1 line, because of compression, that uses 8x8 squares, chances are against a line being encoding for 8 solid color lines (like white that might be in many jpgs).
Some interesting comments on two things:
1) quasars different from other galaxies. Here is an argument that may be on the side of quasars being regular galaxies and the red-shift not being strictly from velocity: it's a minor argument, but it exists. To presume that quasars are different from galaxies, whose light is stretched from bending or from large distance, is to presume that there is a different phenomenon operating in the unverse...in other words, at that scale, matter can be shaped into a galaxy, or into a quasar. But what difference would account for matter forming a galaxy or forming a quasar? Perhaps matter that stars closer together forms a quasar, and matter that is more spread out forms a galaxy? It sounds unlikely. But the popular argument now, as I understand it, is that quasars were formed at a different time, in the beginning of the universe (again as a reminder, it's clear to my that the universe is much bigger and older than simply what we see...there must be more beyond that which we can see, and this is an obvious idea to understand), so maybe earlier in the universe, there was a different physics, or perhaps being in existence for that much time causes it to be more point-like like a quasar. But if you remove the idea that they were made earlier than any other galaxy, and I think there is a good argument for this, since the universe appears to be infinitely large (and it does seem incomprehendable...that there should be no end, but yet...that is what the evidence suggests...in some way it suggests that there is no end to the playing board, and our dreams are not bounded by space perhaps, to put it in a nice light) ...so presuming the idea that any galaxy is made before any other galaxy (although, yes ofcourse, galaxies are at different stages...I think nebulas are the youngest, spirals=medium aged, globulars are oldest, and after globular it probably relates to size, probably the largest are the oldest...making m87 perhaps the oldest galaxy in the visible universe)....presuming that the universe is not expanding and distant galaxies we see are not racing away from us, but are simply sharing this infinite space very far away (far for us humans, but close enough to see, so probably close compared to most galaxies in this universe, the only universe we probably can ever know, as usual in science [in particular physics and astronomy] the dull answer tends to be the correct one [except for advanced life forming globular clusters, and universe infinitely large and old].)....presuming galaxies are more or less drifting around in empty space forming and evolving into globular galaxies [the process never appears to stop, because of the enormous number of photons emitted from galaxies that collect to form nebulas in other parts of the universe...it's really an amazing thing...because there is space and matter, there is an endless game of matter moving to new places]...then what would account for a quasar being actually different from a nebula of gas and stars, galaxy of stars, etc? Is there a third possibility for matter at that scale? It's not out of the question...look at the wonder of DNA and life on earth, all the variety and special-function organs. Still, I kind of lean towards quasars being galaxies that are either red-shifted because of bent light...bent around other galaxies closer to us, or galaxies that are very distant and the red shift is due more to their distance than to Doppler shift (velocity). And this is a fundamental question that will be answered some time, hopefully soon...what is the deal with the red-shift? When the red-shift was first observed, recently in the 20th century...they immediated hopped on the "expanding universe", and it's terrible the way they lied (or presumed too much) and tried to make it appear as if it "clicked into place" with relativity...that was exactly what explained the general theory of relativity...we can do without the cosmological constant...etc... when in reality, relativity appears to be equivalent with newton's theory. but in any event, they should have taken a second more and thought about other possibilities for the red-shift. If the red-shift is from bent light it may be provable by examining light from stars behind planets (or other moving objects) ... its amazing that we can actaully potentially prove the cause of red-shift from here on earth, but if the red-shift is from the great distance (I think we can rule out an exapdning universe, since there is no new space added, galaxies must be beyond those we can see, we see blue shifted galaxies, so must they...but why are their blue shifted galaxies red for us?) ... if red-shift is from the great distance that may be very difficult to prove...we would have to be able to coordinate a beam of light from one place to a very distant place...perhaps it might be possible after we send a ship to a very great distance...maybe even now we might measure a tiny tiny red shift in the frequency transmitted from the pioneer or voyager ships...it probably would be too small to measure, but we certainly should look for that. If it is not the stretching of light from bending, and the red-shift is from the great distance, the answer to that question may be thousands of years away...until we can actually measure a red-shift from a different star, for example...and even then...maybe from a different galaxy...it may be very small.
2) robots trying to kill all humans problem of traveling great distances at finite speeds.
Yes, there is the fear of robots outsmarting humans somehow and converting the matter of humans for their own use, although it's very very unlikely in my opinion, I want to add an idea that is reassuring to me: and that is that, at some point, given the finite nature of the universe, that is, it takes a very long time to go from star to star, even for a photon, and since all matter is made of photons (at least in my minority view), most of the ships ever built probably only move at some finite velocity less than that of a photon. And so, even if a robot wanted to capture some human...if the humans have even a tiny head start, there will be virtually no way for a robot, or even a different human to ever catch them. Although they both will eventually have to stop to refuel, and the robots will clearly have better memory, and a faster moving bodies...the main problem is the robot won't have a faster moving ship (probably...although it's not out of the question), and they would be stuck in a classic unending stalemate chase. But beyond that, probably more likely, we humans will never encounter anything more than a handfull of rogue robots that need to be captured and recycled, the vast majority will be working as slaves to humans for centuries and centuries. Any robots that violate any law are going to be in a small minority. In any event, we certainly have nothing to fear from house cleaning, and car driving robots, beyond that, we can't stop the evolution of robots, and shouldn't try to. It's similar to the invention of the knife, or handgun, we need to focus on a democratic society were the violent are jailed, etc...this is why it worries me to see people get away with murder...because its the path to extinction.
I think humans will ultimately for thousands of years, and no doubt forever, view robots as tools. For example, if some robots have inhabited some star system, I doubt seriously humans will feel that it is unethical to completely destroy and convert the matter of every last robot...because it's not a living thing...it doesn't feel pain, etc...it's a tool that we use...robots aren't living in my view, they don't deserve any rights other than the rights any piece of a human's property has.
What are the particles in an electric (or magnetic, which I think is actually an electric field) field? The public does not even know this yet, it's astounding. Are they photons? If yes then they must be detectable, maybe not at any one frequency but with some kind of detection system. If they are electrons then they should be detectable too...they should be able to be removed from some magnet, for example. Are they atoms, atoms that perhaps extend out beyond the visible portion of some magnet? Or are there no particles at all there? An electro-magnet would imply that electrons are the particles in an electronic or magnetic field, so can they then by detected with an electron detector (like a geiger counter)?
In terms of what is a planet, for me it has to be spherical, or else it is a asteroid or ice chunk. Perhaps a certain minimum size is a possible dividing line. Spherical means it evolved over many millions of years (not that ice chunks might not be billions of years old, clearly they are, but they aren't big enough, or perhaps don't have iron centers, to be spherical). It seems relatively simple.
08/18/06
Glad to hear that somebody is captured that may be the person that killed Jon Benet Ramsey. After years of those in the PSIKI camera-thought network knowing and doing nothing, something may have finally given way. I am shocked that a murder may be solved in the USA, that really is unusual. Now, I hope we move on to identify Frank Sturgis as the actual killer of JFK, and capture Thane Cesar as the actual killer of RFK, the killer of Bonnie Bakely, Nicole Simpson, Jam Master Jay, I mean, that's just off the top of my head, the 9/11 3000 victims...it appears to be somebody named Andrew O, and maybe Thomas E, as I have learned from those who know everything in the PSYGi. I followed the Ramsey story on CourtTV and people on the expose hinted at the initials of the person who they see (in the camera-thought) net killed JBR. This person's initials are JMK. I don't remember what I had written down from the hints, I have to find my notes. Violence against children is terrible, and although rarely enforced unless sex-related, is technically illegal, in particular murder...imagine what a beautiful woman Jon Benet Ramsey would have grown up to be, it's terrible to think about all those whose lives were ended before dying of old age, and there are many victims of violent crime who I wish we would have been able to see reach old age. update 8/21: I looked at my courttv notes and they had "SD", one person saying "slam dunk", so could be "Sam D". So I kind of have doubts about John Karr being the person that killed Jon Benet. The DNA would settle it...there must be DNA recovered.
I think we should understand that there is a clear distinction that can be drawn between violent and nonviolent crime. Violent crime is, in my view, the worst evil and highest priority, murder, assaults, etc. (although that basically covers violent crime to humans...murder and assault). Then, as a lower priority comes nonviolent crime. It's very basic to me, you stop the violent crime, arrest the people who have done violent crime before stopping the nonviolent crime, and arresting the nonviolent people. But some nonviolent crimes can be very serious. I think it's between containing a lawful human (in particular in a very restrictive way) and so-called setting-up violence (doing some nonviolent activity that will probably result in violence in the near future). Beyond that is theft, touching people with objection (includes making people itch with lasers), trespassing, etc. Those crimes no doubt get popular support, and the people who do those crimes should be captured and punished (with ofcourse, lighter sentences than for violent crime), and clearly the public will be chasing down nonviolent people for centuries because the vast majority of crimes committed are probably nonviolent, violent crime is probably comparably rare. But I am constantly shocked, and I think thinking people can agree that there is a very violent criminal empire, a very large group of people that works together to do homicide and assault, and works to protect those who have done homicide. 9/11 is the perfect example, there are those who planned it, executed it, and the many many people who feverishly work to cover the truth about 9/11 up...they are people many of us excluded interact with everyday...many times we are talking too or sitting next to a person who is paid, or even voluntarily trying to convince us that 9/11 was not done by neocons, but was done by terrorists...etc. that they don't believe the conspiracy theories (and the same is true for those who knowingly protect Fiorini and Cesar by rejecting JFk conspiracy theories and theorists as wackos, etc.), these people are everywhere. And so an average thinking person can see the immense scale of this violent criminal network, it's enormous. Much of the size of this violent crime network is due to the PSYGI (8/25 actually PSIKI) (thought hearing) secret. It has created a wall that is nearly impenetrable, and will only crumble through massive free info like we see on the Internet.
An interesting find I found is that the idea of "Hell", may have been created (and I absolutely may be wrong, I have done almost no research on this) to be set against the Greek tradition of wisdom, science, logic, etc, because the actual name of Greece is Hellas (or Hellada), and ofcrouse, everybody recognizes the word "Hellenic". The Wikipedia entry for "Hell" relates that the word comes from a teutonic word meaning "to cover", but how can anybody dismiss the clear same sounding relation between "Hellenic" and "Hell", even if there was no intention to relate the two concepts, there is clearly a side effect of Hellas having a Hellish/evil connotation. And it's intersting that in Hellenic religion, which as many people know was polytheistic, with Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Dionysis, etc. there was an underworld and a heaven, but the underworld was (as far as I know) the place simply where all dead people go, both the good and evil, and heaven (again Im not an expert on this) is where only gods are. Christians at some point changed this and made the underworld (originally thought to be in the fiery center of the earth) into a place for only evil people, and the heavens (basically, thought to be in the clouds...the upper atmosphere of earth...it shows you how small the universe was for these creators of these religions, in addition to the feeling that above the clouds would forever be unreachable). But getting back to this Hellas/Hell point, I think that shows just how evil the rise of Christianity has been (although there is other overwhelming evidence, simply from the so-called "Dark Ages" where science suffered for more than 1000 years), because the Hellenic tradition is a wise tradition...much of science was born in Ionia, Greece, there were many people there who questioned religion, and uncovered new truths about the universe, etc. I think the early Christians must have recognized the threat of science, of free thought, and wisdom that is represented by the Hellenic tradition, and chose to relate that tradition to evil by naming Hades, "Hell"...I have to do more research and we have to look at the surviving literature to really understand the truth, but I think the relationship appears obvious, at the very least as an indirect unintentional bad side effect. But more likely, it was an intentional effort to supress the competition for followers from science (that ultimately will win over religion)
I think that phrase of "cut and run" when talking about exiting Iraq shows the support for violence, no doubt they would prefer to "stay and kill" (and no doubt be killed) for more time. And "stay and pay!", and fill their overstuffed wallets with more cashish that will be used to beam a bunch of crap in our ears, make us itch and beam on us more than they ever could before. Cover up twice as many murders, murder and assault twice as many innocent lawful people, and fill the prisons and hospitals with nonviolent people two to three times as much. The war in Iraq was based on a false claim of relation to 9/11 and WMD, both which are false, it's clear bush and the neocon PSYGI did 9/11, and there are no WMDs in Iraq, but even if there were, many nations have WMDs and that does not justify invading and taking them over. As a nation, the people in the USA had no right to invade and conquer Iraq, it was absolutely illegal, all the property destruction and first degree murder, and there is not only no arrest, but not even a public identification avilable of those who did all the destruction and murder (on either side). If the public could vote, I think they would have voted to not invade Iraq, first based on the fact that they don't want their children to be murdered and murdering for such a trivial cause, secondly the fact that's it's illegal, and third because of the trendous expense they have to pay.
Its frustrating, here these bastards took over the government undemocratically although we have to accept that is was very close, and in 2004 probably was close too and may have actually been a majority win. But then that they took the power and took over all the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan, charged up the price and gouge us at the pumps, will sitting back and collecting the extra money into their fat wallets. Then they use all our money and then some to give billions to the defense industry corporations who produce a $300 hammer and pocket all the rest, and they fill their pockets with all that money because they are all deeply invested and connected in the defense industry...they will probably lose a couple million if ever peaceful lawful people take over the government...because then all the defense industries will be out of a couple of wars and will have to downsize.
To me the issue of the public getting to vote directly on government issues is like the complaint of the early colonists in what would become the USA. Why should we have to live under laws that none of us get to vote on? The technology is more than adequate for our votes to be counted on any and all decisions, laws, court verdicts, budgets, hires/fires, etc. any and all government.
I have to tell you something about astronomy and physics ladies and gentleman, and that is that astronomy and physics need to grow up y'all, like biology has. I can't think of one theory in biology that is dogmatically continued, they boldly accepted evolution as fact, and the view in biology has adhered to fact ever since. But what about astronomy and physics? For example, they refuse to question that the universe might be bigger than we see, and I think this is an obvious simple conclusion. They refuse to recognize the idea that all matter might be made of photons. They refuse to entertain the idea that globular cluster might be made by life mmore advanced than we. That antimatter is electrical opposite matter, and absolutely without any serious question is matter. And the list goes on and on. If I may, yo they need to grow up and face up to the more accurate truth. Ok, that's all I wanted to say. Now onto a different but related point. I just saw a vid where a female human in astronomy made the statement that "because radio waves are so large radio telescopes need to be spread over great distances, where xray waves have a very small wavelength and don't need as much space...", or something like that, I am paraphrasing, and many times, people in the camnet will phrase their sentences so it could be vaguely interpretted as being true but not in the most general sense (we see this in the 9/11 testimony...one person says he saw 'an american airline...' fly into the pentagon...well technically a missile from the US airforce might be interpretted as being from "an american airline", etc. So this argument that radio has longer wavelength, and so therefore requires a larger telescope seems logical, I mean a hundred radio telescopes can't be wrong, interferometry is a multibillion dollar activity. But you know, in my opinion, I think this description or theory is inaccurate. The wavelength of light is measured, to my knowledge in the z dimension (from the source), and has nothing to do with the x or y dimension. In other words, the wavelength is not how large the so-called wave front is but how much distance there is between wave fronts. The reason people have to spread telescopes around great distances to measure radio "waves" is because, in my novice view, and correct me if I am wrong, is because they need to collect more light. It's a matter of intensity, as far as I know...but it prompts other questions, and I think that there may be a different interpretation of light (obviously the particle wave) that may change the design of telescopes, or certainly the theory behind telescopes. But maybe I'm wrong, ofcourse, as I said I am at the amateur level of astronomy in theory, I haven't formally studied astronomy or physics in depth. First I think we need to clarify the nature of light, in my view light is not a tranverse wave as believed by the majority of those with an opinion, and I think technically it's not a longitudinal wave because there is no oscillation back and forward, but it's more of a point or stright-line wave of particles. And I think maybe we should avoid the use of the word "wave" altogether. Light is more of a beam of particles separated by what we call a wavelength. Some people say dimensionless, but that is wrong...or single dimension...I think it's too confusing, perhaps I would settle for "straight-line wave of points" or something. But then it might be curved, so I would say stream of points. I don't know we need to work on this and develop an acceptable description. Basically light, in my opinion, are many many beams of strait-line moving particles, the frequency may be defined by the distance between single photons or by the distance between groups of photons. I kind of lean towards single photons, because the group phenomenon may be viewed as many beams of light next to each other, no doubt emited in a syncronized way from some atomic lattice. But back to this radio telescopes...it seems clear that the only difference between radio and xray is the distance between the photons...and so I think that this interferometer approach for any light is a good technique...even for xray, etc. simple put, the bigger the telescope, the more photons received, the clearer and stronger the image. 2) The size of a radio telescope I think in an interferometer should not matter as much, simply because once you get that part of the wave front's signal that is enough...you don't need a lot of detail...the big payoff is the combination of all the spread out telescopes. it seems the reason for interferomity being mainly used for radio is there is some kind of problem with background photons perhaps...there must be some kind of problem in being sure the 30 hertz photons you are receiving really is from directly in front of where you are pointing the telescope. There must be some reason that people don't simply detect the low frequency of photons in radio light from a small receiver because as I say clearly...the wavelength is in the z dimension...it is measured over time, not over distance. 3) maybe there is something there in the idea that the number of photons received for xray is so much more than radio that an xray image can more easily be recognized with a small detector than that of radio. One thing is clear Pupin was saying "microscopic" and it's clear that people secretly have made many advances in optical science without telling the public. They have cameras that we excluded have very little hope of finding or even seeing...I thnk it seems clear that these camera are very small, and their (or probably technically "our") photon transmitters and receivers are also probably very small. So I think there is some insight to all of this: 1) that this professional astronomy person is probably incorrect with the majority in thinking that radio waves are so large they need a big detector...and probably more likely knowing that you have detected a photon from a radio wave requires a very strong signal....or something similar, it seems to me to be a matter of intensity, not wavelength, so check it out.
Here is another idea I think some may have a laugh about. Ok, the size of a galaxy...yes I say...the size of a galaxy may have some importance to understanding it's distance. The actual and apparent size of a galaxy both are important in understanding it's distance. But why do we never hear about this? The reason is I think that red-shift has dominated any discussion of galaxy distance. Beyond that, technical important-sounding jargon designed to lose average people dominates the field. So yes, the size of a galaxy (in particular spiral galaxies as I will explain) is important, and it's simple, to understanding how far a galaxy is. It's simple that when two objects are the same size and one appears larger that the larger appearing object is closer. It is the basic idea of perspective, and it's simple, to project a 3 dimensional object into 2 dimensions all a person needs to do is the new x=x/z and the new y=y/z, simply divide the x and y by z and this is the basis for all 3d computer games, and modeling. If we were to simply take the x and y and ignore the z for out 2 dimensional picture, we would have an "orthogonal projection", we would not see this effect of perspective...how things appear smaller the farther away they are. So, if we now presume that most spiral galaxies are basically the same size, since this spiral form appears to be a phenomenon that only happens when a group of matter reaches a certain density, and it appears to happen every time, how large the galaxy appears can be used to determine it's distance. It seems so basic, people must be thinking...that was first done centuries ago...and maybe it was but nobody has explained it like this. It involves measuring the x and y of the two dimensional picture. A beautiful thing happens...a spiral galaxy must always show it's diameter...there is no way around it...because it has radial symmetry (is always in the shape of a flat circle), there is no orientation a spiral galaxy can have where we would not be able to easily determine it's apparent diameter. If we presume that the actual diameter of all spiral galaxies is basically the same (and maybe this is a bad presumption...maybe we would be presuming too much...but perhaps it might be useful anyway), then it is a clear method of measurement. And I want to do this sometime...we can go just from any photo...but we have to know the magnification...that is an interesting point...how much did they zoom in to get the image? All galaxies appear so small that they have to be magnified many times (like parameceum and amoebae), but like amoebae, we need to know the true apparent size, even though it may be in micrometers. One last point, we can use this method on other obejcts too...for example elliptical galaxies (although here I think this may be of much less value...but still we would not expect a tiny sphere to be close...I don't know...I think it might be for the most part useless when it comes to elliptical galaxies) or also quasars...just for fun to see, if we presume quasars are spiral galaxies then they must be very far away, but if we presume they are small objects then they probably are closer and the red-shift is due to stretching of light by gravity. This brings me to the idea that we should also measure the sizes of galaxies bent in gravitational "lenses" and this has raised an issue in my mind that, is the image of a galaxy "stretched" in a gravitational lens? It's clearly bent, but is the light spread out? It seems clear that the light may be spread out in the x-y plane of the viewer, but what about in the z dimension, where we would then observe the light shifted into the red? It seems clear to me that if light can be stretched out by gravity in the x-y plane (the spiral galaxy spreads out to be much bigger than it actually is in the circle of the gravitational lens), then it certainly could be stretched in the z dimension, and probably some of that light is stretched in the z dimension (one person's x-y plane is another persons x-z plane), but it's not clear that light from galaxies is spread out, but I think this argument is putting some nails in the "red-shift can only=velocity", "big bang", "expanding universe" mortuary freezer drawer.
More info on the Arp book, besides using the some-what offensive word "chink" as applies to a space in a galaxy...I doubt I would be that careless because I am very much against racism, and while I am for total free information, I want my intentions and beliefs to be clear to all. But it appears that Arp has a good argument for the one galaxy NGC 4319. The other claims of galaxy-quasar connections, I think are unclear. It's clear now, after more reading that Arp supports a theory of quasars being made from the jets of galaxies. Some spiral galaxies have jets of radio light that are thought to be beams of electrical particles, since they are moving, they give off photons with radio frequency (called syncrotron radiation, but simply it, as far as I understand, is the basis of all radio...any current gives off photons in radio...I probably could be more clear, and it deserves a closer look). Just the fact that there appear to be spiral galaxies with massive perpendicular jets in both direction coming from the center is something I had not heard about before and that is interesting...then as applies to globular clusters too like m87...what could be the possible use? I think for the globular galaxies it may be some kind of propulsion engine and no doubt that sounds very far out and probably wrong, but for an advanced civilization of billions of stars and planets...such a beam must have a purpose...maybe for stability...or maybe it's simply an unavoidable effect of rotation, which I think it's clear has to be happening in all globular galaxies...otherwise they would collapse chaotically...there are other possible movements...but all must be carefully coreographed and understood by those in the clusters of advanced life. One comment I have..well first...it really is a mystery..this NGC 4319...and I think we really need to examine it and try to understand what is the phenomenon. I want to add the possibility of the quasar being connected to the galaxy but being behind the galaxy and gravitationally stretched to appear next to it...so the connected line of material may be even larger (it's one of the few explanations that can accomodate a connection of matter). But beyond that, the one solid idea I can put forward is that we need to carefully measure the actual amount of shifting of every pixel of the galaxy and color code this shifting in a clear way...I don't think color is going to work unless colors are used for each fractional shift and the change is clearly visible to the human eye....so maybe a color map of amount of red shift for each pixel of the galaxy would make the case for a galaxy-quasar more solid, for all I know, without such a map, we are looking at two objects of similar red-shift. We need to make such color coded star maps for all objects...basically using 10 colors red through blue mapping the red shifts of all galaxies...why don't we see galaxy maps with this red and blue coloring which represents amount of red-shift?
08/21/06
I was just thinking about the label that Andre Maurois gives to the thought-hearing machine, "PSIKI". I'm not sure if it is pronounced SiKE or SIKE. Then Bush jr was just quoted saying "psyche", maybe that's how to pronounce it. But that is a scary honor, I guess...I must be a popular person for people to watch. Some guy yelled "turn it off!", and I thought "let everybody see"...it's nice that we have the choice to turn video on or off. But it's a dubious honor being refered to by Bush jr, because he is the President of the USA, the most powerful position in the US government, but then, he did 9/11, and that's f'in frighting...anybody could be murdered with that kind of history. I wonder if that name is still in use, because this book was written back in 1937. The thought hearing machines need to have some kind of quick name, "pupin camera-thought net" is too cumbersome. Still, it's like having a really advanced view...to see that very few of the people have recognized that thought can be heard and they have been deprived for their lives of this wonderful invention. Pupin describes his patent as "latent". It's a similar view when you recognize a word like "godder", a word that most people haven't recognized that the religion of a single "god" can be described in such a way, or that violence is the real problem. In this book I am reading about Porfurios (Porphery) who lived in the 3rd or 4th century and wrote a book "against the christians" that was made illegal and burned in the sixth century. Jesus is quoted in the bible as saying that he is basically here for the sinners...and they run through a list of sinners...the perverted, the theif, the coverter of someone's wife, an adulterer, etc...in all the list there is not one violent crime...no murderer, no assaulter...it shows me how backward the majority view is now. But one of the many points Porfurios makes (this book claims that some of the writtings of Porfurios have survived in a rebuttle text...which is how we have text from Kelsos [Celsus]) the point that, those who are lawful, then don't need Christianity, since they are not sinners, which I thought was funny. But there are other points, like hows come baptism (or accepting Jesus into their heart) can suddenly remove all the crimes a person did before? Porfurios suggests that this might inspire people to break the laws...knowing they can be forgiven by accepting Jizuz. One point that shocked me was about how Peter murdered the couple who didn't give the money from selling their land to the church. This St. Peter guy was no saint he var a murderer!
I'm thinking more about sending a few robots to the moon and mars, and it occurs to me that some of the basic things these walking robots are going to need is some kind of oven...to heat up the frozen rock. They can did, and I'm thinking to send teams of 10 to 20 initially. With some shovels they can dig, charging their batteries with solar panels, maybe they could initially construct some kind of rock shelters, simple to protect against the wind and cold and as an experiment. But it seems clear that liquid water is going to be a key atom in building on the moon and mars. And to get at that water I don't know what I can do, but I think clearly there needs to be some kind of heater or oven to melt the water out of the frozen rocks, but beyond that, there may be oxygen trapped in molecules that can be retrieved, and used for combustion. Other than that I would probably turn to some kind of atomic process, that would have to be free of uncontained radioactive waste, to get some Hydrogen and Oxygen out of the sands of the moon and mars. There have to be many different kinds of atoms on the moon and mars, no doubt even gold and precious metal deposits. Even simply mining with walking robots could be a good start.
I can't believe that I saw a news story about people in Germany wanting to charge Madonna with blasphomy, that's ridiculous. I thought the blasphomy laws were gone already. Beyond that, I see the Madonna show as a big add for Jeziz. When will people get enough of this Jesus story? It's like the Islam with their constant "Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!" but it's "jesus jesus jesus jesus" It made me think and realize that my videos and book are probably about the most blasphomous thing out there, but then there have to be people who advocate violence against religion, although I've never seen them, I ofcourse do not advocate violence against religion, I am completely against violence, as I have said many many times. 8/24/06 Maybe Dawkins is in the running for heretical award for his criticisms of fanatical religion, the elephant in the room, in his epic "Religion: Root of Evil?" which can be see on youtube in it's entirety. What a wonderful effort, and it represents only a tiny fraction of what there should be and what there no doubt will be as time continues.
Through all our disagreements, let us disagree on the drug war, on psychiatric hospitals and insanity, on prostitution, on religion, on the camera net, molestation, pornography, full democracy, on free info...but let us all agree on making sure the murderers get locked in prison. Whatever we do, let's agree to disagree on all the rest, but let's make sure we lock up murderers like Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, those who did the actual murdering in 9/11, into jail...we can disagree about the small stuff...the nonviolent issues, but let's all recognize that we basically agree that murderers, and I mean those who murder in first degree cold blood with their own hands, have to go to jail. And after that, the assaulters, I think we can all agree that the assaulters need to be jailed after that, and then, for not as much time as murderers. And I don't mean those who have a shove, or slap, (although maybe that could be a day or two in jail for a first offense), I mean serious assaults and in particular repeated serious assaults. The rest, we can debate and disagree on.
I saw the "Screw Loose Change" video, and it is a curiosity being one of the few videos to actually agree with the 9/11 official story. There are no really good issues raised and there are at least two major points I can think of: 1) the guy makes a solicitation of murder, or at a minimum a solicitation of assault. It's low-brow even if not illegal. And this is the same approach we see from many of these violent nazistic scumbags, just like that abrassive circus a-hole Penn Gillette who also made a solicitation of murder on a nonviolent lawful person. And then "Show-us-yer-eye-crime-Time" funds that nasty bastad. Penn is proof that there are some atheists who are corrupt, and advocates of first degree violence and murder. It should show people that there are violent lawless people of every gender, race and religion. When I hear threats of violence I always think...."low-brow"...only idiots make threats of violence, no intellectual ever resorts to threats of violence, because most are for law and order, getting off this planet, stopping violence, etc. 2) Again, just like violence, whenever I see appeals of "psychiatric theory" I know something stinks. That's why it's no surprise that the title is "Screw Loose", not that they are inaccurate on some details, but that they have some kind of psychiatric disease. Again, like threats of violence, it's low-brow, it's for the uneducated, unenlightened, and beyond that it's an appeal to a nazistic stigma where lawful people can be jailed, drugged, tortured, without a trial, without a jury, without a sentence, etc. The door is open on the psychiatric arrests with life sentences, it simply has not been used to it's fullest effect, so it's nazism or certainly goes against the basic idea of habeus corpus, right to trial, drugging laws, basic human rights. They have to resort to violence and psychitric stigma, obviously, because they can't argue with the physical evidence and words. 3) Then there are a few just bold-faced lies. In all the 9/11 conspiracy videos there are really no bold-faced lies, only honest mistakes, ... any mistakes, generally, the person making the video believes it to be true. Where in this "screw loose" commentary there are just bold-faced lies like (I am paraphrasing) "The hole from the plane in the pentagon was 70 feet wide"...ok that hole was never 70 feet wide, there is no way. And there was at least one other bold-faced lie, and then many objections to very trivial things. 4) There is a constant referal to how "loose change" is disrepectful to the 9/11 victims, and it's absurd, here the loose change people have to do the job of the police and district, state and federal attorneys, beyond that, they did all this work because they care so much, obviously. And here, those who promote the official story, are for letting the actual murderers go free, that's respect for the victims? The same is true for JFK and RFK, they would prefer the Frank Fiorini and Thane Cesar, the murderers go free, those who respect JFK and RFK are the one's exposing the truth about their murders and murderers. Then beyond that the videos are free on the web. To come out against the official 9/11 story is not a good career move, sadly! There is another 911 debunk video, and I found myself thinking...most of this video only tends to convince me that 911 was an inside job. The only thing that was revealing was the smoke coming from WTC7, which I had not seen before. There appears to be smoke coming out of every window. It's extremely hard to believe that WTC7 would collapse when it was not even hit by a plane, and then perfectly down onto it's footprint. There appears to be a large amount of smoke there, it's unusual because the front shows no damage at all, wouldn't smoke pour out of the front too? If smoke was not coming out of the front, how serious could the fires on the smoking side be? Then, ofcourse, steel does not even weaken in temperatures made by hydrocarbon fire. Here was one thing...95% of the Shanksville plane was recovered...eh? What are you talking about 95%...let's see it then...where is the reconstruction of the plane? where is even a tail section? There was not one seat cushion recovered, and I think the reason is, is because no plane crashed in Shanksville, or a plane was shot down over Shanksville, but I think the former example is more compelling...there was nothing but a pile of garbage in an exploded hole.
I was thinking, as usual, more about 9/11 and I have yet more to add. Ok there are little white explosions that can be seen in the collapse. People probably claim that they are the reflections from papers, but I don't think so. They look to me like little white explosions that are blowing apart the iron frame in the corners. And one thing I noticed, that I hadn't before is that, many of these tiny explosions are happening on beams that are still in the air, above the falling debris. It's like, they are exploding late, after the initial collapse, but then maybe they are where the actual collapse is. It's tough to know, because there is an initial wave of debris, but within that big cloud, up near the top and in the middle are still these little white explosions on what looks like free falling beams. As I said, as if some of these explosions were perhaps late, or simply that is where the building is falling. In the CNN video is where the best resolution is (the web videos are probably not good enough resolution). But it's stuff like this that makes me think...it's impossible to pull off a perfect demolition of such a huge building...they made many mistakes, and there are many videos, and it's simply impossible to hide all the little details involved. There still remains the question about what happened to those people. Loose Change suggested that they landed were held in a NASA building in Ohio. Jimmy Walters suggested that they were working for the government and may still be alive. Tarpley may have hinted "COT", that either they have cots, or were chot, or maybe soot. VonKleist suggested shot down into the Atlantic Ocean (for the "Pentagon" plane). Hufschmid suggested that they were put in a building and then a bomb was blown off to kill themI dont know, they clearly did kill 3000 people in the WTC, why would they think twice about people on the planes? If they are being held, it's an interesting story that continues, but if they were landed and murdered, what a gruesome thing to do. I think the key would be to find actual body parts of those people, and genetically identify that there are at least 4 or 5 people who remains are identified from each of the 4 planes.
You know, I was thinking that the neocons have at least one person from every different gender and race to show that they are not white supremist christian only, but they are missing: an arab female and male, a native american female, a black male (since Powell left). It's interesting too that they decided that Arab people would be the 9/11 patsies. And that was an actual good question raised in one of the 2 pro-mass-murder 9/11 videos. Why would they pick Saudi people when they want to blame it on Afghanistan? That is a good question. I think that maybe they just thought..."we only need to get arab people...it don't matter where from". Or maybe they could only scrounge up Saudi people. I have to think that the most perplexing aspects of 9/11, and perhaps the best part of the cover-up is:
1) what happened to the people in the planes
2) how did they do the phone calls? (all 3 that they released)
beyond that there has to be some kind of second place for most devious:
1) planting explosives in the WTC buildings...a massive undertaking
a) These people never brought down a building that big, that was clearly the biggest building they ever brought down, and done with only a few thousand? included knowing. Even O'Neil apparently didn't know.
2) controlling the press
a) stopping the showing of many many videos
b) every major news source basically echoing the official story
3) controlling the evidence and crime scenes
a) planting Pentagon plane evidence...how did they get plane parts so quickly?
b) grabbing the videos from the gas station
4) the quick explosives in the Pentagon to widen the hole, a masterpiece of disasterpiece
I think there will come a time, maybe not even in the next 50 years, but sometime, where the public will get to see all the mind images and videos, etc. In that first weeks, I don't doubt that it will be like the end of WW2 where there are many suicides. In particular after people are starting to be arrested and prosecuted for homicide. Mostly, they will be people with one or more homicides who won't want to live the rest of their lives in prison. It will be amazing for those first weeks, just the majority of the excluded public staring at the included, guilty as sin, so-to-speak, up to their necks in murder and lies. And then the slow process of rounding up the murderers and freeing the innocent will begin. But there will be probably some time of just staring on the part of both sides, until the majority does the right thing, and vote and move to capture, try and imprison the murderers (these are people like Frank Fiorini [already dead], Thane Cesar, the 9/11 murderers, killers of Bonnie Blake, Nicole Simpson, Jam Jay, the list is in the thousands...probably hundreds of thousands).
One major question is: can terrestrial spherical bodies form around planets? I think most people would argue that yes, they can, but if no, then that would mean that every spherical terrestrial bodies in this star system (there are only around 14) would have been created in orbit of the star, but later be captured by other planets.
It's funny in some way that we love the butt, but we don't love as much the waste associated with it. We would like to grab the butt, but not get any poop on our hands, etc. Perhaps I could summarize it by saying: "we love the ass, but we hate the shit that comes from it."
Check out this fly through of the nearby universe at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7504093836714128385&q=uctv+genre%3Aeducational+atoms
The rest of the talk, there isn't much there, the person says (back in 2002) that "the universe is infinite", but then goes on to support the big banger, expanding universe, etc. which is absurd in my opinion...to think that the farthest we can see is the end of the universe. And the conclusions of an infinite universe is interesting, this guy goes on about how when we look back towards the "beginning of the universe" the galaxies look shapeless, but the view of an infinite universe includes two main points:
1) any galaxies we see are probably just as old as any others no matter how far away. The age of the galaxies really cannot be determined from their distance alone. And as I have said, the oldest galaxies and stars are probably in globular clusters, probably where advanced civilizations have been gathering for billions of years.
2) galaxies are yes, formed all the time, and this is only logical. Where are all those photons from galaxies going? I mean stars are releasing photons in the trillion every nanosecond...where do they all go? Well, it's only natural that they collect to form massive gas clouds that eventually form clusters of galaxies. But how photons collect to form a proton is still a mystery and has not, to my knowledge been experimentally achieved.
08-23-06
I am weighing in my opinions on the so-called "dark matter" in the news. In my opinion, the only "dark matter" in the universe is from matter that does not emit light in the visible frequency. All matter is light-matter since all matter is made of photons, particles of light, and all matter, except photons themselves, emits photons. Anything else, in my view, is very doubtful, and I am skeptical of the recent news about "proof" of dark matter, and the current view that dark matter is something other than I have described. An easy way of looking at my view of "dark matter" is that basically all the planets and asteroids are dark matter. They account for perhaps 1/1000 of the amount of matter in the sun, but that is still something. In addition, I doubt completely anything like "dark energy", and this is what I am talking about when I say that physics and astronomy need to grow up and wake up, there is nothing wrong with creative new ideas, but these ideas are far from the basic picture as I see it.
Let the record reflect that the AP used the word "psycho" in a title of a "news" story ("psycho racoons kill ...". Then this is the company that a few days earlier reported as frontpage news "Virgin Mary found in cookie..." or something similar. I can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes. First a person like me, excluded from hearing thought cannot even get into the "game". Only those big money people who hear thought get to participate in "buying the news". If I want me "news" item (about how religion is bad, about how violence is the big problem, about Thane Cesar, about hearing thought, about freeing the nonviolent, etc. they would never accept my money...because I am not a person that plays along with the secret system). There must be regular prices for buying news stories at the AP and Reuters. I think a basic story with nothing controversial costs $10,000 to $100,000 each. For example, these "dark matter" stories are no doubt bought by people that want to convince the public that dark matter is a real phenomena (like some new music group), and to continue research money...so they have to spend money on the AP and other news companies to put these ads out...but the nasty thing is that they are put out as actual news from a neutral source, when in reality they are 100% paid for ads put in the light of unbiased unpaid-for news.
If you are an excluded, you really owe it to yourself to see the 3 hour-long talks given on the topic of 9/11 as an inside job by James Fetzer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3039081508414200211&q=fetzer, Webster Tarpley (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1685276108250302324&q=tarpley) and Steven Jones (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2205940254635302539&q=steven+jones) (in addition to Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen's talks). Next they're going to tell us that we need to wear tin-foil on our heads to stop the lasers from attacking us...wait a second...they did tell us that next!!! But in all ernesty, the tin foil doesn't seem to work, nor do mirrors...somehow they have every angle covered, or the beam somehow autoadjusts to the necessary depth. Fetzer, I think gives the most detailed and thorough account of the 9/11 evidence that has been told in a while, perhaps ever. I identify with the outrage that Fetzer and any thinking human would have at these massive atrocities. In addition, Fetzer is a member of academia, and so he has a scholarly perspective on 9/11, the JFK murder, etc. Fetzer is the only person I am aware of to describe how the Pentagon hole must have been enlarged with explosives. Tarpley gives a good presentation too, describing many of the "drills" that appear to be popular now in the US and Britain that shadow/mimic actual destructive violent events in a way that is inconceivably improbable to occur naturally. Tarpley actually mentions the RFK murder, which has been mysteriously and conspicuously missing from mainstream debate, in particular for such an obvious example of a murderer going free and the establishment protecting Thane Cesar...as I've said before the Noguchi autopsy is all anybody needs to explain what actually happened, beyond that the testimony of the witnesses is enough. One flaw, in my view at least, of Tarpley's talk is that, while making a good point about the liberal establishment embracing the bogus official 9/11 story, he kind of enters into some dubious claims, such as Gore wanting to murder millions of people, and that Bush was not aware of the 9/11 plan. I think there is actual evidence in the form of Bush's clapping when the second plane collision is beamed onto his head, you see, that the massive beaming and thought-hearing pupin "psiki" technology, which has evolved so much since 1910, has resulted in this very hard to describe reality...of how...basically within the camera net, it's very difficult to keep a secret, so I conclude that, not only that Bush and Cheney had to know (although I can see some truth in Tarpley's claim that some kind of private military company was probably in charge of 9/11...it appears clear that they hired and worked together with Controlled Demolition and Securacom), but most of the upper military, congress, most wealthy people, the owners and top supervisors of the major media, etc...all had to know. Tarpley claims that Hillary Clinton claimed to be able to wage the war on terror better than Bush jr, which I seriously doubt, I think Clinton is more like a 60s liberal, but is a victim of popular sentiment. I think although maybe it was popular at the time, voting for an invasion of Iraq was a terrible decision she made, and I think it will plague her career, at least I hope so, we can't vote for people who sign on for a most obvious mass murder and then a first strike war, falsly justified beyond that. I think the mainstream democratic party has to form "the other side" instead of be defacto republicans...I mean Bill Clinton should have taking the opposite tact of Reagan, removed the mandatory drug minimums, focused on the war on violence, worked to expose Sturgis and Cesar, to promote sexuality (Hillary should have taken a more progressive view of Bill's infidelity... it's not a big deal...it's only sexuality...it's nonviolence...violence is obviously a much bigger issue, and the jailing of innocent people around the earth...instead of the "sin" religious stone-age arguement that only fuels religious antisexual ferver, perhaps she could have quipped about maybe getting a clit-job herself later to even the score, and then saying "I'm joking!", to put it in the trivial light consensual sex, again being a nonviolent natural phenomenon, should be in. But looking back, doesn't all that oral sex talk seem so innocent and trivial compared to the transition to the 9/11 mass murder of 3000 innocent people all done to justify the muder of 10,000 more? Now there is true crime. The people in the USA brought Bush jr and Cheney, this back-water group of fanatical murderous backwards church morals to center stage and the highest position in the land, to inflict those Pat Robertson 16th century violent and absolutely shocking views onto the planet, that grew out of the Jesus-cult. They opened up a wave of murder, destruction, and violence not seen for years.). So, I think Tarpley makes some wonderful comments, including an interesting focus on Samuel Huntington, which I can't help but think that Tarpley wants to acknowledge the phenomenon around me and my efforts for truth, full democracy, free info and science, but since I am not a major public figure he refers to Sam Huntington who is (and Sam Huntington's views are nothing I agree with, although I have not thoroughly investigated them...one thing I can agree with Samuel Huntington on is his criticism of religion, which Tarpley fails to mention). In addition, Tarpley represents the "psychology" believing wing of the triad of 9/11 conspiracy lecturers, which to me is a total pseudoscience (to say somebody is a schitzophrenic is 100% meaningless to me...inaccurate or delusional I can understand), but perhaps it has been calculated as a good idea to try and appeal to believers in psychology which number in the millions, and so Tarpley serves that interest. Tarpley and Fetzer both appear to be working the impeach Bush jr for treason based on Cheney's failure to shoot down the Shanksville plane, which I think is a relatively weak charge, but then when you look at Watergate, it seems a weak charge to me too, next to accessory to murder before the fact of a US president. And that is what I think is the biggest crime committed by Bush jr and Cheney, that of "accessory to murder before the fact"x3000, and then perhaps "solicitation of murder"...but that is probably more minor being perhaps covered under the natural popular opinion of free speech. So, Tarpley represents one of these included people who clearly is corruptable in terms of misleading the excluded and so it casts doubt on his other hints and claims...but we have to recognize the dangerous position these people put themselves in to speak out about the truth about 9/11, and simply take whatever Tarpley says with an open and skeptical mind, much of what he says clearly is truthful, and it's a shame that he appears to participate in money-for-misinformation. I think Tarpley may have taken some cash to speak out against Hillary, whom the republicans fear the popularity and funding of, but ofcourse, Hillary, as I said definitely should be criticized for supporting the Bush jr invasion of Iraq, and I will do that for free. But Tarpley's chastizing of Clinton and Gore may cost the democrats a few thousand votes, and that might be worth a few thousand dollars to the republicans. This is why I kind of think that Fetzer and Jones are more straight-talkers and are not as easily bribed to spread misinformation. Tarpley certainly provides some good insider info, I just think it's clear that he is willing to take cash to mislead the public, the majority of who are excluded from hearing thought and the mainstream video-beam society Tarpley is a part of. It must be highly frustrating, I know it is for me on the excluded side, but even for those who are included...its funny, here on the excluded we are trying to put together the video of what really happened on 9/11 (the jfk murder, etc.), included the thought-hearing technology, and in the included, they have the actual movie, wonderfully edited, they all have seen it over and over again, a million times...all the main details, all the pertinent details...but they can't show it to the excluded...they can see it and know it in great detail...but it just sits in that "included drawer", the public is absolutely unaware of these major truth-telling mind-machine-including videos. So they have to do pantomime for the excluded...he's a man....he's a large man....his name rhymes with stank...we think they should "cease", etc....all these hints to the excluded who are mind boggled trying to figure out what initials and descriptions are relevent and which are not, and then which are designed just to mislead them. So this process of trying to put together and recreate the movie the included all see is really a funny thing...how close do the excluded have it to the real movie? it must be funny to see the imaginative tries of the excluded trying to fill in the details. Steven Jones gives a good talk, and these talks really can be studied in detail...they really are filled with good info about the truth about 9/11. One thing that is really an interesting mystery is: "who is still excluded, besides me?", I know there have to be lots of people. There are many people, who simply work at their job, and live with their family, they don't have a lot of outside friends. They basically live for their jobs and families, and those people are probably most likely excluded. First, we are reaching the age now where people's grandparents may have been included (although probably not many). The more a person gets around, in particular, the more a person has friends of the Christian church, the higher the chance of inclusion. I know, there are atheists that are included, but my experience is that it's only the most brutally backward and violent that are included, plus the wealthy. What is happening is terrible, some companies hire only included people, they don't want excluded. The excluded have less chance of reproducing, while the included have a cornucopia of choices, protections and priveledges. And really, the only thing that the excluded have done is to usually keep to themselves...or not have many external friends. But I don't doubt for a second that there are excluded that do have many friends. What a shock and disappointment they are in for when they see how their so-called friends watched them behind their backs, mislead and abused them for years. I hope there is some kind of turning of the tables in a way that is only fair, but I think many of these mistaken beliefs are part of the fabric of society, for example, the hatred of those in science, and those who express their sexuality, etc. as opposed to the violent, who seem to have a majority and basically run the show. That's why I am saying, for example, that these speakers could actually be excluded (or any professor, or popular figure, I think they are probably all included, but this is the uncertainly we in the excluded always have...there is always the remote possibility that the person is not included and it can't be ruled out even when there is sufficient hinting, although lots of hinting and carefully chosen words usually implies inclusion, but not with certainty), for example if he simply never was told, his parents were never included, he doesn't go out much and only lived for his job and family. In that perspective I could feel more sympathy for a person because, I'm in the same boat...it must be confusing for a person with a sharp mind to try and understand how everybody around them seems to occassionaly know what they are thinking, or doing in their house. Potentially, some smart people have even seen my videos and web page, and there is little doubt in my mind that they have to dismiss what I am saying about hearing thought as being absolutely impossible, but I think the idea must stay with them, and eventually becomes something they remember and may even refer back to in order to gather more data, upon which most, at that point, probably see that there is much more data, and that I have done some amount of research into this possibility of people figuring out how to hear thoughts (in addition to many of the other ideas I put forward being believable...although it has to be a tough pill to swallow, understanding the big bang is probably false, all matter is made of particles of light, ...it's a lot of secrecy and stupidity to step over). At first, I attached a mystical religious god explanation to the phenomenon, but as time continued, I began to see that it was actually advanced technology and not any kind of god. It's like 9/11 itself in that, it's such a big lie, and there are so many details to the lie, and the lie of hearing thought, that it's a large amount of info to put together for many excluded...9/11 seems much more logical when you accept that the republicans murdered JFK and RFK and cover it up to this day...and that helps to understand how the secret of hearing thought could be kept for 95 years and counting, and my estimation is that around 2050 to 2100 the secret of hearing thought will go public.
I want history to reflect that The Jesus cult brought Bush jr into power, there is no question about it. Bush jr openly claimed the "philosopher" he supports (and no doubt the only person he has ever heard of) most is "Christ" which translates to Jesus. Bush jr and the majority of the Republcan party are similar to Pat Buschanan, lawless violence loving open advocates of murder and major Jesus cult members. Beyond that, Jesus was no "philosopher", he was a preacher of Judaism who never wrote one book as far as the record reflects, others in that time wrote and contributed to science. "God" for Jesus was "Eloi", the Judaen god. Jesus was Jewish, many people in the Jesus cult do not even know that...it's shocking. Many of the people now in the Jesus cult blame the entire race of Jewish people for the murder of Jesus, but ironically, Jesus was Jewish as were his many early followers...so why blame the race of Jewish people for only the murderers and not speak highly of the Jewish race of people, for those that were their founder and early followers? And I just want to make the point that, there is no doubt that the immoral majority, the religious right, the fundamental Christian majority brought and entirely supported and still support Bush jr, even re-electing Bush jr in 2004. There is no doubt that the majority of Bush jr's supporters claim to be members of the Jesus cult. That being said, it is absolute fact that as soon as Bush jr got into the highest position of power in the USA, that he promptly committed a murder, not of 1 person, but of 3000 people! There is no question that Bush jr is absolutely a mass murderer. The evidence is overwhelming and plentiful. 9/11 was definitely an inside job, and Bush jr made it happen, openly applauding the murders. Bush jr didn't push the demolition button, but he was definitely an accessory to mass murder before the fact, and a critical part in the chain of first degree murder. Bush jr made the mass murder happen, and it is doubtful it could have happened without Bush jr being President. So, let history show clearly, that once again, the majority of Christians delivered up a mass murderer and a mass murder of innocent people (exactly in alignment with the history of the Jesus cult as murdering millions of innocent people in the Inquisition, host-nailing, "heretics", "Arians", "Marcenites", "Pagans", and other murders). Ofcourse, not all members of the Jesus cult are lawless supporters of murderers, there are lawful Christians, ofcourse. But can anybody deny that the majority held by the members of the Jesus cult is the main cause of the 9/11 mass murder, being that Bush jr, Cheney, Controlled Demolition, etc and their supporters completely carried out 9/11? The facts are clear, Christianity brought us Bush jr and their mass murder shortly thereafter. Let's never deny the elephant in the room, the Christians got their way by electing their Christian leader George Bush jr, and George Bush jr within the first year in power committed a mass murder killing thousands of innocent people and then lied about the entire thing, the facts are totally clear. Let us forever remember how the Jesus cult brought to power Bush jr, who then promptly did a mass murder of innocent people, and then lied about it.
I think a good book for members of the Jesus cult to deprogram themselves from the massive brain-washing of lies about Jesus and the universe, like so many mislead people in the "Moonies" or even godders, people in the cult of Muhommed or other religions, is this book I've been enjoying "Porphyry's Against the Christians : the literary remains"(1994) (there are a few others still legal and sold on what remains of the open market, "Holy Horrors", "The Dark Side of Christianity"). In this book it tells the stories that many people don't hear about Christianity, that Peter, one of the early founders of the Jesus cult, was openly described as having murdered a couple...and the reason for this murder? Because they would not donate the money from the sale of their land to the cult. It's right there in the bible, as far as I understand. Beyond that, the story, again, rarely heard, that Jesus' mother's real name was Miriam. If Jesus existed, he definitely had 2 parents and was made of DNA. In addition the rarely heard story that Jesus was born without a marriage, and his father was a Roman soldier named "Panthera". And to counter that story, the early Christians probably invented the "immaculate birth" story, to explain, against all basic logic how Jesus did not have a father. And this brings me to a point that is frighteningly true, if a massive group of people is willing to believe that a person had no father, what else are the willing to believe? And the answer is absolutely anything and everything. And that is why murders go unpunished, lies go unexposed, etc. This book describes how Judeism probably originated from the Canaanite religion of Baal, which I had not heard before. It's amazing that the people in the cult of Jesus burned all books criticising Christianity. The writings of Kelsos (Celsus), Porfurios (Porphery), Julian, all are lost, except for fragments quoted by Jesus cult authors. Then look at John the Baptist and Barkokba. Here John the Baptists, the teacher of Jesus was beheaded and he was then promptly viewed as the Messiah. Jesus more or less replaced John the Baptist as a newer Messiah. Then along came Barkokba also murdered (people were murdered in bulk in these times and up until modern law and what there exists of democracy, even now the laws are only for show as people murder with impunity in the name of war). But the point I want to make about Barkokba, and as an aside, this book reveals that Circumcision was more the exception than the rule, as far as I understand, all of Rome was uncircumsized. It was only a small sect of people in Judaism that were circumsized, now ofcourse most people are circumsized and uncircumsized (unmutilated) regular penises are the exception. So about Barkokba I just want to say that look how stupid Barkokba was...to violently take on the Roman army. And he was ofcourse easily defeated caught and murdered (or ended his own life I don't know, but clearly lost). And then for what...what did Barkokba fight for? For some bogus religion crap...the right to be circumsized, and other trivial issues. Nothing is more stupid than religious fanaticism, people throw away their lives for the most trivial causes. It's amazing to me that the Christians are so intolerant, and such a group of, like some kind of Moonie cult, that any person who rejects all the lies about Jesus is excommunicated from the herd, it's brutal. That's one reason why I want to make some kind of other option for people to be friends, but then, I think the Internet is doing a relatively good job at beginning that process of connecting like-minded people. As a non-religious person, it's so frustrating...how do I know if this person of business I am going to is a believer in evolution? I don't want to support the believers in creation and the Jesus cult, I would rather spend my meager money on somebody that believes evolution, ... but who are they? where are they? There is no info to be found by the excluded. But it's coming slowly, in things like "rateyourteacher.com". The poor-people's camera net is slowly forming, a century behind the insider net (which ofcouse we fund and grow with our tax money).
I am just reading now, in my construction of ULSF about Bede (BED), and how he was the first to date events based on the birth of Jesus instead of the creation of the world. What a more logical and religion-neutral system basing the dating of events from the beginning of the earth is, as opposed to the birth of some cult leader. It was definitely a building of the major step backwards that the rise of Christianity was and is. Even to this time, we are shockingly still using this backwards Jesus based BC/AD system...it's unbelievable. It shows how backwards people in this time are.
08-11-2006
8/4/06
Maybe "Latin" should be changed to "Roman" since that is more accurate. Instead of the Latin language, the Roman language, etc. After more investigating maybe no, I can see in wikipedia that: It was originally spoken only in the region immediately surrounding Rome, called Latium, so perhaps "Latin" is more accurate after all. It's amazing to me that the letter "G" is as recent as 200BCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.
8/7/6
I think it's clear that the 10 or whatever board of election people in the recent Mexico election have somehow been corrupted because they refuse to do a full recount. How long could a full recount take, 5 days? Just like the original first count. But I think we are going to see Calderon win, if they hand pick the parts to re-count. I will be very surprised if Obrador wins after this recount. 8/8 that Calderon refered to Obrador's claim as "schizophrenic", I think shows how brutal Calderon is, but also that he supports a pseudotheory like schizophrenia is worrisome. Calderon appeals, as do many uneducated people, to the stigma of psychiatric disorder. I have talked at length about this and shuold organize my opinions (although many are organized in "Photon Yes, Religion No" in the chapters on psychology and psychiatric hospitals, although it needs updating, because I have learned more since then. But anybody that supports a system of locking lawful people in hospitals, drugging them even when they say no, and keeping them there without trial or charge indefinitely is a dangerous person. I can see "voluntary" psychiatric treatment, but am definitely against involuntary "treatment". And what kind of victory is that; to have some person drugged and tortured until they tell you what you want to hear? I think you can be sure that Calderon certainly supports locking people (in particular political opponents) in hospitals with false charges of "schizophrenia", "psychosis", "neurosis", etc. It's a frightening reality of people simply pulled over in traffic and taken to hospitals indefinitely (and I describe this phenomenon more fully in "We're All Sane", but it needs even more organization). So it's low-brow and worrisome to see Calderon use "schitzophrenia"...it doesn't sound like the gentle words of a victorius president. I was thinking that...could Calderon rally his supporters to the level that Obrador has? I doubt it, because I doubt Calderon has popular support...it's evidence, that Obrador has such a dedicated large scale support, that Obrador did in fact win the popular vote. Maybe I am wrong, I can only guess, but I think Calderon just represents raw imperial power...those people who can say "screw your democracy, we have money", and they can buy their way into power. It's basically what Bush jr, Chaney and the republicans did in 2000 in the USA.
8/8/06: In addition I want to voice my support for Ned Lamont in Connecticut, instead of Joe Lieberman, mainly because of Lieberman's open support for the bogus Iraq invasion, that is a disgrace. It's brutal and lawless to support such a thing. 8/11 update: it's good to see that Lieberman lost, and it says to me, even if only in a blue state like Connecticut, that the majority of Democrat people are strongly opposed to starting war.
quote: Nobody should have to live under a law that they do not get to vote on. The technology is more than adequate to record our votes on the laws we have to live under. It's as simple as buying something with a credit card, you know, we make the vote, then see the vote on our online statement. The sad fact is that, not only do those in power in the governments of earth, not want the public's votes recognized, but they do not want the public to even hear of this idea. And they are working hard to make sure the public does not hear this idea.
I had about 1000 shares in Gardenburger, and then I find that they simply "cancelled the stock" and gave me 0.01 for my shares, when they were in bankrupcy. I think we need to reform the bankrupcy laws and stock laws. Basically, the value of a share is the percentage of the company divided by the number of shares in circulation. But I don't doubt like all the other laws enacted by "representatives", and not the public with a constant vote, there is some law that allows people to simply not pay stockholders the true (or any) value of the stock. Without having the actual numbers, basically you have to add the value of all the assets of the company, then divide that by the number of shares, and that is what the shareholders should be entitled to when a company goes from a corporation to a sole-proprietership (or partnership), in other words from public to private. So, maybe the value of my shares do not add up to .01, but I doubt it, Gardenburger has a large number of assets, and in fact they were bailed out in the conversion. They never stopped the business, obviously. So, those assets are appraised at for example 1 billion, and there are 100 million shares or something, that is an actual value of $10/share, because the shareholders actually own a percentage of the company, in my view, they shares can't simply be dismissed. In the view I support, shares for a non-bankrupt company are traded at what is thought to be the current value of some company, and many times, as is easy to understand, that value is more than the actual value of a company, and other times, the current market price for a share is less than the actual value of a company (and that means basically all the company's assets). So when a company goes bankrupt (and is not operating under this condition...they ought to call it..."pending bankrupcy", or something if they are still allowed to operate), all their assets are sold and the shareholders (and creditors, first obviously) are given their percentage. But when there is a bail-out, and a company emerges from bankrupcy, if as a corporation, then everything is fine, but if as a private company, then the shareholders should receive the current estimate of all the remaining assets at time of purchase, since that is what they are forced to sell. Even if the public's view is that the shares are not worth anything, the actual value still exists, and that is the value of all the assets [buildings they own, vehicles, machinery, etc] of the company. If the expenses outweigh the assets then, in fact the shareholders, in theory would owe their percentage of money, and possibly I can see that as a scary reality. It's an interesting idea that owning shares of a company could result in a negative value, a value that a person would owe. I think the public could make laws to protect shareholders from negative value, but then the creditors would be cheated. I have stumbled on a really interesting thing here. It's clear that shareholders are not actual owners in the sense that they are protected from having to pay off the financial obligations of the company. But I think as time continues and there is more free info and more democracy, that may be the system that is eventually put in place. But the reward is that everybody will be aware of what is going on, and be able to stop abuses (like embezzlement, etc) quickly. But in the case of Gardenburger, as I said, they were bailed out, bought by somebody else. So that money, in theory shareholders may have owed was paid off. A group of people basically bought the Gardenburger company. And it's interesting, that even though a company may be in debt, their value may be more than simply their debt-assets, because it includes the perception of their future potential...obviously the owners have to agree to a sale (unless I suppose they incur a bad debt, then the creditor could, in theory, at some time, force the sale of some assets, I guess, similar to "repossession"). So, to conclude, I think the public, if ever given the chance would clean up the jungle of laws, and simply things just like this, that is, basically, forcing companies that go private to pay the shareholders the actual value of the assets/shares. I can see that if the debt is higher than assets, that a share would be worthless (or even have a negative value, that money would be owed if you can imagine how aweful that would be for a shareholder, but somehow fair nonetheless...then depending on the amount of debt, I would only owe a tiny percentage...but you know it would be going to some hugely overvalued major shareholder "salary" to maintain their life of luxury, and how wrong is that? But I guess if you don't like it, vote against it, or don't buy a share of it.) Still, the reality is that I seriously doubt Gardenburger's debt outweighed the value of their assets, and it hasn't come to that point, since they were bought and are still in business as a private company. If the debt was more than the assets, then the creditor basically came into posssession of all the assets, I could see that the stock would be worthless (or negative value as I said), that seems simple enough, but somehow something seems wrong, because they never stopped production...how could the debt outweigh the assets, I suppose they could just continue production while incurring bad debt. As a final point, it's still unusual that a company that has a regular business would lose money, it's clearly poor decision making. I wonder what happened, there must have been some kind of abuses, and I think they were probably, as usual, in overpaid salaries. Something happened, and shareowners must have seen it in the camera-thought net, at some time, and then the price dropped. I wonder what they saw that convinced them that the actual value of the company was going into the negative, maybe just performance figures (still, I think many supporters of vegetarian food would stand by), I think it had to be more than some random phenomenon. I think they must have seen some kind of financial abuse, but I can only guess, as usual me and the million of excluded are the last to know, if even then.
One very important thing with a paper money society is: How much paper money is in circulation. And this is never mentioned. It is very important to know how much paper money is in existence, and is legal tender (can be used). It is basically how much money is "in play". It's complex, to me at least, but I think it's clear that the amount of money that exists (even as electronic money), determines the price of any object on earth.
I think the excluded need to start thinking towards a movement like the abolishonists, and suffragettes, you know a large group of people openly speaking out against the injustice of being excluded from hearing thought. We deserve the full rights afforded to those who do get to hear thought, and there are plenty of included (for slavory: white people and for women sufferage: males) that agree with us. Maybe we need to start a protest parade or something. We can call ourselves anti-exclusionists, or thoughtregettes, or inclusionists, or "people for hearing thought", we should come up with a catchy title.
So I skimmed more of Halton Arps book on Galaxies and Controversy. It was interesting to read his account of how he was sent a letter saying that he was basically banned from using the Palomar or Wilson (I can't remember which one) telescope, and how it was on the front page of the latimes. To me it shows the intolerance in astronomy and most other sciences. I can see limiting time for unusual projects, but not eliminating it, and how nasty to send a letter banning Arp from using the telescope, for even future research. Arp relates it to the punishment of Galileo for supporting the heretical sun centered theory. As an aside, I think whenever there is some new telescope, in the interest of public science, education and understanding, the owners ought to get images from every major object (<1000) and make the images available online to the public for free, and then go on to allowing specific research. So I skimmed the conclusions, and without a thorough reading, it is interesting. To many things there is the established popular view, and then opposition views, and many times the opposition gravitates on the same ideas. First let me say that it's interesting that Arp questions the traditional theory of red shift being only from velocity, but yet goes on to support a big bang, expanding universe, white and black holes, and gravitons. Arp does enumerate a number of interesting theories I had not thought about until reading this book:
1) Galaxy creation
a) This really is an interesting thing. Why do we never hear anything about galaxy creation? Arp relates that the current view is that there are no more galaxies being created. Is that preposterous or what? I support the view that there are galaxies constantly being formed, and I had not given this much thought until now, but it's interesting to note that clearly, galaxies form from gas clouds, at least that seems logical to me. And so, perhaps galaxies like the Magellanic Clouds are actually very young galaxies that have yet to condense into denser galaxies, probably spiral galaxies. And they key that is never explained is that, all the photons that exit stars in galaxies, exit and move out into space...many are absorbed by other stars, planets, of other galaxies, but it seems logical to me that many must form gas clouds of Hydrogen and Helium, and as these clouds grow, they continue to capture more and more stray photons exiting stars (which spent billions of years before then collecting all those photons), so the cloud grows, and then condenses under it's own massiveness. No doubt a galaxy absorbs just as many photons as any piece of empty space, but galaxies also are mainly emiters of photons, not absorbers, where coulds of gas are mainly absorbers of photons. Most people have simply not stated these things, and made this clear to all, that yes, it seems clear that there are galaxies forming right now, and it is very unlikely in my view that galaxies are not being created constantly in the infinitely old and infinitely sized universe. So this was very nice, and an inspiring thought...already it was worth skimming this book and what Arp's views are...and it shows to me that, maybe there is a person who is viewed as out there, or a black sheep, or something, with highly unlikely theories (although I think in Arp's case questioning the red shift is a good idea, where for example questioning of a theory like evolution, for example is more like a waste of time, and is very doubtful...but yet many religious persist!), that we may learn something from their views, simply because they do not echo the common mainstream beliefs, and may cite the biggest flaws in those popular theories. It's enlightening, many times, for a liberal, for example, to hear the conservative viewpoint, the viewpoint the liberal disagrees with, because many times the conservatives will be focusing on what are seen by many to be the weakest points of, in this case, the liberal arguments/theories, and the liberal (or whomever) should seek to strengthen those weak places, and seek to remove any doubts about the truth in those theories through more diverse explanations and examples.
So to add to this, could any old nebula be a potential future galaxy? It's an interesting idea. Could the Orion nebula be a mini galaxy in the making? I think they are basically the same thing, but probably for a galaxy, a much bigger nebula is needed...more like the Magellanic Cloud galaxies. In looking more at the Magellanic clouds there clearly could be places that are stirring up to be a center of some spiral galaxy once the matter condenses more. I think we should look and try to identify these potentially early galaxies, that may be in more of a nebulous form. While in the forms of a dark gas, they probably absorb photons from all the other galaxies, as gas in our galaxy still does. But eventually as advanced life in a younger (again this is a theory) spiral galaxy uses up all the dust and transitions into a galaxy of globular clusters, most of the photons are exiting, and matter is probably obtained directly from other galaxies.
b) a second view by Arp is that galaxies may be created from a gas cloud or torn off an existing galaxy, and I don't doubt that this is possible too.
2) Other explanations for red shift
a) Arp puts forward the idea (that I had not thought about before this) that galaxies of different density might delay photons by different times, because of the differences in gravitational attraction (although I am explaining that this gravitational effect appears to only change direction of photons in the theory I support), but dismisses this based on the idea that different parts of the galaxy would exhibit different shifts. I can see the logic there, and basically reject this explanation as unlikely. He refers to this as the dreaded "tired light", which I think ought to be changed to the more accurate "delayed photons".
b) Arp appears to lean towards a theory that the red shift has to do with the intrinsic composition of the atoms in each galaxy, that each galaxy was made at a different time after the big bang and so their atoms are different. Arp explains that the electrons may be different mass, or different orbit. I basically reject this claim, but it is one I had not heard of before and is creative.
c) Nor does Arp touch upon this idea of the red shift being due to a similar effect as that of sound. More and more photons change directions and drop out of the original beam as distance continues, and these photons falling out of the beam result in red shift light. Come to think of it now, we should do an experiment to see if there is a lower shift to sound:
EX: does the frequency of sound decrease at all over large distances?
I doubt this theory too, but we should check for sound anyway.
d) Arp does not touch upon (in this book or in my unreplied to email, he has in his book that many people write to him with alternative explanations to the red shift [I have never received one email about alternative explanations of the red-shift of the most distant galaxies, but then I am younger and not a decorated career astronomer] the theory that the bending of light beams results in some red shifting of light. This is the theory I lean towards now, but I am waiting for the experimental data if any does show up, or if I can get the data myself [imagine a person trying to get telescope and spectroscope time to check if there is variation in Doppler shift in stars behind planets and stars that show parallax... a second ban-list letter would be sent!]. And I was thinking that it explains a large red shift for anything near a different galaxy. It does work for a cluster of galaxies, like Stephan's Quintet that appear to be a cluster, but have quasars with much more red shifted light, it simply indicates that the quasar is probably just a regular galaxy with similar relative brightness [as another point, Arp apparently used apparent brightness on his chart instead of relative brightness...where the number of photons received is relative to the size of the object...ofcourse a smaller object is going to have less magnitude, but it still might be at the same distance. So that was confusin, to me, but I am a novice in astronomy] but this galaxy is behind the less red shifted galaxy and so we see light that has been bent around the less red shifted galaxy, and in the process of bending, I am claiming that the bent light may be red-shifted. This theory also puts forward the result that the many of the most red shifted (but not all) galaxies probably are the most distant, because they probably are the most bent beams of light, being behind all the other galaxies. It's a nice theory, that leaves us with an unclear picture of what the true distance of many galaxies are, but leads probably to accepting brightness as more of a basic distance measuring technique. But again, I think we need to look at the experimental data and see if that confirms that bent light beams are red-shifted.
1) we have to accept that light is bent by gravity, this is experimentally proven (although people are free to reject it, I accept it). And therefore, we have to accept that the light we see from other galaxies may be bent and not represent the true location of those galaxies, and that is something that is rarely if ever mentioned, and I think it may be the principle behind the red-shifted light of the most distant galaxies.
e) Arp talks about the interesting H2 galaxies that appear only in the spectrum of Hydrogen (hopefully I am explaining this correctly). They have red-shifts that are in between the local group and the virgo cluster distances. If they are galaxies, and we accept that red-shift equates to distance, they are all alone, separated from the main clusters, and Arp views that as unlikely or unusual, and I can accept that argument.
f) Arp claims that many galaxies and Quasars appear to be part of the same galactic clusters, even showing some amount of interaction. That they appear together apparently as all one galactic cluster I definitely can accept and there is at least one photo that shows how the rest of the space is empty except for these two galactic clusters, one having the quasar. It seems to me more likely that these galaxies which all appear to be about the same size and brightness (but have vastly different red shifts) might be actually close together, and the red shift the result of some other phenomenon. I am not throwing away red-shift relating to velocity, but I definitely put it towards to the back of likely explanations.
g) Arp did put forward an idea that quasars are somehow emitted from the jets of galaxies, or from the middle...I couldn't understand it. I will have to read more at some point.
h) Just as a final point, one of the first arguments out of anybody's mouth that is trying to often alternative explanations to red-shift other than velocity should be:
1) Isn't it possible that there are galaxies beyond those we see, from which, not one particle of light reaches us? Isn't there infact more or less a sphere around us, from which, at some distance no galaxy can be seen because the light is going in a different direction? Are you saying that the visible universe is all there is in the universe?! ... that the farthest galaxies we can see is the end of the universe? If we made a bigger telescope could we then see galaxies farther away? Then wouldn't that be evidence that the universe is infinitely large or certainly larger than what we can see? (It's interesting to think that at some point the beams of light from some most distant galaxy that we can see must be very few that are going in our direction. The vast majority of other beams are going in some other direction. We, in fact, may be seeing an atomic sized (of just larger...as large as our detectors obviously) beam of light. The infinite universe doesn't necessarily disprove that red-shift of distant galaxies is related to velocity, the big bang or expanding universe, but I think it shows that the creators of those theories were wrong on at least one point, and would now have to adapt their theories to adjust to an infinite universe. For myself, as I have said, I reject the big-bang, expanding universe, red-shift-is-velocity-only theories).
2) Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman red-shifted visible light in a lab using nothing more than liquids and/or crystals. This is after the Braggs "red" shifted xrays with crystals. (So if there are crystals inbetween the stars, we should definitely expect red shift to result from that)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhara_Venkata_Raman
He describes in his Nobel prize lecture how they were shifting light in all kinds of mediums.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1930/raman-lecture.pdf
3) We know light of distant galaxies has to be bent (but is it red shifted in the process?)
3) Arp puts forward an interesting theory, apparently backed by observational data, that, ironically, quasars, in his view, are the first early formation of galaxies that then later evolve into spiral galaxies, if I am describing this correctly. To understand, you basically have to throw away the idea that red-shift relates to distance, and as far as I understand Arp claimed (in 1987 when this book was printed) that red-shift was more related to age of the galaxy, the quasars being the youngest galaxies. The observational evidence is interesting, I am not clear on what the galaxies with nebulosity refer to, I have to read the early parts of the book probably. There was one other part that confused me and that is that M31 is blue-shifted, M31 is coming towards us, but he has it as red-shifted, and I think a parenthesis refers to this, when Arp writes that he is throwing away local or relative shift or something...my first thoughts are...a stronger case would not remove anything like that, and then this is a key idea to me, that M31 is blue shifted, and so are other galaxies. This is a major argument against an expanding universe. That we see a blue shifted M31, clearly the farthest galaxies also see blue-shifted galaxies...so why would our experiences separated by 20 billion light years be any different? And then, if we see blue-shifted galaxies, and they see blue-shifted galaxies, the red-shift for the most distant galaxies can only be an affect on the light from great distances (since the same galaxy we see as red shifted, is to them potentially blue-shifted), or it may be the case that that light is simply bent, and that the red-shift is an effect of bending of light beams which is mostly happening to the most distant galaxies, simply by the nature of them being behind those galaxies closest to us.
It's a dissapointment that I really still don't know how to explain quasars for my ULSF project, but I am basically going with the "bent light is shifted light" theory for now. One thing that puzzles me is: are their clearly spiral quasars? How much deteail can be seen in quasars? Can individual stars be seen? I have never seen an image of a quasar (in any light range of frequencies) that looks like anything other than a star, or a big sphere of undistinguished light. Because they appear point-like in the visible, this is how they got their name of quasi-steller. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/QUASAR/DI174.htm has a photo of what looks like a galaxy with two major jets emiting from it.
This explains the history of quasars:
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html#q1
search on image.google.com for "quasar" and look at the images if you want.
It really is an interesting phenomenon, the confusion about...how far away is the galaxy? It's kind of funny, because there may be no other way than brightness to measure the distance. And it's clear that there is a relationship between amount of light detected and distance; the farther away a standard sized galaxy, the less light we receive from it. So what is more logical, a universe of same sized/brightness galaxies where red-shift does not represent distance (but maybe bent and stretched light), or a universe of two kinds of galaxies, both with the same apparent brightness, but one group which is actually much farther away? It's interesting, the uncertainty of: "is it an average bright object close to us, or a super-bright object very far away?" It seems like too much of a coincidence to have very red-shifted objects also nearby, and then to have all the quasars appear to look like point objects. Could they be stars behind some galaxy that happen to be gravitationally stretched to appear bigger? Quasars may be ver distant galaxies whose light has been very bent, and has nothing to do with an expanding universe...the red shift simply being an artifact of light that travels great distances. Since we cannot make out one star in any quasar to my knowledge that makes me think that these are: actually stars with red-shift from bent light or very distant galaxies with red shift from an effect of distance.
Top 13 biggest mistaken beliefs of the 21st and 20th centuries (probably):
==========================================================================
1) people cannot hear thoughts, (people don't watch us in our homes, people cannot send images or sounds directly to brains)
2) 9/11 official theory (terrorists with boxcutters hijacked and flew planes into the world trade center towers, which then collapsed into molten metal and dust)
3) the big bang, the expanding universe (no galaxies beyond those we see)
4) Oswald killed JFK
5) Sirhan killed RFK
6) gods (god, allah, buddha, yahweh, vishnu, jesus, muhommed, creationism, devils)
7) time and/or space "dilation", black holes, white holes, worm holes (time travel is possible)
8) quarks, gravitons, force is coveyed by particles, strong and weak forces, magnetism is different from electricism
9) horoscope (psychics, fortunes)
10) Globular clusters are not made by advanced life
11) violence is not the number one problem, drug use and sex are
12) photon is massless
13) antimatter is something other than electrical opposite matter
14) ghosts (fairies)
15) horoscopes are accurate
Top 3 biggest correct beliefs in the 20th and 21st centuries (probably):
=========================================================================
1) evolution
2) humans walked on the moon
3) no aliens have visited the earth
08/08/06
Thinking more about the propect of living forever. I can see, and I think the vast majority of educated people accept that the possibility of humans (obviously genetically changed) living forever is a very real possibility. Simply understanding the power and possibilities of bodies designed by DNA, it's obvious that almost anything is possible, and certainly a body that does not age. To my knowledge, bacteria already do this. Bacteria don't age, to my understanding. Most if not all Eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) do age, but maybe I'm wrong, there is not much data available on this, what seems to me a very important topic. I know that humans, in their lust for life will spend alot of money trying to figure out how to stop aging. And I think they will succeed...it's inevitable. But it seems that it is definitely not going to be easy. I think at least 500 years to make an "everliving" single-celled eukaryote, and then at least 1000 years to make an ever-living human. Perhaps that is a fast estimate. One definite point in our future, should we survive, is to have an advanced 3D modeling system that can model a cell, the DNA, ribosomes, proteins, etc. all in 3D. Then we can try the infinite combinations of proteins, and make designer proteins to accomplish specific goals in human-made cells.
So, there are some rough ideas about aging. One is that aging is simply genetic mutation, but I definitley disagree with this, maybe mutation is part of aging, but look how humans and other species are clearly following a timeline, a body reaches physical maturity...clearly there is a sequence of events, as if a program is being followed. And this appears to have nothing to do with mutation. I suggested that perhaps DNA itself is like a computer program...like a magnetic coded tape that is read in serial, and at the end of the tape, is the end of life for that body, so in that case simply connecting all the chromosomes together might allow a body to keep living forever. Maybe there is something to this, but clearly, this is too simplistic to be true, but it does involve a few experiments that should be done:
EX: separate the circle of DNA is bacteria, do the bacteria then die? Do they stop copying? Clearly you have to remove at least one nucleotide, or better yet, add 2 nucleotides or somehow...keep the circle of DNA from rejoining.
EX: connect the chromosomes of a simple single-celled eukaryote. This is complex because there are histones packed in the DNA. This is part of an entire series of experiments: one which is, can a eukaryote exist with the same exact DNA, but not histones? Simply making a strand of the eukaryote genome, and replacing the existing genome in a different eukaryote. Does it copy? Does it form a nucleus in the new copy, etc. It's a major line of research there.
Clearly, the simple path, in my view, is that a body would grow from the zygote (and it still is wild to me, how we are really like protists, that our ancestors probably were similar to ova and sperm...it's amazing...and all these extra cells evolved only later), so the body would grow from the zygote to some age and then hold at a steady state...it seems unlikely that we will create a 20 year old from scratch, at least at first and for a long long time. Just growing to 20 and stopping sounds like a very realistic goal. But I think that we are still missing some very basic piece in our understanding of DNA and the cell (at least publically...who knows what has been found that has not been shown to the public?). The closest I can get to describing what it is, is with the example of DNA as a being like a magnetic cassette tape, or computer program, that a protein reads, and upon reaching the end, that is the end of cells copying, etc. But I doubt that is an accurate description, I thin kit's more complex, but clearly some kind of program is being follow. Perhaps that program uses proteins to trigger a chain or other proteins, this sounds more likely. Like, all of DNA is basically a puzzle of sequential proteins. One protein triggers a second protein which trigger a third set of proteins, etc. So this may be how stages of life are accomplished. Whatever it is, I think it's a basic idea that we all can understand, but yet it has not been found or explained yet as far as I know. Once we know how DNA works to build the cell, then we will see exactly what is involved in designing our own cells, and working toward the goal of ending aging after some stage of development. This idea of ending the stage at some point is interesting...some people will be designed to reach age 20, others age 30, etc...maybe even some will be designed to get older. But I think...it's amazing that we will eventually be an intersteller society of young people only...aged like 25 to 0. who would want to be an old body? All you would see are newborns and a billion billion...endless billions of 14-30 year olds.
People living forever will vastly change the way humans live in this star system, mainly because there will be many more humans that can be possible. If they poorly manage it, many people will starve and there will be a brutal fight for a very few resources, no doubt dead bodies would be recycled. I can see that even farther down the road, humans might design a human that can, probably reproduce, but maybe no, but the key feature will be that they only need sunlight and water...they will not even need food. I don't doubt it's possible, because the long evolution of plants has already provided us with necessary chemistry.
8/9
I think a serious mistake of relativity was to separate photons on one side and all other matter on a different side. Clearly, at least to me, photons are the basis of all matter, there is a continuity from photons to protons to planets, etc. That is much more simple and logical.
Again, as I have stated many times, I think the more boring explanation of antimatter and simply electrical opposite matter is probably the correct explanation. I doubt the "magnetic moment", but perhaps somebody will show us all what they think magnetic moment is, or how antimatter differs from electrical opposite matter. The simple boring conclusion is not that there are extra dimensions, and super symmetries, but simply that antimatter is just plain old boring electrical opposite matter. And it's interesting that I can see next, trying to make other various particles "orbit" (or attach to) each other. For example any particle with charge tau, muons can they orbit a proton? Can an antiproton orbit a proton? (I think if it can't it's evidence that the two particles are not orbiting each other but connecting, even for electrons and protons perhaps).
EXPERIMENT: Can tau or muon particles (negatively charged) orbit protons?
Have any other sized charged particles ever been found?
What an intersting thing to learn, that there is are 3 periodicities of the tides. One cycle relates to the moon's orbit, one to the yearly rotation of the earth around the sun, and the third depends on the barycenter (the center of gravity between the earth and moon). Then in addition, I learned just last night that there are 4 tides in (roughly...its based on the moons motion) 24 hours. Such a basic fact, 2 high tides and 2 low tides. The high tides are related to the earth spinning by the moon...I'm not clear why there are 2 in 24 hours.
It seems like the video.google.com and youtube.com free video upload idea is really a success and will replace television very soon, but why are not more people hopping on this bandwagon? It doesn't cost much to make a small video upload webpage. In addition to that, since porn is excluded, when will there be a free porn video upload webpage? Sexuality is part of life, and it's amazing how everything including violence is allowed but not sexy things. It's as if, again, people continue to deny that they are sexual, it's a total lie!
8/10/06
Reasons I stopped smoking and drinking alcohol (for the most part, ocassionally I taste some alcohol or have alcohol in food):
1) don't like having head fuzzy feeling, can't get anything done
2) life too short and precious to waste, every second is needed in pursuit of physical and intellectual pleasure (including trying to make social change). I want to mainly learn and tell the story of evolution, of science, of history, of the future, and aside from that try for love and physical affection with a variety of people, I can see a time when people have sex (or even just affection) with a different person each day (but ofcourse maintain deep friendships, that only grow stronger, for life) once info is totally free, and I knew that with smoking the chances of kissing would be less, and I want to kiss wiminz, many wiminz. Every second of a life that seems way too short to me, is dedicated to ULSF, making walking robots, rocket planes to orbit, the moon, other planets and stars, finding regular sex (I could see regular daily sex with a different person getting fulfilled in the far future, and that is a simple thing...for most males, ejeculation can only happen once in 24 hours...so after that 15 minutes a day, there are 23.45 more hours! and that is where intellectual pleasure [and ofcourse food, sleeping, etc] come in, but also physical affection may be something people want to do in that precious time too. It just seems clear to me that sexuality and physical pleasure only makes, for a male at least, a minority of life, maybe 15 minutes a day if that, the vast majority of the rest of the time is dedicated to intellectual pleasure). And in this intellectual pleasure, for me, is where ULSF, robots, rocket planes, stopping violence, making full democracy, against the jailing of those who use drugs and engage in prostitution, for full free info, to expose Fiorini, Cesar, and the 911 reichstag fire, trying to get ballot measures to change society, etc are. If I ever get to make childrens I probably would want to spend some time educating them with all I have learned, although it's kind of boring repeating the same crap I already learned, and no doubt they would have access to much of the video and writings from my life, still a parent says might have more effect.
3) don't like taste (I can't believe I got addicted to tobacco cigarettes, because the first time I inhaled I felt nausious and thought "how could anybody get addicted to this?! it's so aweful!", but sure enough, through boredom, and repetition, I became addicted to it.
4) Unhealthy (in particular for tobacco), I want to live as long as I can, to see as much of the events of the universe as possible. I simply feel much better, knowing smoke is not polluting my lung.
5) When I quit smoking, (and realized that alcohol and bars, etc was stupid and a waste of time) way too late at age 30, I realized, you know, there is a lot of beauty in the universe and even on earth, I want to see and learn about
6) Smoking makes everything smell, constantly looking for a smoke break, embarrassing to have to wonder off from gathering to fulfill smoking addiction.
8/30/06 I want to add that a good method is to pick a special memorable day to quit the addiction, a day that is easily remembered, in particular a birthday, I chose my 30th birthday and that makes it easy for me to remember for example I have not smoked for 7 years (I am age 37).
I just want to give my experience and feelings to those out there who wonder about this stuff. Basically I don't use recreational drugs, or alcohol because I want to spend every second of my life working on these goals and projects I have, and I can see that they will never be done...you know...I will only see the most basic walking robots, not the robots that have learned more than walking humans. I doubt I will get to vacation on the moon. So that's my advice to people is to focus your precious time and money on the things you really feel strongly and deeply interested in, and certainly that is what I am doing with my life.
Webster Tarpley has a nice statement in the latest speech from LA where he says "Cease sees!"....yeah somehow people who repeat themselves, and are not completely celibate and asexual or use drugs are the big problem, but murderers and assaulters are welcomed in with open arms.
It's interesting that there are no atheists on national television. But even beyond that, there is no group clearly and actively exposing the secret history of chistian persecution of the non-christians, or any christicism of christianity, or other religions at all, and I hope to change that. All we see when we search for videos on evolution are free videos by this massive Jesus cult, they are spending millions of dollars and minutes to produce these free videos and books, and the people in science and atheism produce next to nothing.
The current 9/11 theory/view I support:
1) remote control planes
a) seeing an Eric Huffschmidt video got me thinking more about this. Perhaps people might have been picking up pieces of evidence in the WTC buildings and walking out with it...perhaps evidence of explosives, or military plane parts, the more time they delayed, the more chance physical evidence of a military plane could escape. But also, using a military plane explains why the 2 WTC buildings had to be demolished...because people (survivors, rescue workers) might walk out with evidence from the plane...proving it was a military plane, in particular if given time to examine the crash site in the WTC.
8/11/06 Here is another beaut I saw last night. Those exposing the truth about 911 deserve some kind of awards. Here Huffschmidt describes some of the people that are actively trying to mislead people from the truth about 9/11. Huffschmidt clearly has some smart material, so it's a disappointment to me to read his anti-race-integration views on his webpage erichufschmid.net. I'm not sure if Hufschmid is included in the camera-thought net, but I kind of thought that he is, but he very well may not be. I can see now this deal about Hufsmidt complains that the 911-truth people exclude him, and I think it's probably no wonder with his very unenlightened intolerant views on race. Hufschmid for example, appears to endorse laws prohibiting people of different race mixing, because that might lead to a single human race, which is false in my view, but more importantly it's brutal. People, and the other species too, should be able to interbreed freely, and that is very obvious to me. On the other point of one race, that is very very unlikely, even among people thought to be one race there is a large amount of diversity. There is a better argument against racial stagnation and inbreeding. So where did these views come from? As I say, the 911 video is a quality piece of material, he shows even atomic models of combustion for example, but then that Hufsmidt believes that Jewish people, or so-called "Zionists" are responsible, really casts doubt on the rest of his assertions because it is racially motivated (that is to view one race of people as being responsible...it's out of the question...what about Bush jr, Cheney, EbberHart, the other generals in the US military, the arab people that funded parts of 911...I mean to look at it racially, I think there is a good case for a rainbow coalition of evil that organized 9/11, but probably more likely, it's a violent criminal group whose main offense is murder and other violence, from there, it probably are uneducated people who tend toward religion, and violent extremist views on religion at that, as Bush does. Beyond that, another point completely missed by most everbody, is that these are "White Evangelicals"...they are godders and mostly christians. Bush is in the Jesus cult, Cheney is, they all are in the Jesus cult, and Frontline clearly described the phenomenon of Bush's popularity..."They realized they could win a US election on white evangelicals alone!" which is what they did. The vast majority of non-whites (and most wimin) voted against Bush and the radical christian right. What is worse, so many people are godders and evangelicals themselves, they refuse to recognize this point of the christian religion, and belief in god as being a strong belief of those millions who say nothing about this 9/11 mass murder. It's like they are part of the religion, so they can't see how the religion is used to make people conform and excuse evil.Certainly many evangelicals are against mass murder, but if we were to point to one religion as being responsible it would be godders and the jesus cult. So was Hufschmidt just raised from parents who strongly believed in racial segregation, or is he funded from white supremicists? It casts doubt on the racial views of Jimmy Walters, who up to now I viewed, like Hufschmidt as being typical liberals interested in the truth about 9/11, against violence, racial integration, human rights, etc. [update 8/21/06 I saw a video with Walters where he says he thinks the halocaust has been happening for 20 centuries in Rome and Germany, which is an educated opinion, it's rare for somebody to know about the long history of persecution of Jewish people, a good and simple resource, for those interested is James Haught's "Holy Horror", and Walters goes on to say that he thinks Huffschmid has done good work, but that now he got backed into a corner because he questions details about the haulocaust (tph: it goes farther than that...Huffschmidt is for laws to stop race mixing, for example), and is viewed as anti-jewish. So it's nice to see that Walters does not have the same racist views as far as it appears in this video.]. Not everybody is going to agree down the line, clearly my views on religion are far from mainstream, and probably offensive to many. But you know, most liberals, are educated, and form the intellectual group, and eventually you find out ladies and gentlemen, that the idea of gods is an oldy and a baddy, without trying to anger people, the idea of gods controlling the universe is backwards and a time waster, inparticular that a god or gods would expect us to line up in a building ever 7 rotations, and the ideas of Jesus or Muhommed or even the Hellenic philosophers for that matter performing miracles, or predicting the future from the way dead people lay is foolishness, and completely without any basis in fact.
Here is Hufschmid's video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2026981032588534883&q=911+duration%3Along
More funny comparisons: In the Huffschmidt video he puts up the headlines "skyscraper demolished by fire!", how ridiculous is that? Jim Fetzer compares the weakening of steel from jet fuel fire theory to having our barbeque grills collapse into a pile of molten steel....it's obviously ridiculously impossible. Parts of the Huffschmid video are funny and entertaining, and it's clear that he has some smart ideas about 9/11 (ofcourse minus the zionist, surprisingly intolerent racist views, alledged belief in a fake moon landing, etc...things like zionists and fake moon landings are, I think very doubtful [but then who believes that thought can be heard? I can only imagine how many inaccurate theories arise from the camera-thought net abuses and 100 year secrecy. You know a few people in 1937 imagined the thought hearing machines [they called "psigi" for sale on the open market...imagine that!], those theories are most likely false, where the 9/11 reichstag fire is very probable...there is overwhelming evidence, and like the JFK and RFK murder, many people feel no embarrassment or risk to speak out about them...and my view is that .... it's shocking that the people of the USA and earth have given us this path of truth that passes through terribly dangerous waters...but so be it...if we believe in truth we have to go through this nasty 9/11, Fiorini, Cesar water...I wish we were sailing through calm waters, and everybody carefully protected truth, but we don't.).
I see that Eric Hufschmid has a webpage here at http://www.erichufschmid.net/index.html and this page expresses some relatively unbelievable theories...I will have to look more at these videos, but first the idea that there is a Zionist network is, in my view, very weak and unclear...I can see a "Godder" network although not unified for murder or anything else other than belief in a god or gods, but "Zionist" to me sounds anti-jewish, then I also reject as offensive the term "crypto-jew", as if all Jewish people are the same, or all people of any race are the same, I definitely reject that idea, although many people definitely think along racial lines and as a racial block, sadly and wrongly in my view. Then, although I may be wrong, I really see Linux as being the future. Free information is totally the way of the future. Here a nice point Hufschmidt makes in his video is how with the Oklahoma bombing(s), the local tv news people (surprisingly) reported the truth about more than one bomb being found, but the national news people are professional liars...I found that to be a very insightful comment...although we can count on mostly lies, in particular about the pupin thought net when it comes to those in television and any people included in this net (although no doubt there are brave exceptions). This linux view appears inaccurate to me (although perhaps some other open-source system may eventually be the most popular). Many people cannot figure out how people would support it without being paid, but I see a future of total free info (like those in the pupin camera-thought net must already be getting a preview of), and it is interesting to figure out how that is going to evolve and what that involves. I think those people may be paid to program, but simply that their code will be free [one person needs some software, and they have to pay, but then they release it to the public, perhaps to try and make it standard, or simply in the interest of helping others], just like people may be paid to make books and videos, but those products released for free. In addition, there is money from publicity...if you have a popular song, video, etc. people will want to interview you, and there you can charge money, they may want to see your perform, and there again you can get money. But back to the grouping people by race, gender, language, religion, etc. There is good and bad in all people, and I like to make clear, if ever I use race (which is rarely) that there are people of every race on the same side as me, against murder, against racism, for integration. There are some christian people for the 9/11 cover-up and some christian people that are working to expose the truth about 9/11, and the same is true for jewish people, black people, native american people, chinese people, etc. Also the "illuminati" is a theory I find hard to accept, but if you said "the camera-thought net" I would whole-brainedly agree...yes...the secret camera-pupin thought net...yes I understand that clearly and indubitably old hume. I think we need to be careful, many images and sounds are being beamed on our heads. There is an interesting phenomenon where the other side focuses on some perceived problem and then milk it for all it's worth...they work the wedge issues, they try to tear apart the fabric of the other side, many times they make up some rumor, and then spend years and millions trying to make it stick (like it was for French and Kerry...Kerry and flip-flop...there are a million of these things)...they try to find some thing that bothers a person and then push that button like it was a pidgeon for food. I think people should not throw out Hufschmid's good work on the 9/11 reichstag fire sequel. I think with the camera-thought net secret, the massive religious idiocy, the antisexuality, racism, genderism, etc. all the terrible things of this time, we have to allow creative people a certain amount of mistaken beliefs. I think any person advocating first degree violence is a person that should not be supported, for example, Penn and Teller, and all those who openly cover-up the truth about the 9/11 mass murder. It's sad for me to see people that recognize 9/11 as a murder done by neocons, take on much less believable theories. One other example, that is much more benign is when Alex Jones and others constantly point the finger at "globalists", where I see nothing wrong with planetary democracy, ... I don't see globalization as a big issue, but many many people do. To me the most evil are the "violentists" or simple "the violent", but in addition, I see the advocates of violence as dangerous (in particular first strike violence), and I view antisexuality as dangerous, and anti-science as dangerous, anti-free info as dangerous...etc. I have a very simple platform...basically and mainly antiviolence, free the nonviolent, free info, full democracy, no drug war, no prostitution war, stop property theft, I'm willing to talk about voting some century when we get that right, on jailing nonviolent people for small amounts of time for repeated property theft, repeated nonviolent activity that only effects other people. I have to say that, many many people have unlikely beliefs and ideas, it's very common, but most keep them a secret. I think we need to tolerate nonviolent speech and info in every form, so long as there is no threat of violence, (and eventually even then), I think we need to tolerate it as free speech and nonviolent expression. It's interesting for me to see where people are correct (ofcourse in my view which is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) and where they are wrong...and how those views change over the years...everybody tends to learn, see where people have trouble understanding and either change their minds or work different angles or try to smooth out their view to appeal to more people or to make their true intentions and beliefs more clear to more people, many times our thoughts and visions are not easily translatable into words, and many times I find I don't know for sure everything there is to know about some topic, and only deliver my surface opinions, etc. I'm constantly learning and I look back at videos I made only 2 years ago, and understand that I have learned much since then, about how the universe is probably infinite in size, more about the camera-thought net, more about full democracy, of history, more about the probable future through science, etc.
One point about this that is clear to me, but very few others, but that I want to make more clear, is that when somebody has an inaccurate theory, people first quickly go to psychology to stigmatize them by calling them "lunatics", "insane", "nutter", "nut-job", etc. instead of simply "inaccurate", "probably wrong on that one point", etc. To me the embrace of the psuedoscience of psychology, and the fear of persecution (which is definitely still a massive human rights issue...I mean people are being jailed, strapped to tables, drugged against clear objection, basic human rights and lawful nonviolent people are being violated in psychiatric hospitals, because of the psychiatric stigma. And it cam be summarized simply with the phrase "consentual treatment only", or "no unconsentual treatment", many times "only volutary treatment", I will even say that maybe people can be routinely picked up and locked in a hospital, but let's not drug them or tie to a bed without clear consent)...so To me the embrace of the pseudoscience of psychology (as we just saw with the current president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, and he is only 1 of many millions who quickly go to that psychology stigma, because it is so powerful in people's minds..."psycho" has totally replaced "heretic" and "witch" (and no doubt "violent") as implanting the most fear in people), that embrace of psychology and defending your position by saying the other person is a nutter is low-level in my view, it doesn't convince me, I tend to see through it, although I can see "delusion" as being a real thing, but then I equate it with being inaccurate on most if not all beliefs, or I suppose even on one issue a person could be wrong and therefore have a delusion (although I would probably just say they are wrong). And this is one issue where I have grown and learned, and I am single-handedly, for the most part, hauling the rest of the species up to this view, and consensually at that. The appeal to psychological labels, that are funny and shocking to most, appear weak to me (don't they have actual arguments against? besides simply their say-so that the person is wrong?), but I am definitely the exception.
Another point people miss is the secret-camera-thought net, I'm the only person (except one other vid that says something about thoughts being heard I just heard recently but don't have the link...it's on video.google.com) to be exposing this, because those included can't...there is just little advantage for them (except those who are only partially included and want to see more, want the system for all or for free, etc). Mostly, I imagine those exposing the cam-thought net are excluded who have figured it out, and that number must be unbelievably small, not one excluded person has contacted me with even a tiny curiosity.
A third point missed by most people...they talk about jobs, minimum wage, etc. and I see what is obvious to me and that is that walking robots are definitely coming, within 50 years, and they are going to radically change the idea of humans working. It's going to be maybe a little volatile, but in any event, the economy will change dramatically to more of a welfare economy where robots do the majority of jobs, certainly all physical labor. And most other people completely miss this.
Here are more quotes from Hufsmidt that are very inaccurate and stupid:
"Furthermore, the Nazi attitude of superiority is very similar to the attitude of superiority among Jews.", definitely wrong, and racist (the idea that all one race of people act and think the same). And:
"Both Jews and white supremacists believe they are the superior race", there may be Jewish people that feel that Jewish people are the most superior, but I think the majority of people reject the claim that any one race is superior, but finding what the popular opinion is would provide some evidence, but opinions would have to be gathered from video, including thoughts and audio, because people may not admit over the phone their true beliefs. So here I have given 3 statements, that show that Hufschmidt has some very inaccurate views on race, and it's disappointing and a mystery as to why, hopefully he will change his views, but I doubt it at his age, but maybe, racist views like that are probably not easy to change.
One point about 9/11 that is gross to me is that, most of those killed were "excluded". Perhaps included feel like, 9/11 is ok because only excluded were murdered. But we are all humans, and deserve the right to life. And that right to life, seems to me, to be a very important law to uphold. But perhaps some of those people murdered in 9/11 were only partially included, could only hear some thoughts, or got some video on their brain (to some extent even many excluded are in this group...whether they know it or not, many images and sounds are beamed onto their head...but no where near as many as the fully included who routinely look inside people's houses and heads).
With this latest terrorist stopping in Britain, I think this is either (again this is excluded guessing) 1) either simply a media story designed to raise republican popularity, which if true, let us all be grateful that they only went with a terrorist breakup and not a real destructive event. or 2) they actually stopped some rogue portion of the US or British government (the group that did 9/11) from completing some kind of destructive plan. Although, as an excluded person, I can't rule out that there were people actually trying to do murder, violence or destruction that are not part of or funded by any person in government.
Each news company can take their own view, but they appear to all adopt the beliefs and theories (in particular that Bin Laden is behind 9/11...not one newspaper questioned, doubted, or has it's own theory or belief other than the story told by people in the Bush administration) put forward by people in the government.
The real excitment is exposing that thought can be heard...that is going to give us more truth/per second of air.
07-28-2006
7/28/06
list of 9/11 accessories after the fact (or I suppose the outside chance that they actually are simply mistaken, but cmon...I think obviously these people are the people that own these organizations are corrupt to the marrow):
1) Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
from here you can put together a list of those helping the cover-up from those they cite as presenting evidence to disprove claims. It reminds me of how Louis Alverez and people at UCIrvine helped to cover up the JFK murder and protect Frank Fiorini. It's interesting how Popular Mechanics stepped out to ruin their magazine forever, once the public knows the truth Popular Mechanics will not be worth the paper it's printed on (but oh ofcourse, they will claim "under new owners..." etc...forget it...in my view once something is tainted, unless they go above and beyond the average to redeem themselves, no sale).
Maybe the pod is not 100% clear, but definitely the stand down is absolute true, so:
Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD, defends the criminal view, although there are no direct quotes of value.
Jay Leno hopped on board the Popular Mechanics money filth train. Leno didn't detonate the WTC explosives killing 2000 people, he only helps those protecting the murderers...cmon thats not that unethical is it?
Here we definitely have a low-life caught in the act:
Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and old white guy in blazer and neck tie, tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." (unless "rest of stuff" is the planted explosives...which no doubt this human argues in the court of free info and democracy whereever it may be...sorry, no...beep beep unethical unethical...supporter of mass murder, this person should be discredited for his absence of integrity).
David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report, came up with the "pancaking theory", maybe he will be continuously re-elected to senate in Pennsylvania too like Arlon Spectre, the inventor of the "single bullet theory" who the public supports despite his constant protection for Frank Fiorini the murderer of a US president. My vote is for Spectre to be elected to poverty and full exposure.
NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." Shyam says it all. This is a sham, and no matter what name, this bum should never work again.
Demolition expert Romero, apparently no first name, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." on the line? it's gone, there is no line...there is only the bad reputation as a supporter of mass murder that belongs there.
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." Here this guy Arthur Lerner-Lam provided a printout that shows yes clearly that there was a seismic movement for all the explosions, and this has been recorded on numerous films. Lerner-Lam is a liar, and a protecter of murderers, and if we need to expose and condemn 1 million and 5 hundred sixty five thousand humans so be it. The truth, integrity and honesty is the most important. Hey and law, lets remember the most important homicide law. We need to take a good look and expose Columbia University to the fullest, they have a mess of secrets centered around Pupin, and others and they need to be exposed.
Mete Sozen a professor at Purdue University and old white guy with neck tie. This is another reason why I am against "tenure", these people ought to be deemployed. That is a disgrace for Purdue and ASCE. "Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen,"
This guy has stepped way out onto the plank: Allyn E. Kilsheimer, CEO of (obviously what was once, but they will no doubt continue to get criminal business, ie republican business) KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Here he is an old white guy, but wait...no neck tie, only a blazer, and then a beard...kind of from the "intellectual evil group"? Like the evil think-tank people perhaps. But no matter what appearance, clearly helping mass murder.
interesting story about Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958, but he won't comment, and then clearly this guy is 200 proof evil:
Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office who rejects the claim. But wait not an old white guy!...no sorry...yes another old white guy in a neck tie.
Obviously it goes without saying that they people should be hiring banned for life:
REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS. unless there is some above average effort at undoing their evil deliberate lies (or ofcourse, I have to entertain the idea that they are uninformed nondeliberate mistakes, but cmon obviously these criminal people see and hear thought...got to be).
To see the last page of the article is really gross. It's a list of like maybe 100 people that put their name to this piece of evil filth. That shows you how many evil people there are out there...or wait "in" there no doubt. How can they be so shockingly immoral? murder is wrong wrong wrong bee!
So lets continue the nazi hunting. Again, many of these people did not push the button, but they are accessories after the fact for whatever that's worth, and I think we can rule out "complicity" as defined by those who simply knew and did nothing, that is not a serious crime. We are talking here, about those who made a special effort on behalf of like-minded nazi people, or people that murdered 3000 (and we excluded can only guess how many others, although no doubt the included have a solid count) innocent US citizens and beyond that human beings.
ok look searching on "9/11" isn't going to be good enough anymore there are way too many 9/11 truth pages. now I will search for "9/11 debunking". Which reminds me that I have already mentioned scopes.com, which is definitely a money-grubbing greedy cash-gobbling bunch of filthy lying bastards.
Here we have a rather large big fish: Scientific American! What a bunch of shyte for brains. That must have been one massive massive lump sum payment...the neocons had to pick some magazine that they knew was big enough to not be toppled by a dirty story. That had to be one enormous check or cash payout. Holy shit, it's Michael Shermer, what a turn coat, but then his writings never impressed me. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000&colID=13 Shermer's career, what there is of it, should be ruined very soon in my estimation. Although the claim that "NY Jews" were responsible is obviously a racist abstract statement that I seriously doubt most people believe, I have only seen one of two of hundreds of videos that imply anything like that, Shermer goes on to type "The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.", so clearly he is speaking out against alternative theories beyond the government big-ass lie. Clearly a very nasty doing on the part of Shermer, who really ought never to be funded, and it reflects poorly on one of his big funders Paul Kurtz, who otherwise has published wonderful books by James Haught critical of religion, ... it looks like Shermer took a big time cash payout, I think this must have been hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even a cool million. In some way, I should feel perhaps good that...well another competitor is out of the running for contributions to life on earth, and I am glad to adhere to honesty, in particular on 9/11, for example although no where near as bad as this, Noam Chomsky who I agree with on so many points wrote a book a rejects the neocons did 9/11 (at least publically, he obviously can't deny it in the camera net). But really it's a loss for all of us when an atheist or so-called liberal drops out of the battle for truth and justice. Shermer is probably banking on the public forgetting, but I won't forget, but then, I never enjoyed any of his writings anyway, I think he spoke here at UCI, and I didn't bother to go, I took a look at some of his articles in "Skeptical Inquirer", Kurtz's magazine, and they aren't impressive. Shermer ought to be discredited to the fullest extent of disaccredation, as should be Scientific American, who I thought I might send my articles for them to reject too, but now, forget it. Halleluja that so far as I know Nature and Science have not taken the cash for lies offers. There is something more important than a quick buck and that is truth and honesty which I interpret as the goal of science. It says to me that the owners of "Science" and "Nature" are not that low, or are uncertain about the future of the 9/11 mass murder. Shermer goes on to say "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy." And Shermer goes on to speak out clearly against any kind of 9/11 conspiracy. For me, I advocate dropping all subscriptions to sciam until they tell the truth about 9/11 and support the position that 9/11 was done by neocon people, and in particular that the WTC buildings were all brought down by controlled demolition. And as I said, I would not support anything Michael Shermer does, I would not attend any of his lectures (besides as punishment for this lie...who knows how many other lies he will tell?), nor fund any of his articles. What a stink-fest. This neocon effort is geared towards fooling intellectuals (obviously excluded intellectuals). In any event, it proves to me, 100% that Shermer is not to be supported by me ever, I suppose unless he someday did something above average for the cause of truth, but again...there will always be that feeling of "what a scumbag" and the same for anti-scientific unamerican!
Back to that other point of liberals who reject the truth about 9/11. Tarpley points them out...it's really amazing to see. Amy Goodman who has done so much for liberals has not chomped into the truth about 9/11 publically. which is a disappointment, but to my knowledge...I think the real offense is to speak out against the 9/11 conspiracy, that is true corruption, to remain silent is forgivable. And the same is true for the Pupin net, to actively say "those who think that people hear their thoughts are delusional" or whatever, I think is relatively evil, but I could see, if a person just announced that, it might be helpful, making hearing thoughts the topic. So it's sometimes tricky, but for Shermer, there is no question, that is 100% evil albeit nonviolent lawful evil.
I was thinking last night that there have to be neocon "provoceteurs", in the classic Mae Brussel style, she always griped about provoceteurs. But I was thinking...clearly a nice move on the part of the neocons would be to introduce bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theorists and theories. One example is the "Zionist" claims I think. They want to associate the truth about 9/11 and antijewishness. This is a classic theme. Anybody that rejects general relativity is labeled antijewish, because Einstein is such a major Jewish symbol....but let's remember that ultimately, truth is the most important, not race. Another group that I think are funded by neocon money...and you know...there simply has to be people funded by neocon money...is the group that claims that (although I haven't seen this lately) planes did not actually hit the WTC towers. Maybe they are just goofy kids, that have made a mistake, hey millions believe Jesus rose from the dead...stupidness happens, I have done many stupid things. But nicely, Alex Jones, one of the "messiahs" of the 9/11 truth group..., says in one video..."planes hit the towers we all agree about that". As a move against these blue-screen plane people. But clearly the blue-screen plane people touch on a serious topic, that video can be definitely manipulated, and it's frightening. A perfect example is how Stalin had Trotsky erased from photos with Lenin, but that would never happen in the USA some might claim, but no it is happening in the USA, and it's interesting how they did it, for example in the Warren Commission as revealed by "The Case for Conspiracy" Grodin's film: They took the original autopsy photo, and had an artist draw the photo. Then they used the drawn image in their report. For example, they moved a bullet hole in the drawn image. And so people might say....that is tampering with evidence! but no, it's not technically, because they simply chose to use drawn copies of evidence that were not faithfully copied...I mean any average person would say...it's totally evil to do such a thing, and maybe even imprisonable if ever the public woke up and there was a nice video system where we could all vote on sentences for these people.
Here is kind of a funny article: http://www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm by Gerard Holmgren, one of the truth tellers, definitely not to be confused with a coverup artist! He does a parady on the debunking articles, so clearly a decent person.
I could list the heros of the truth about the 9/11 mass murder, the list is growing. But let's not forget those who help to protect the mass murderers, and besides it's kind of a stomach turning curiosity to see what people are actively suppressing any talk of the truth. For myself, I am fascinated with evil people, interested in exposing them, I am more interested in truth, science and pleasure both intellectual and physical, but it's a good feeling exposing dishonest people, it's something inside me, and no doubt other people.
This page has all the links at the end:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
1) http://www.debunking911.com/
who are they? no "about us" link.
2)
ok there appears to be a trend here, why won't they identify themselves? why? because their evil, what else. They know they are lying. disclaimer: Again maybe they are excluded.
Some have given this much identification:
a) David B. Benson
ok after seaching for a while I found a David B Benson at mit.edu of all places. http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~iandc/Authors/bensondavidb.html
No photo, but there are other David B. Bensons who knows if this is the probable person who is lying in favor of those who did the 9/11 mass murder? If true, I think he should definitely not be supported.
b) Shagster
c) Len Brazil
only 3 pages return on google, doesn't the name "Len Brazil" sound kind of unusual? like "Fred Columbia". But maybe. This person is clearly has no web page link.
d) Mike Williams http://www.911myths.com
The link has no information identifying who he is. In order to get the word out to exluded of who to ban we usually need a webpage, photo, etc.
e) Debunking911 http:www.debunking911.com
ok I am looking for more out in the open nazzi ppl.
f) JamesB http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com
Loose Change is epic, so JamesB obviously comes from nazi-town. Is that Mr. Debunk? last name: debunk.
Ok there are not actually too many, the State department, well, ofcourse, that has to be full of people lying, but all liars will get found out is my feeling, but maybe I will be wrong on that one.
Here is a major player on the fool the public about 9/11 scene:
Michael J. Wilson. http://www.911myths.com
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
There is not alot of info on this person on his homepage. looking in images.google.com, it's like will the evil Michael J Wilson please stand up, remember that show to tell the truth? and their all fake head bobbing... there is a writer for animated movies, a Michael J Wilson at caltech.edu. Well will have to figure out this person later, that is not out in the open enough. But clearly this is somebody who must known that the neocons did 9/11 and is helping to sell their shyte filled story, and no doubt is included. But if excluded, it's like those who swear by Jesus, no amount of physical evidence will convince them, I tell a story that even when people are shown themselves in actual video they will still deny their actions, it's comedic.
ok I got it here, he's a UK software developer, so a supporter of the Blair criminal group. What Blair's role in the 9/11 mass murder is not clear. It's not the screen writer, or caltech guy.
Here is the National Review that must be a rag of rags:
amd James S. Robbins the big-ass liar who supports mass murder.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
We have to be careful, when quickly scanning this evil bunch of lying shyte to make sure they are not on the edge of evil by simply debunking the obviously wrong 9/11 theories (of those that exist, and I can only identify the zionist one, and secondly the blue-screen planes...there are no UFO, aliens, anything that I have yet found, so neocon provoceteurs have their work cut out for them...there is maybe a third the illuminati, but who really knows...I would substitute "the godders" or "Jesus cult", but even that is an overgeneralization...then look at Shermer who claims to be agnostic, and Penn and Teller, whose show Shermer appeared on...like a Titanic no doubt the money-for-lie sell-outs are sticking together). Again Robbins compared Thierry Meyssan to a haulocaust denier, which he is not, to my knowledge. It's again playing some kind of "anybody that questions the official 9/11 story is antijewish" mystery card. Ok yes, here we go: "The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory", definitely, without doubt a 100% lie in print. In fact all those that claim to have seen a 757 or any commercial plane hit the Pentagon are definitely and obvious lying. So yes, this is a person for the mass murder, no doubt with many bogus reasons, all of which I reject. I call for a total hiring ban on this piece of shyte filled murder loving lying person, don't worry, the republican mass murdering group will gladly pay him for more lies to protect all the murderers.
This is something interesting, here is Alternet, that I think by now has really not too much of a reputation left, they put out a book strongly supporting psychology, which is a massive human rights disgrace of lawful people jailed without trials, sentences, four point restraints used on lawful people, drugs injected even into those who say no, and the owner of Alternet, Don Hazen, supports that stuff, certainly not opposing it, but actively promoting the pseudoscience of psychology (where I cite neurology as a real science, although I allow for consensual treatment of any kind). Here they are printing an article with this quote from David Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation:
"I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd." Later an alternet representative did appear in a 9/11 forum and did appear to my memory to abstractly support the MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) theory. But still, it's weak...and this article shows the deception they are capable of, I stopped reading their stuff years ago.
ok, that about sums up this nazi hunt, I have to say Shermer and Scientific American are the biggest catch, and Jay Leno helping out Popular Mechanics. Let's remember that Scientific American did this, Shermer it will be easy to remember at least for me. I don't know what to say about that Scientific American, but I will say that, if they openly identify all people involved, and dismiss every last person, they may come out of it intact with my support, but I doubt that will happen, so for now, I have called for a ban of Scientific American, and the television program, until they come clean about the truth about 9/11, we have to be serious about convicting people who murder, murder is no joke, our right to life is something precious to love, and to protect.
Some interviewing human was asking "why would Bush jr do such a thing?" and clearly it's like asking "why would Hitler do such a thing as the Reichstag fire?", but honestly, I think many of us are saying...honestly we don't know! because he's a twisted evil person...with a scewed view of the universe...you tell me...why these people ordered and executed a mass murder of thousands. Because they have been raised in a life of posh servents and not a hint of education, far removed from daily reality, had access to millions and millions of dollars, and cameras into all the poor people houses and heads, I dunno.
7/31/06
Thinking more about the universe, I just have a very strong feeling that the expanding universe is wrong, it's too fantastical, it's too unlikely of a conclusion to draw from the math and physics. One video I saw showed a person explaining "there is no center to the expansion, everywhere is the center", and that is wrong in my opinion. 4 dimensions is an extension of 3 dimensions, and there is still physical location in the universe. And the same is true even for 2 spherical dimensions. The so-called origin of an expansion definitely would have a location, I say would because I doubt the expanding universe is an accurate theory. If true, the center would definitely have an x,y,z, but it's t would be in the very distant past. Still, it would definitely have a location somewhere in the universe, and that should show you how unlikely a big bang is. Galaxies would in theory be moving away from that center, but what we see is a uniform distribution of galaxies. The claim is that space is being added uniformly between the galaxies, and this, I think is what really ends the expanding universe theory for me, because as I have said numerous times, "where does the extra space come from?", where is it created? It's highly unlikely that space is being created in the universe. In my opinion, there is no new space in the universe that wasn't here 100 billion years ago or any other time. But back to the red shift. Ofcourse, I have said numerous times that light has been red shifted here on earth, by Raman, and so that shows you how easy it is for light to be red shifted without being related to Doppler shift. More likely, the red shift is due to something like the red shifting of light beams that are bent around matter. It boils down to the very big question: "are beams of light red shifted when bent from large masses?" And the reason of this paragraph is that there may be a way to measure this change in red shift. Possibly, a change in red shift can be detected from beams of light from stars when a planet moves in front of them, of from the beams of light from the sun around the moon in a solar eclipse, or (and here is where maybe is the best place, but who knows?) from beams of light behind some close star with a large parallax. Basically a person would simply need to analyze the spectrum of a star directly behind a close star like Sirius, when Sirius passed directly over (or very near) the star, and when Sirius is no where near the star. Maybe a star behind an ecclipsed sun. You know, I think that the amount of change in red shift might be so small for a star that we may have to wait for a long time to confirm this phenomenon. Imagine the time when we have ships measuring parallax from a different star, as we grow and move to other stars, the number of astronomy experiments we can do increases. If this change is too small to detect, that is dissapointing, and I am for the truth, not strong arming some theory, I am interested, ofcourse, in only what is the actual truth. But if this change in Doppler shift cannot be measured, I don't think that rules out it's existence, because the effect of red shift really applies mainly to the most distant galaxies, and light from those galaxies is bent around other galaxies, which have much more mass than stars, and then, these galaxies are very distant, much more distant than anything we can measure the moving of.
8/2/06 clearly, double quasars are proof that light bends from the mass of a galaxy, and bends significantly, to such an extent that two images can be seen on both sides of a galaxy. I think this bending of light causes red-shift too, but it's perhaps not easy to prove. But that would explain the apparent distance of quasars, they are not that distant, but their light is red shifted when bent around some other galaxy, all the quasars are probably regular galaxies that happen to be behind other galaxies in our line of sight. And after looking at the Halton Arp book, one example, Stephen's quartet appears clearly to be a cluster of galaxies (like the Virgo cluster), but 2 galaxies are much more red shifted. These 4 galaxies are all alone in empty space, it's clear that the chances are that they are a galactic cluster, but the two red shifted are probably just behind the less red shifted galaxies, and the small amount of light bending gives the galaxies behind more of a red shift (and also changes the appearance of their actual position, which would be otherwise obscured behind the closer galaxies). Then how to explain the supposed higher brightness? I am only an amateur human, but no doubt the higher luminosity was calculated presuming that they were much more distant, so they are probably average luminous galaxies, but closer than previously thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar has: "A quasar may readily release energy in levels equal to the output of hundreds of average galaxies combined. In optical telescopes, a quasar looks like a very faint star (i.e. it is a point source), and has a very high redshift. The general consensus is that this high redshift is cosmological, the result of Hubble's law, which implies that quasars must be very distant and hence very luminous." If there is higher "energy" in the radio, I have a lot of doubts about that being anything unusual. I think it may be due from red shifted photons (visible has more photons/second, and so when lowered into the red, it takes on more brightness than other non-shifted galaxies perhaps), but I am the only person publically speculating on this and many other wonderful lines of questioning. Here again from the same page: "Although faint when seen optically, their high redshift at great distance imply that quasars are the brightest objects in the known universe. The currently brightest known quasar is the ultraluminous 3C 273 in the constellation of Virgo. It has an average apparent magnitude of 12.8 (when observing with a telescope), but it has an absolute magnitude of ?26.7. So from a distance of 10 parsecs, this object would shine in the sky about as bright as our sun. " So you can see that this phenomenal luminosity is only as a result of the mistaken estimate of their distance, which I doubt, and again, I think they are simply galaxies who light is bent by other galaxies (and therefore also red shifted in this bending) in between there and here. I am still trying to understand why a light beam would spread out when bending. Why would one light beam being bent, be more red shifted than a beam going straight from a galaxy just next to it? One thing that is interesting is that when a beam of photons is bent, they cover less ground in the z dimension (perhaps it's the unshifted galaxies whose light is bent. I doubt it, but it should not be excluded from thought), but still I see no clear reason yet why the distance between photons would increase when bent around a large mass, other than perhaps delay or absorbtion around other photons, protons, etc. from the large mass.
***EX: look for changing red shift from stars near stars that show parallax, planets, ecclipsed sun, moon. Then we can see that bending light does cause red shifting, but then an explanation of why beams of light do this is needed. People call this a "gravitational lens", but it's more clear to say a "gravitational bend", because nothing is magnified (to my knowledge), and it's different from a lens, because a lens bends beams of light, not by gravity (as far as I know), but from some kind of reflection off of, or change in direction from (this in fact would be from gravity) atoms of glass, for example. I just think the word "lens" is somewhat inaccurate or deceptive, but that is minor. People also claim that this was predicted by the General Theory of Relativity, but I am not so such that Newton's vision of gravity does not exclude this effect. Newton felt light was a particle, and therefore feel the effect of other matter, but as far as I know, Newton never made the connection that the direction of photons is the only thing changed, not the velocity (again, as far as has even been measured). And then, ofcourse no math is shown, explained or even summarized (because so few have ever actually used or check relativity mathematically) as to how the theory of relativity proved photons bend around massive objects.
All the claims of general relativity are dubious in my opinion. For example, the classic explanation of the procession of the perihelon of Mercury. This is viewed by millions as irrefutable proof of the validity of relativity. But what is never said is that to accurately predict the motion of planet Mercury, and this includes the procession of the orbit of Mercury, you need to include every atom of each planet into the equation. All the atoms of liquid water drastically change the movement of the planet earth, the distribution of the sands on Mars changes it's motion slightly. It happens to be a reality that very few people talk about. So it's clear that the location of the earth relative to the sun (which changes from the amount of matter it emits, in addition to the rolling of it's liquid surface. It's amazing by the way that Anaxagoras more than 2000 years ago was punished for claiming that the sun was a ball of red hot iron, and even now I think this view is more accurate than the current popular view of Hydrogen to Helium fusion...because, you know, in my view, the sun is just like the earth, we have a molten iron light-emiting center too that flies out from lava, so I view the sun as simply exaqctly like a planet that never gets cold enough to have a crust, but I doubt the light and heat from inside the earth (molten lava) is from fusion, but maybe...I am keeping an open mind). Newton is also one of those people, Aristarchos was one too, whose ideas took centuries to finally be accepted (for Newton that light is matter and a particle, and Aristarchos that the earth moves on it's axis and goes around the sun). So about the precession of Mercury (and my spelling may be wrong, but again go with a one letter-one sound phonetic alphabet already, maybe I will when I get older), I don't doubt for a second that it can be modeled with Newton's math. Many people, I think, are using Newton's equations incorrectly. They are using them as some kind of steady-state equation, but they should not be used like that. They need to be used, in my opinion, to run simulations into the future, and then the more into the future (like weather predictions) the less accurate, and the same is true for relativity. I can see that perhaps some kind of simple generalized model, that views each planet as a single piece of matter can provide relatively accurate models into the future, and show a rotation of a planet orbit (another phrase for precession is simply rotation). With Newtonian physics everything depends on the the initial velocity of each planet. If you look at the polanet moves sun video on my video page, you can see that the orbit of the planet rotates wildly.
EX: show that the rotation of the orbit of Mercury can be seen using Newtonian physics (which is basically the equivalent of relativity minus the bending of time or space, which theoretically [and incorrectly in my view] only happens for high speed particles).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing has more info and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Quasar has info on the "twin quasar". Already the twin quasar is evidence that our map of galactic positions is subject to bending of light, and I think as time continues, we are going to learn that bending of light (and the red-shifting that may be a result of this bending) is a phenomenon that is going to make mapping galaxies even more complicated. I am still asking if there are any spiral galaxy "quasars", they almost all appear to be ellipsoidal. http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/q0957.html has a photo of the first double-image quasar. It's amazing to me that we can't even see the galaxy that is responsible for the bending of the photon beams. Again here http://hea-www.harvard.edu/XJET/source-d.cgi?Q0957+561 we don't even see the presumed object in the middle in radio or xray. It really is an interesting phenomenon. Shouldn't we see something so massive that it bent the light of a different galaxy which we definitely can see? Maybe the light of the third object is being absorbed somehow into some other object? Or perhaps those are two distinct objects? But if they follow the same patten of variation in brightness that would be evidence that they are the same galaxy (talked about on this page: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lens_results/lens_results.html).
I think the advice for this and the next century is clear, and people looking back will recognize it clearly, and that advice is this: people of the 2000s and 2100s should lighten up about sexuality and tighten up on violence.
We are living in an interrogation nation with bad suggestion sessions
Living now in the USA (and no doubt many other places) for an intellectual or any average thinking gentle person is just like a constant interrogation of bad suggestions, you know your in the interrogation chair, and the beams are telling you: "do you want to jump off that cliff? how about go outside in the nude? what about your friend...do you think he is fat? you think he's dumb don't you? ...etc. and here all this time, the person can only think..."no...I don't want to jump off that cliff...no I don't think going out in the nude is a good idea right now...no it doesn't matter if my friend is fat...it's only important to me what is inside...no I don't think he's dumb...." and so on...just a constant barrage of the lowest of low-brow opinions and suggestions beamed onto everybody's brain, like a life of bad CIA experiments on average decent people, people stuck under the work of the most low brow criminals and uneducated idiots with access to advanced technology. And this planet is filled with so-called assholes, probably more accurately called violent or non-violent, but irritating criminal humans. Everytime you have to itch, why there's an asshole somewhere out there, everytime somebody beams the tumor beam on your head, there is a major asshole somewhere out there, unseen by the victims. But you know, those decent (if the word can be applied) inside the camera network must see and know clearly who these assholes are, they must have a highly ordered system of recording all their criminal acts. I don't doubt for a minute that those in the included know these assholes very well, and no doubt when they look at who they are, it's basically a sea of black and green, people in our own police and military, and then in terms of their faces, no doubt a sea mostly of of white and short hair, those who are committing all these annoyances, itches, muscle moves, and painful or tumor causing beamings. These are people who have been getting constant A pluses for their entire life, never once have they ever been remotely punished or made to feel that they are doing anything wrong or illegal. It seems to me to be probably just the least uneducated, most violent, people who control most of this secret technology that our own money funded, and these people use it against college educated nonviolent citizens. Because you have to think, who are the people that go into the military and police parts of government? They are for the most part people who don't have any education, don't mind wearing a uniform, are focused more on physical appearance and less on developing their minds, ... it may sound prejudice, but I think we should recognize that this is probably true, not many of us would want to submit to the dangers of police or military membership, nor have to wear a uniform, ... but then we hand over the administration of all this advanced survallience and laser technology, used now on the public, to a group of people who have less college education, and tend to be more violent than the average person? Ultimately, we need to vote through total freedom of all information, I know it sounds scary, people distributing nude photos of us from inside our houses, and all we can do is try to have the cameras removed, but without money, it probably is a futile effort, and for me...I don't care about removing cameras and microphones, it's safer to be seen, and we all look the same in the nude, plus I have nothing to hide (although for those who use illegal drugs I definitely can understand the argument of wanting privacy, but even now, the reality makes that impossible no matter who a person is, as long as they are middle or lower income, beyond that, with free info, we would see that many drugs would become decriminalized through popular opinion and the full democracy that probably would result).
I think with the Scientific American disgrace, it's a tough call, to boycott Scientific America, it's like Nova, Discovery Channel, etc. (although we can feel that less disgusted with Nature and Science who have so far to my knowledge taken the less secret murder promoting and covering up road). And here I thought the people at Scientific American were trying to educate people, not murdering them and then lying about it for centuries. And then what do you make of Jay Leno being on the same Popular Mechanics cover as this infamous issue that openly speaks out against the truth about 9/11? I thin kwe can definitely say that at the very least it is unethical of Leno to do that, without really knowing what happened behind the scenes. Here I thought he was for making people laugh and feel good, not for crushing them in a purposely demolished 100 story building and then lying about it for decades. Plus, here many of these people are already much more wealthy then me, or no doubt you, and most people, but for all that money, they show the ethics of greedy skin-flints perhaps. Maybe they are caught in some dasterdly position, they are being bribed by people who will release information about them, or they have an expense cocaine habit....it's interesting for us excluded to speculate, only the included know, or perhaps even they know not.
One thing excluded people may not have thought about with the JFK murder is that Oswald may have survived Ruby's single shot to the abdomin and may have been actually murdered in the hospital afterwards, that is something I have never heard before. Maybe Oswald did die of the gun shot, but I would not put it past these Warren-Commision type people to just go ahead and murder Oswald if Ruby's shot didn't kill him. Many people have survived single shots to the stomach, in particular when they received quick treatment and bullet removal (presumably as Oswald would have). Larry Flynt is one example of a person that survived a shooting to the torso, as is Reagan, George Wallace, many people have survived gun shot wounds to the torso.
As a 9/11 update, I think I have to change my mind that the best evidence that 9/11 was planned by the neocons is:
1) just the simple fact that buildings would not crumble into dust from a plane crash in the middle.
a) the molten metal on the bottom,
b) video evidence of spools,
c) video and seismograph evidence of seismic movement before the WTC building collapses, video cameras recorded the sound, at least one tripod shook and a piece falls off the WTC2 building.
d) video of molten iron [and here I want to add that spectrum analysis can be done even on video, and it is interesting to understand that it may be limited to the visible spectrum only, but that is probably enough to prove that ofcourse this is molten iron and not some other metal],
e) the eyewitness testimony of William Rodriguez and 14 other people of an initial basement explosion in WTC1 seconds before the 1st plane collision, and this includes the images of Felipe David who is living proof of this explosion. Infact, this perhaps is a) because it is very powerful evidence.
f) video of small white explosions
g) video of white smoke rising from WTC2 before it's collapse
2) the hole in the Pentagon (as vonKleist so eloquently states in one video, "we sure as hell know it didn't hit the Pentagon")
and again I think the biggest question is: "what happened to the people on the planes?". We know what happened to those in the WTC, they are most definitley dead, murdered in the plane crash and then subsequent planned demolition of the two WTC buildings. As an aside, that these neocon evil people, decided to completely demolish the WTC buildings, I think will be shown to be their biggest mistake. They could have been satisfied with the plane crash, and imagine what scraps of evidence we would be left with then to try and prove their crime. That they decided to demolish the 2 WTCs has provided all the evidence anyone could ever dream of to prove that the Bush administration planned and executed the 9/11 mass murder. They had to go the extra greedy murderous step of completely bringing down the towers, and then while innocent people were still inside, and I think that is the number one reason why they will be exposed and hopefully imprisoned. So what happened to the people in the planes? For us excluded (the included obviously must know by now) it comes down to a simple set of questions:
1) they are dead
2) they are alive
I think 1) is most likely, they may have been murdered on 9/11 like so many of the victims in the WTC. If the neocons cared so little about killing people in the WTC, why would they stop at murdering innocent people in planes? This gives the Barbara Olsen aspect a cruel interpretation, as being perhaps purposely murdered. Perhaps they are, as vonKleist guessed dead in the Atlantic. Somebody beamed on my head that yes, they are dead, killed in the atlantic ocean and vulcans did it, but who knows where these beams come from? The audio recordings of the Ong phone call, and any other audio could have been reproduced with computer technology from a few samples of their voice (no doubt taken from the camera thought net), or voluntarily recorded before 9/11.
If 2) they are alive, they are probably in a military base somewhere. It's not impossible to arrange, and would be evidence that the military (perhaps in conjunction with wealthy conservatives, all ofcourse in the cam-thought net) really does have the ultimate control over the US. This scenario explains the recorded phone calls, they could have the actual people make audio tapes, since they are still alive (but ofcrouse it could have been done before the fact...clearly some amount of planning went into the audio recording aspect of 9/11). It appears that possibly some planes landed, and "Loose Change" supposes that the people are being held in this 2) scenario.
So that's my 9/11 update.
08/01/06
some evidence from the Moussaoui trial was released recently at:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits
I definitely approve of releasing all evidence from all trials, as many of you know I am for total open voting on all court trials, but somehow they are serving these videos to the public over a 56k modem, because it is almost impossible to download them. I did get a recording of a phone call from a WTC victim, and it occured to me that...why aren't the 911 people telling the people in the WTC "find the stairs...find the stairs and exit the building as soon as possible...." instead of "sit tight and somebody will come to you"? But then, I guess most people never thought in a million years the WTC towers would come down...who honestly would have expected such a thing? The only example to draw from was the B52 that hit the Empire State Building, and then the ESB clearly stood the collision with no problem. Clearly, nobody thought the building would "collapse", and now it's obvious, ofcourse, that the WTC towers were brought down in controlled demolition and the neocons are responsible.
It occures to me, and I think it's obvious, and no doubt I have said this before but to vote for republicans is basically to vote for war, to vote for democrats is to vote for peace...it's that simple. I don't think we've ever seen a republican not start war, and then in particular look at what Bush jr did as a republican, basically this 9/11 mass murder, shouldn't that put an end to the republican party in the minds of the public for the rest of time? When will the public wake up to the truth about 9/11? I hope some time soon, damn!
If you have Squirrelmail, or even if you just want a quick webpage that will delete emails and check for spams that seem to be targeted to you then here is some quick and useful simple PHP code. This does spam checking by reading in text for 1) email addresses, 2) subject lines and 3) text in the message body that is an indication of spam. The beauty of this spam checker is that it's geared to your own personal spam. If somebody has never spammed you, you won't waste time checking for their spam, but ideally probably the best spam checker would reject the email in the postfix or mail program instead of accepting and deleting. You can just as easily move these into a "spam folder" too. One thing that is nice, is that you have control over what the program determines is spam, for example if a friend makes a joke about CIALLIS, you can make it not to simply reject an email with "CIALLIS" but with a phase specifically used that you know is spam. Another technique is to add up words that are usually in spam (like CIALLIS and Viagara) and if an email has a high score delete that email. But this is more straight forward and simple and so far it werks! It would be nice if the MAC address from the original computer sending the email is automatically attached because people use alias emails, my advice is to quote http links from the spam body, since usually there is a link to try and get you to buy something, and that usually traces to the source of the spam. I used to have to log into each of 3 accounts to delete email, and I feel for those people who have to too. Now all those emails are all automatically deleted once I log into my main account. I could make this done at the click of a button too, but so far autodeleting on each page load doesn't take much time. Basically you copy these 4 files into some place in your web server directory as a stand alone or in /var/www/squirrelmail/src/right_main.php Here are my 4 text files so far (you have to replace your email userid, password, and URL. See tedhuntington.com/software.htm for the source code.
Without knowing really anything about Cuba, other than Fidel Castro came to rule as a dictator/monarch through violence, here did I call it or what? Fidel is handing over the kingship to his brother Raul, so I tell you, Communism always collapses into Monarchy or Oligarchy, and then ultimately into Representative Democracy, and finally presumably into Full Democracy.
I have been reading the Loeb classics, and it's an interesting story. James Loeb decided to use the Harvard press to sell copies of Roman and Greek classics translated into English. Now most of the books are public domain, and are filling the Internet with knowledge of our past. But here is the amazing thing, Loeb and Harvard then used the income from those book sales to fund graduate student grants, but they could have easily used that money to expand the university, etc. So I think that is really a good idea of how to use a university more like a business to generate income from other sources and no doubt at the same time train people in the trades, for example, in the translating and the actual print shop, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loeb_Classical_Library
kingsizedirect.com sent a catalog with a big "take $15 off" that apparently is a misprint that should read "take 15% off", honestly though, it says "intentional lie" to me. Plus they had another deal where you get a free thing, but then you suddenly see that you have been joined to some club and will be charged for a monthly membership fee which you have to then cancel. But I did order a tall 2x shirt and it is fine. I need tall 2x or 3x shirts because otherwise they aren't long enough. People ought to just go by the actual dimension of "length", they have "chest", "sleave", "neck"...hows about "length"? To their credit they have good prices and a good clearance selection in particular for 2x, 3x tall which are hard to find.
8/4
Many of us are wondering what kind of reichstag fire event the neocons in power will do next. I am predicting that something terrible will happen in later September or in October to try and boost Bush jr and the republican popularity before the November 2006 elections. I am thinking that, they may be pressing the main hot buttons of most sheeple: some kind of terrorism, maybe children or nukes. Perhaps the neocons will blow up a school, a subway station, or blow off a nuclear bomb somewhere, like in a building. I think the statue of liberty, the sears tower, brooklyn bridge, or golden gate bridge are prime examples...you have to think too...that they are more or less confederates, and although they blew up the federal building (again federal government buildings may be targeted by the neocon) in the red state of Oklahoma, my bet is that the republicans will want to blow up "mamby pamby" liberals (in other words the nonviolent, or those that reject violating laws designed to stop violence), so Broklyn and SF bridges would appear logical...but also they have used children before, for 9/11 children played a crucial role in protecting the president, maybe look for innocent children to play a role in this next neocon reichstag fire. It's possible that the republicans will allow the democrats to win this election, because ultimately in our monarchical government structure, the president is the most important election. Congress is basically meaningless and powerless, look how even democrats went along with the invasion of Iraq in bulk, and have not breathed a word of even suspicion about 9/11. And the presidential election is easy for republicans to fix. They can buy up votes in the camera thought pupin network, they can control the red state governors to omit non-white votes, they can control the voting machine companies to produce fabricated results. A nuclear explosion seems logical, because how can you outdo 9/11? Remember how Bush jr had to stifle a smile when saying how nobody invisioned "crashing planes into buildings on such a massive scale", no doubt laughing at the hugeness of the lie and what they pulled off. It really is an aspect of 9/11, that it is so heinous, and so evil, that people absolutely cannot except that Bush jr and people in our military, etc. could do something like 9/11, and that is a powerful phenomenon. The phenomenon of it being so shocking that most people absolutely cannot accept it...it requires their idols to be the complete opposite of what they imagine, and they can't accept it. So it really is an example of Hitler's famous quote "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it", but I think it has to do more with that aspect, of the lie being so devious and evil, that people simple cannot belief that a person they admire would do such a thing. But a nuclear bomb, can you imagine...if in NYC it could decimate Columbia University, all the secret Pupin archive, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people. On a small scale, just murdering a few thousand innocent people, it could be used to justify a strong military leader to attack the alleged terrorist, but on a larger scale, it could possibly be used to justify a state of marshall law, and a transition into a dictatorship, or military government, the excuse being until order and the security of the USA can be restored, and then ofcourse they will go back to elections. But then they will never go back to elections, and any person that talks about elections will be imprisoned or hospitalized. So if the republicans wait for a reichstag event (and maybe they will just go with a small event, a mass media terrorism alert, an arrest of a "terrorist cell", a minor explosion like the first WTC explosion, like the spain subway bomb or Britain subway shooting, etc.) until 2008, and then that would be in September or October, as to be fresh in the memory of the sheep-like public. Much of these things can only happen and be coordinated because of the massive pupin network, because they can see and hear thought, because they can see inside people's houses and heads. There never would be this wag the dog type of two class system if the public was smart enough to vote for total free info (which they are currently not). There never would be a two-tier system on earth, of those who see and hear thought and those who don't (the excluded or simply "out") and are the victim of and manipulated by those who do see and hear thought (the included or simply "in"). One of the reasons I think for the lowering of popularity of Bush jr, is because of the public's suspicion about 9/11, and it should show everybody that, popularity, in the long term, is gained, not by reichstag events, which may bring temporary popularity, but by a long term good vision and long term ethical and lawful, honest, smart and fair life.
07-28-2006
7/20
Secretly seeing and hearing thought has turned average people into monsters. Just like average German people under Nazism, people that would otherwise be friendly are turned into rude arrogant overbearing people who examine every nanoframe of the excluded's lives but not a single pixel from their life is open for inspection.
I was in San Diego, heard a very loud sound above me and looked to see a US military fighter plane quickly speed above the clouds. Then I thought "there must be no 9/11 event happening", because obviously there would not be any US military jets in the air if there was a 9/11 event happening.
Some guy walked by me and said, (of building an elevator to Black's Beach, a nude beach) "you would ruin it for everybody" and I thought "what an arrogant a-hole", if only I had thought quickly enough to say "no, I'm just going to ruin it for the elitist people who have abused this secret technology for 100 years." (or likewise, "no more people might be tolerant and into nude sun bathing then", but in any event being that nudity is illegal, we need to change the laws democractically). I mean imagine the idiocy and gall of somebody that secretly has heard thought while the rest of us had to sit out here and guess what was going on. They should be grateful to not be locked in jail for their evil lies and deceit. Then many of them will be going directly to jail for assaults with hidden lasers once the excluded finally figure it out. But the idea that showing everybody the 100 years of secret hidden cameras would bring down such a system is absurd. There is simply no way to stop the freeflow of information, and anybody that says there is, is inaccurate. We already have privacy laws, and they don't stop anybody, because those in power want this secret system and they control everything, the only excluded are the poor mainly, and they are basically powerless to change the system, and I doubt, after seeing the benefits, for example, of jailing Sturgis, Cesar and all the murderers they would quickly understand the reality. 7/28 adding: any so-called liberal that advises secrecy is, in my view, idiotic, because, the secrecy has only helped the conservative murderers, those who killed and covered up the JFK, MLK and RFK murders, and continue to cover up milllions of other murders. Free info can only help the liberal cause. And we need to start with cameras on the streets with images archived for everybody to access.
Thru all the psychiatric evaluations for mental purity and good mental hygiene, it is amazing to me that the included always seem to miss any kind of psychiatric disease that might describe their willingness to constantly lie...to lie a constant lie...some kind of desceptania? simply lie-itis? truthophobia...pathological lying? elititis or hyper-unequal-power-hunger? then the disease that describes a person's willingness to allow mass murders like 9/11, and even 40 years of cover-ups like Fiorini and Cesar...is that some kind of hyper-apathy-to-murder syndrome? some kind of homocidopathy?
Once again Bush jr shows that he is anti-science. You know the people in the USA (and every other nation for that matter) should be competing for scientific supremecy, not for coming in last on the science front. Then, howz about the excuse Bush jr gives: against killing any life for science. I guess we should add "unless it's every other species on earth including adult humans with one exception unborn humans even at the level of an 8 cell blastula, and then not-only for science but for food or any other purpose". I mean they hack up cows, chickens, eggs, pigs...they killed JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon...they all watched, Bush jr did the 9/11 mass murder of 3000, and then the follow thru with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan for bogus and simply false reasons. They have been directly responsible for the murder of thousands of adult humans, but the unborn human has all the value (even over the female's right who contains it!). If I have said it once, I will say it a million times...the values of the extreme religious are so fucked up...they're absolutely bizarre. They have such pretzel logic. They will murder 3000 adult humans in 9/11 and 10,000 in Iraq, routinely kill monkies, mammals, have seal hunts, fill the prisons with nonviolent drug users and prostitutes, etc. but then holy cow, that divinely created 8 cell blastula is the most precious thing. Ofcourse, if you believe the major media, once again Bush jr is exerting his minority opinion over the majority, and that is simply anti-democracy. I am glad to see there are republicans in the congress that approved this, who is the one democratic idiot that rejected it? they were not named in the article I read. Then the other bill, making a fetus for stem cells illegal. I think we need to know more info about this. What about simply merging an ovum and sperm, letting it divide a few times and then using the stem cells? I mean how could that possibly be unethical? The cells feel no pain, there is no nerve cells or any brain, etc. If that is what they made illegal, I think that is absurd. I certainly vote to make any kind of test tube merging of ova and sperm legal as long as there is no pain to any human. I have said many times, that these religious extremists like Bush jr, are stopping technology that might prolong our lives, and minimize our suffering, all in the ignorance of abstract religious doctrine and erroneous beliefs. Bush jr and other conservative radical religious probably prefer the kind of Christian "doctors" that slap foreheads and scream "yer healed!". I guess we should consult the head pope of the cult of Jesus when we are trying to figure out what rules will be used for the USA. Clearly this decision goes against the majority view in the USA, so here again, we have a minority of extremists dictating law for a majority that does not get to vote on such decisions, but is required to live under these minority made decisions.
I stayed at Best Western in La Jolla, CA:
Everything was relatively ok. There was one rude aggressive young guy, and a rude female, but there was a polite female too. Initially the aggressive male, when we first walked in said "shhh" and "kick". Beyond that there was not much else. A painting in the room had the year "1995", the year I left La Jolla, it's celebratory for me too. I can see now that the entire Orange County down to San Diego, and the vast majority of central California are all red rude republicans, only the coast from LA up has a blue liberal majority. I wish I had simply not lived in SD and OC for as much time as I have, it's masochism for a thinking human. They didn't tell me about a "room tax" ~$10/night, nor parking fee $12/night at the initial reservation, but the room was across from the soda and ice machine which was a plus.
Reviews of SD vegetarian restaurants:
Rancho Cocina
This was a pleasant experience, I received not one insult which is extremely rare. One customer said "bud" and "ped'm" (may be against krustopeds? I thought). Again comments from customers are less clearly from ownership and ofcourse I tolerate idiotic customers that is only natural in particular in a conservative county. The chips were warm, there is a nice interior with native american art, large burlap coffee bags. The menu indicates that oil used is either olive or vegtable, and that all rice and beans are vegetarian and vegan, and that the food is fresh daily. There is a market next door. There is at least one other "Rancho" somewhere in SD. I had the 3 enchiladas which was delicious. I have never tasted any of the 3 sauces and none were spicy. One enchilada has guacamole, another had tofu pieces, and a third had refried beans. I highly recommend this to others. It came with spanish rice and refried beans, again we can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing that that rice and those beans are vegan. My friend had the veggie fajita, and this had broccoli, cauliflower, celery, other vegtables and guacamole. It was good, except it was served with one big flour burrito size tortilla instead of the traditional 4 or 5 small or medium tortilla. I guess we could have asked for the other tortillas, they were, as I said, very friendly, and the waitress refilled our sodas without even being asked. This is one of the 3 vegetarian restaurants clustered around University street.
I was searching for the restaurant "spread" on the Internet and kept getting the message "your request was rejected" or something. Maybe they were in a reboot, but maybe they were trying to say "you not welcome!" or the equivalent, or ofcourse could be provoketeur neocons who hover over me like an evil cologne. I was not sure so I decided to call and chat for awhile (I did this for a few different places...it gives them an oppotunity to be rude and allows me to get a measure of the rude factor), and the person said "go" (so), "jew" (two), and closed with "alrighty". So I thought...that doesn't sound so good. It all depends on how you interpret, but I like either no buzzwords or clearly positive ones. I went by this place and it is a small cafe. I didn't go in. It's one of the 3 vegetarian restaurants clustered around university st, which must be near SDSU.
Sipz
5501 Clairemont Mesa Blvd
Just near the 805 this is an easy place to get to. Female employee sez "gay". Menu has "come on in, sit down and enjoy". Male employee sez "one is fog it". So I was quickly getting an anti-gay feeling that is offensive. They sell shirts with the chinese symbol for vegetarian and then "Sipz" on the back. My friend and I were directed to a table close to the counter, but the female allowed us to sit by the more distant window. Near where we sat there were shelves of tee-shirts and various food items. There was a bbq sauce with a buddhist swastika label on it, which reminds us that we must allow total freedom of all symbols. There was vegetarian mushroom flavor stir fry sauce, vegetarian hoysin sauce made by Lee Kum Kee, I will have to look for in the 99 Ranch asian grocery. I was glad to see a guy with a yarmulka, and I am definitely for racial variety and equality. This place was busy at 7:20pm and about 30-40 people were there. Music was playing and it was blues, english speaking female voice. My friend and I had the orange chicken: was good, bbq chicken: was good, but too much bbq sauce, this was a thick dark sauce, tangy, and a big lettuce leaf. Pot Stickers: were good with sauce and big lettuce leaf. Basil chicken: we ordered mild spicy, but this was a little more spicy than what I think of as mild. It was good too. White rice came with the 2 entrees, but it was not nearly enough rice for the entree size, and we both finished our rice long before finishing our entree. There was a nice big ice water for each of us. Then things got a little uglier when my friend went to the bathroom and vomited, I ate exactly the same food, and felt fine, I didn't throw at all. It wasn't clear if I should go to the register to pay or wait for the person serving, but the female serving brought the bill, and said I could pay at the table. A guy then came up (which was unusual since the female was serving us up until then...actually this may have been the "one is fog-it" guy who brought us water maybe?), took or returned the credit card and sez "not sit here", then as we were leaving an older female said "hi gone", which I thought...you know, everything added up, was just an overall rude experience, and I thought..."not go back there for a while". After this is when I thought..."man...people that can see and hear thought have become monsters...it's unbelievable...it turns average people into savages...".
VegOut, also one of the 3 near university st. Neil Young was playing the song "flying mother nature's silver wings..." which is ofcourse a plus. Female employee covers mouth (we got to ban'm now to save time in the future, at least vote to ban the pro-secretive for as much time as they promote secrecy, even if our vote dont [pi=purposely incorrect] count). a customer said "ped", there was a group of 7 or 8 females, later I would see a group of 7 or 8 females at Sipz, maybe we could have had a orgy, but I doubt it because of this backward age. [plus people dont usually want to be sexual with friends, only strangers]. The female employee said "fat", and ofcourse, as usual I think "yeah...fat brain...fat brain...dumb ol fat brain..." but maybe she mean "fat" and is a fat jam, but who cares. I thought maybe she try to say Rancho uses fat (because that is where I eventually went to eat), but then they had on menu no, only olive and vegtable oil. So who knows, even the included are probably confused. employee male on answering machine said "right now".
Pokey's
It's just coincidence that Pokey's and I are both vegetarian for the most part and that I poked a kid when I was a child. I called and a guy sez "out"...out what? Maybe this is a vote that I should be out, and if yes, then also my vote for them="out" and this is a standing order to the vote counting people and machines: all those who vote to exclude me, I want my vote counted to exclude them too. "hit and miss", there was some evil neocon evil eye net admins trying to make some myth that I would be kilt in SD, and I am here to prove that that mystic junk is all bs and wishful thinking on the part of murdering criminals still on the loose and those that fund and protect them. But that wasn't an incredibly pleasant message..."hit"? Egad, old hume, stop the hitting! I can't understand even the phrase "bong hit"...it should be "bong puff" or somthing less violent. Or "would you hit her up?" instead of "would you do 'er?". It just shows me how little people are concerned with such a nasty unpleasant problem as violence. "no problems", this probably refers to believed insanity. Here these people no doubt allow huge tatoo biker guys who have a long list of violent crimes in to their restaurant but they are scared of a little ol never-violent atheist. Pokeys looks kind of tough like a punk place and so I was hesitant to go there...Ranchos wasnt tough at all, but still I thought...big "vegetarian" sign, how often do you see that? and how tough could they be if vegetarians? But wait until my Sipz story to see this phenomenon of how some vegetarians claim to be so for animal rights, but then poop all over humans, as if humans are from some completely different creation. I was thinking maybe next time to go to Pokey's, but I dunno, just the conservative nature of SD makes me want to not be in SD or OC for that matter, when I only get massive amounts of abuse and idiotic put-downs.
Kung-Food
I was thinking of going there, but the web page has: "shhhh", "kick back", "committed", "mind and soul", "spirit", but then one meager try to attract liberals with "evolution". Just the pro-secrecy is offensive to me mainly, but then couple that with a belief in torture of the nonviolent lawful, a belief in "souls", and I thought it was too much negativity and backwardness to get involved with. Their webpage only works in IE, what's about open-source? I was looking forward to seeing the only vegetarian drive-thru to my knowledge. That is what I want to do for my "Veg" restaurant. Maybe next time I will try there, but still recognize that I vote to exclude those people, no doubt this includes the owners, that promote secrecy while simultaneously violating privacy in the camera thought net, for as much time as they did not advocate total free information for all nonviolent people and those with under 10 minor violent offenses.
El Pescador fish place on Pearl Street, La Jolla
Because I lived down the street I often went to this place and had a fish sandwich. I went there, had a fish sandwich, a customer said "get real!" to which I was pleasantly surprised. The older guy who used to say "hi kozin" was not there. I had a swordfish sandwich, and I feel bad for the swordfish, but you know, we live in the stone age of vegetarianism, in 100 years...now that will be vegetarian variety, and I think there will be swordfish grown from stem cells and mass produced like penicillin so no fish with a brain would ever be killed. I went back again a second time and had a second sandwich, simply because it is fast, close and fresh. There were no other places, and in such a conservative place I don't want to drive around and open myself up to potential violence. There certainly was some rudeness, but it wasn't too bad, they gave me a free cup of clam chowder.
7/21
I am preparing some jokes for the 100 year anniversary of the secret Michael Pupin invention of 1910. I just started so all I have so far is:
1) Has there been some kind of delay in hearing thought?
2) Are you sure the public should be allowed to use the microwave oven?
interesting how "sacred" and "secret" are so similar, both being evil for the most part.
7/24
We have a terrible past, a terrible present, but a wonderful future. Although we did see the victory of black and female people getting the right to vote, still the secret history of the Pupin network, all the secret and unpunished homicides, are clearly terrible, and now, with the secret neocon mass murder of the innocent 9/11 people, and the public completely unaware, our present is a terrible time too, but its our future that is so interesting to me, a future where clearly full democracy will happen, walking robots are just around the corner, rocket ships into orbit, vacationing on the earth moon, open nudity and sex in public, no more arrests for recreational drug use or prostitution, then eventually reaching our first other star, what an amazing story that will be for the people of this star, and what a step in the direction of survival for our species. By then, our future survival as life once stuck on a tiny rock orbiting a star will be all but assured. And then it's on to our first globular cluster and the largest plans for the Milky Way Galaxy. Once our galaxy is a collection of gobular clusters, from there, who knows? Our decendents, no doubt, very very different looking from us, but perhaps still made of DNA, will probably be objects that can theoretically live forever, and explore the infinite, unending universe in search of more matter and knowledge.
OC: great clips for hair on campus and california: I usually wait for a female, but decided to let the asian male cut my hair, I don't know his name, but he gave me a "V" in my JFK spot. It looks terrible. So watch out for that person, try for a poor excluded, which are probably many of the females. Only excluded retain the ancient custom of politeness and neutrality, but also do not have an option to participate in the "money for insults" system.
OC: mail boxes etc. in same plaza as Mother's, older woman notarized letter with "JURAT", where no other notarized letters I have ever gotten have this Nazistic sounding text.
VID: Richard Dawkins "Religion: Root of Evil?" part 1 is on video.google.com at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6690702357039658996&q=dawkins+root+evil
and part 2 is onyoutube.com in 6 or 7 parts you can play consecutively.
I found a recognized astronomer that rejects the expanding universe, Halton Arp (http://www.haltonarp.com/). Although he is one of the many who is apparently above responding to my email, he claims that there are a number of quasars that appear to be connected to other galaxies with different red-shifts. I think trying to prove that two galaxies are connected has to be difficult, but it made me realize that perhaps a galaxy that is very closely in line (in terms of z direction from our view here on earth) with some other galaxy, may have it's light very shifted from the galaxy. Just as an idea, and maybe I am wrong, but maybe the light from a galaxy almost directly behind another galaxy is spread out by the closer galaxy, and that stretching causes large red-shifts. Basically, I think the red-shift is due to this phenomenon, or perhaps some other phenomenon, but not because of expanding space. So, perhaps a quasar is simply a galaxy who light is more shifted than other galaxies because of close interference to some other galaxy. I think evidence against this would be quasars that appear to be on their own without any other galaxy to distort their light. Although I am going to read one of Arp's books, I think one of his claims is that quasars are ejected from the centers of galaxies, which just on the surface I am skeptical of, but as I said I am going to read some of his books and see what evidence he has, and what other claims he makes.
BIM: I has to be interesting to think about the details of this secret 100 year old technology. For example, what is it that makes people see light in their eyes? Did people just try to beam electrons onto the back of their heads and see if they saw anything? Maybe Pupin and others just tried various ways to make themselves, or subjects see white or something in their eyes by beaming particles onto their heads. However they did it, it clearly works painlessly and clearly has evolved to a very advanced automated millisecond technology. Then another question is, when there is a group of includeds, do they talk openly about hearing thought? I have to guess that they don't because it no doubt taboo to ever verbalize, draw or explain in anyway any of this secret technology. Even when they are sure that there is no excluded around, they probably still don't talk openly about the technology.
Trying to learn about science in Alexandria has led me to find some interesting historians: Eunapius, Ammonianus, Socrates Scholasticus, Rufinus, Theodoret, Strabo, ...reading these translations, makes me more interested in reading more from the ancient historians like Herodotus, Pliny the Elder, Cicero, Senaca, Livy, ... it's amazing that only a finite few writings remain from the past.
This latest bombing of Lebanon by people in Israel and the firing of rockets into Israel by people of Lebanon, is, in my opinion, illegal, brutal, unjustified, idiotic, undemocratic (as far as I know). It appears to me, like this excuse of two captured soldiers was just randomly chosen in order to start violence. Because now look how many people have not been captured, but worse, have been murdered. Two captured people, is not worth all this murder and destruction. It looks similar to Bush jr and these neocons. I wonder if the neocons are somehow waging war on Lebanon by using the people in Israel, because most of the weapons come directly from the USA. You know there is something wrong, when people use missiles, it is an attack against law and order, and I think those who defy the order to murder are obeying the most basic and important laws of earth, and those that chose to murder are violating these basic laws. It's simple to me, we need to shut down violence and destruction, and that starts with identifying who is initiating violence, and working to capture them, but at this stage, we need to focus on the identification, obviously. Violent criminal people claim that those who reject first degree violence are pussies, and cowards, but the truth is that they are simply the law abiding. Those violence lovers would have us believe that there is something wrong with those who simply chose to follow the basic laws of homicide and assault, but infact they simply need to make excuses to violate those basic laws. I think people have to be tough and capture these people, expose them, vote against them, instead of allowing them to continue their lawless violence. That's why me and other expose the secret hearing thought, the 9/11 reichstag fire, thane cesar, frank fiorini, etc. We are making a brave effort towards a lawful and open society where murderers are stopped, identified, captured, jailed, and all democratically.
Using missiles, etc. it's like war, it leads to chaos, it moves away from law and order, civil trials, policing, etc. On one end of the spectrum we have very little violence, a lawful society where individual violent people are quickly identified, captured, have a democratic trial, and are jailed for some time, at the opposite side of the specturm is the chaos of war and the idea of destroying as many people on the other side as quickly as possible. It's unusual, in my opinion, that people would use conventional bombs, but not use nuclear bombs, because of some "code of honor" or decency. If a group is willing to use conventional missiles, it's amazing to me that they somehow can draw an ethical line and chose not to use nuclear weapons...after all they are just randomly blowing up pieces of Bagdad, or some city, etc. A bomb is not a controlled destruction, ball bearings etc go flying everywhere, ofcourse, everytime civilians are killed and injured. We are approaching a time, where no part of earth is free of civilians, and that requires a more precise and advanced method of stopping violence, the kind that is achieved with cameras, walking robots, free information, full democracy, etc.
How evil the Sony Bono copyright extension act passed into law under Clinton in 1998 is, I am calling for ballot measures and bills to reduce copyright for all works to 20 years. And here these people all watch inside our houses and heads, that's why it's so evil, it's just to protect them from the excluded public ever getting to see them for a change and enhance the current ridiculously ironic and unfair system. Patent is 20 years and it is absurd to have the copying of a physical object protected for 20 years, but the copying of data protected for hundreds of years. I can just hear the Sith Lord Darth Sidios saying "yes...soon the copyright law will be extended..." when that law was going to be voted on in the Senate.
It's amazing how much public domain text there is from ancient Greek and Roman writers. I don't doubt that people can basically find English translations of all major Greek and Roman writers on the Internet. A few pages are: ccel.org and tertullian.org. For those of us looking for text from Pagan people critical of Christianity there is the writings of Julian, Eunapius, Ammianus, and others. Even many of the early Christian writers have since been deemed heretical by later Christian decisions. One thing that is sad is that many of the original works used much more, for example sexual language, that is translated as, for example "private parts" by the more restrained modern translators and publishers. It's sad that 2000 years before now they had a more enlightened view of sex and no doubt other phenomena; while our technology has improved greatly, many of our views on sexuality have stayed the same or gone backwards, and the same is true in terms of the tolerance of other religions (although there was plenty of persecution up until and even beyond the founding of the USA and religious freedom).
What we need to do in my view right now is compile a major free video describing a concise telling of evolution, the history of science and the probable future of life and distribute this video for free, in every language throughout the earth. This is the basic, bare essential thing that needs to be done. I am putting together my own version of this, but there is no reason that people could not work together with me on my video, or create their own public domain videos. In addition to this a concise telling of history (beyond the more valuable scientific history), as a beginning guide to new humans, but also as a guide for those already living of all ages.
In a frontline video a person describes osama-bin ladin as saying "we want to kill him and his people", which obviously refers to a common mistaken interpretation of my lyric "let my people go", used in an animated remake of "the Ten Commandments" to relate to Moses. But it raises a basic point, that these people, ... first here, they did 9/11...it wasn't bin ladin, it appears clear that Bush jr, applauded the 9/11 mass murder, that the towers were definitely brought down in controlled demolition...it's very clear to me and it's perfectly logical since they then used that as a reason to spend a trillion on unnecessary, illegal wars. The point I am trying to make is this: in a very simple view, we can see that Bush jr, Cheney, these neocons, this guy who wants to kill people, they are all a band of violent criminals...it just is a very simple fact. These people do first degree murder. They are the Jessie James gang of this century, although many do not know it. They murdered JFK, MLK, RFK and many other people...all those in 9/11, Iraq, etc. they protected and to this very day protect those absolutely first degree murderers. We can listen to their reasons, excuses and justifications...but honestly, let us all agree that these murderers exemplify "first degree murder"...JFK, RFK, the 9/11 families were no threat whatsoever, it's not self defense, there clearly was no consent on their part, it was not to save the life of some other person. The neocons, and many republicans simply are a band of violent criminals of huge proportion. The other side, which I am a part of is for "jailing the violent". I understand using violence in self defence, I understand using violence as a punishment of those who did first degree murder, but ultimately I want people to focus on free information, and jailing those who murder. So I say "jail those who murdered the victims of 9/11". They are people who call for murder, and it's obvious that they are violent criminals in doing that. I want the violence to die down on earth, they keep the lawless violence going...they will use the patent arguments: that our side is "gay" are "wusses", etc. to justify first degree homicide and assault. I have said this before and it should be clear to people the responses: we are simply the "lawful", "law abiding" ...they are pussies when it comes to stopping violence, to defending the laws, to telling the truth". Beyond that, as I said we are just a minority group who is pushing for a society ruled by laws, and democratic laws, fully democratic laws, and maybe we are not even the minority. So I want progress, but this paragraph is just to alert the public that...you know...watch out for people that advocate first degree violence, those are not the people to elect, hire, or support in any way, that's the path to war, to murder, to assult, the opposite of the path we need, which is a lawful, ordered society of popular law. We hear the advocates of first degree violence all the time, and it's shocking to see so many violent criminals, and those who support violent crime. I think we can use cameras to identify, have a so-called "trial", this is a new word to those who prefer simply killing without having to show a pixel of evidence of a crime. We can easily use camera, democracy voting, to maintain the amount of nonviolent society we currently have, to isolate capture try and jail those, presumably in a minority who actually do violence, ie, violate the most basic law of homicide and assault. You know, the United Nations ignores the basic laws of "homicide" and "assault", it's absurd, they go for "crimes against humanity", and "genocide", when really they out to fall into the planetary standard of law, in addition to democratizing their system.
My simple advice is to watch out for:
1) those who do violence, obviously, you would think this goes without saying, but you should see how wonderfully the violent have it on earth, no violent registry, hardly ever arrested for assault, Thane Cesar, Frank Sturgis, killers of Nicole Simpson, Bonnie Bakely, Jam Jay, many many murderers, and 10 times as many assaulters.
2) those who advocate first degree violence, even at the level of "I'd like to kick their ass", the "violent" people
3) those who are anti-gay, constantly say "gay" instead of "ok", etc. it's used against those who speak out against violence, who are for rule by law. the "anti-gay" or something like the "gay is bad" or "everyone is gay" people
4) those who endorse psychiatric methods and theory: the "sane" people, "everybody and thing is insane" people.
5) those who decriminate based on race, that definitely see no gray area when it comes to race...a person is a black, a jew, a white...there is no in between or mix, and a person's race defines them.
6) those who put-down people with physical handicaps...just basically rude low-brow people, it's free speech, but you know, making fun of a person with a missing finger...its brutal and elitist, it's what's inside that is more important.
7) those who put-down people based on their religion, or lack of religion. I don't walk up to people and say "you louzy Jesus cult fanatic", even if I believe that to be true. We should support those who are friendly and tolerant. Ofcourse this is free speech and no body should be tortured or jailed for saying such things, I am simply saying, I'm not a rude person, and I don't want to support rude people. It's a minor issue, because it is covered under free speech, but honestly, who wants to be around rude abrassive people all day? At the same time, we should promote those who support science, and reject those who support religion. As a free society we should be able to support whomever we want, and I think it's to our own advantage to support nonreligious people, nonreligious thinking, evolution etc. religion has been terrible for earth.
8) those gung-ho for arresting people for drugs, those anti-drugs the "drug" people. I think many people can accept that many drugs are bad, and drug addiction is bad, but the focus now should be ending the drug war, the focus now is to stop jailing people that use drugs. we need to focus on nonrestrictive, nonviolent, nonincarceration solutions to drug addiction, which is absolutely the choice each person must make for themselves and their own body.
9) the "anti consensual sex" people, after all there is nothing wrong with consensual sex, and I think we need to move to allow public nudity and sex, it's the next step in our making more logical our laws.
10) This is a minor point but watch out for the antiscientists that use words like "geek" and "nerd" alot, even those who are self-depricating. Somehow being interested in science is viewed as socially unacceptable.
11) how about rude people based on a person's weight? yes, even that is low-brow and annoying. and the same is true for calling people stupid, etc. again all free speech no torture, jailing or fine, but down with the rude idiots is my vote. I can see being honest, saying to somebody, I don't want to have sex because you are too fat, etc. that is fine and honest, but just walking up to somebody and putting them down because they are fat, its just rude and negative.
I think an important part is that whatever in our thoughts is of less importance, although it can't be denied, it's important to verify that the sounds we hear and images we see in people's heads are truly their own, if not they should not be identified as the originator of the audio or video.
We have to judge how people are to all people, not just people like them. For example, a person that is polite among all included may not necessarily be polite when an excluded enters their surroundings, and the same is true for religion, bisexuality, different race...a white person may be polite to other white people, but rude to non-white people. So people should look for this phenomenon.
All of these things, are dangers free people face today. We should not support those violent people, because we might all be their victim some time if unchecked, and you can say the same argument on down the list. Beyond that, it's logical and it doesn't take much thought to realize that this is the future. Perhaps one might say that there is a mess of geek ass pussy druggie hippie pervert insane godless fags kicking the shit out of the god-fearing drug-free sane violent, but I think we ought to move towards the future with progressive language.
what about where people use the word "psychological" we instead try to use the word "neurological"? those in neurology, to my knowledge, have strived to keep neurology a real science, dealing only in real phenomena.
07/28/06
Trader Joes, campus and Stanford, yesterday, a male 40s, manager said "gay". Suspect has a tattoo with chinese character on right arm. No name, address, birthdate, etc. is known by excluded at this point, but a hiring ban is being called on by me for this antigay nazi, and all other anti-gay people. It's not illegal to have anti-gay, racist, pro-violence views, but I certainly never want to contribute to those people. After they watch in unseen illegal [but I certainly vote to make legal, but for all people with less than 10 minor violent offenses, except those who I have already banned for their anti-free info views, etc.] hidden camera networks me researching the women's suffragette movement, the owners of Trader Joe's play "yer a bitch" song. It prompted me to think about what songs if any are supportive of women's rights, for example how it was only in 1920 how women got the right to even vote in the USA, and I can only think of my unpublished "No Such Thing", and "Brainy Girl", but after prolonged thought, I think that while there are no known pro-women's rights songs I am aware of, perhaps there are many female people in music, Janis Joplin, Carole King, Heart, Pat Benetar, etc. Now ofcourse, no doubt, tjs (and others) will "appease" those who question their anti-women anti-gay quick-buck statements with some other songs...why be appeased? I prefer people who have a "backbone" that has a long term support for women's rights, not only when people complain. Do you hate these people that are "appeasers"? They are rude, then sure enough within seconds they appologize....oh everything is ok. No thanks. unlike what must be the vast majority, i have an actual memory and respect for truth. The antigay people should be sent to the bottom and the gay-tolerant to the top obviously.
The key argument in my mind is that finally the poor public is getting to see who is who, who killed who, who drove the car, who paid for it, who covered it up, who lied about what, who are the racists, who are the anti-gay, who are the violent, the anti-science, who are the voyeurs, who did what, who believes what...and it is a wonderful thing. For example, most excluded have no idea that Bush jr and other neocons did 9/11, that Bush's dad was deeply involved in the murder of JFK, that his father was a supporter of Adolf Hitler, etc. We are going to reach a point where we should have been years ago, where finally everybody knows who the anti-gay are, the racists, etc. and everything is out in the open and known. At that point there will still be the anti-gay bloc, the anti-women-rights group, etc. and they will as usual exert their power, but at least the public will know who they are, and know who not to support.
Mothers on Michelson: thin male 30s short kind of curley hair behind juice counter says "gay" name: Tim?. Other taller thin scraggly hair ache? faced guy at register says "gay". Is it me or does TJ and Mothers go out of their way to hire dangerous violent antigay scum bags? Maybe those are the only people who will work for that money, but then, we never see any native american people behind the counter only white people. Shit do I celebrate the check-free self-checkers of Albertsons, and the future of low cost walking robots checking groceries. Mainly, I want to support smart friendy gay-tolerant people not violent rude anti-gay nazistic people. And I am not even gay, I like tits more than most of these anti-gay people do. It's like drugs, I don't use illegal drugs, but I still support the people's right to use recreational drugs. I have never touched a penis, and don't plan to any time soon, but I still vigorously defend the right of any person to consensually touch any body part, in other words I am a full supporter of bi, gay and lesbian rights. I am definitely calling on a hiring ban on those "anti-gay" people, and I don't want to support people who are anti-gay but are polite either, I want to support people who truly believe in equal rights for gay, lesbian and bisexual people, the rest are nazis and backwards idiots who don't deserve a dime, let them be the people that can get government bread and cheese, once such programs are democratically enacted.
When will people be tired of those who thumb their nose at the truth, at democracy, at the laws? I can't believe for example that Nixon and Bush jr were both re-elected, it shows how bad people in the USA are at appraising people.
There is a nice free video with the testimony of William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294&q=rodriguez
Rodriguez really is a hero, its amazing. And even if the 911 commission he and the families of the 911 victims worked so hard to get ignores his testimony, he has testified to the committee of earth, which is the biggest and most important committee. It occured to me as I listened to Rodriguez that, the majority of the public must think that President Bush jr, Cheney, and the spokespeople for all the major networks must be telling the truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth people, like James Fetzer and the scholars for 9/11 Truth group, are lying or simply mistaken. It's just interesting that most of the public must think that; that Bush is honest and telling the truth, and that those people claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, of those they may have ever glimpsed, must be the liars. Because the truth is clear to me that Bush, Cheney and the major media networks are the pathological liars, certainly lying about 9/11 and most everything else, and the people exposing the truth about 9/11 are in fact some of the most honest people of the earth. They must rank highly for honesty, and no doubt concern for punishing those who commit first degree murder. So, it's really an interesting phenomenon that the public appears to believe those who are lying and is skepticle about those telling the shocking truth. They really have it exactly backwards. And I guess maybe that is the nature of true and false, there usually are two sides, and it's a 1 bit decision for a person to decide if they believe something or not. Probably, just be sheer number of liars, money, authority, and duration of the lie, do people believe the lie instead of the truth.
back to the Rodriguez video, here this guy used to eat breakfast with his friends in the skytop restaurant every morning, and of the 70 people that were murdered from there, he was friends with them all. It's just an amazing story of heroism, loss, courage, honesty and integrity. I just saw a video of Professor James Fetzer interviewing Judy Wood who has a phd in mechanical engineering, and makes a wonderful comparison of the WTC towers being hit with a plane with a tree being hit with a bullet and then collapsing to saw dust, the same is true for any comparison we chose to make, the statue of liberty crumbling into a pool of molten iron, a mountain crumbling to dust from a plane crash, not only would they not collapse, but then perhaps more importantly there is no way ever that they would collapse into dust. One other thing with the Rodriguez testimony is that, here it, clear testimony from more than one eye witness that an explosion happened in the WTC1 basement seconds before the plane collided with it. Then the person who is living evidence of this event: Felipe David. How could he suffer such effects in the basement of WTC1 if not for an explosion before the plane hit WTC1? The testimony of Felipe David coincides with that of Rodriguez. According to http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050714.htm 14 witness all tell the same story. Rodriguez tells how the bogus 9/11 Commission, the Warren Commission of this decade, interviewed him behind closed doors, not in full public view...that's how powerful Rodriguez's story is, the evil murderers and their accomplises, the 9/11 Commission had to keep it away from the public, and they ignored it in their 100% corrupt report. They refused to allow a 911 victim family member on the commission. We've got to take back our government, and there is no way anybody should be voting republican, and even among the democrats go for people like Cynthia McKinney, Kucinich and Dean...you know, people that are even remotely on the path back to truth, honesty and a decent lawful government. There is some kind of phenomenon where people keep forgetting all the crimes of the republicans. They forget about JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11 the real killers, certainly of JFK, RFK, and 9/11 have never been punished, they have not yet been exposed and shown to the public, the warren commission memebers have never been charged with accessory to murder after the fact, nor have the 9/11 commission members, we are still living under those murderers, those that fund them, and those that help to protect them from exposure and prosecution.
I was thinking about the difference between the talk of the included versus that of the excluded. Here in the excluded who all was behind the JFK killing, who brought down the WTC buildings, stuff like that. But in the included, they already know all the details (although this remains a question as to how much access they actually all get, and I don't doubt for a second that there is a large amount of video the majority don't get to see, but ofcourse should see, and that is certainly my vote that all those in favor of free info should get to see everything with no priviledges to any person or group), so their conversations are much more, probably, centered on the actual next steps, where the excluded really can only guess at the most beginning questions, the included, knowing probably in great detail all those involved in 9/11, the JFK murder, and a million other murders, must discuss between themselves other issues...obviously they don't waste time guessing things they already know. What would we see if we could see in the camera-thought net? We probably would see many murderers, that appears clear, many murderers that parade around as presidents, generals, and many who are unknown to the public, many in the militaries of various governments, in police, and then non-government murderers. We would learn a great many truths about lies and fraud. Fraudulent elections, those who protect murderers. It's clear that there is some amount of thought that goes into manipulating the excluded. This is how 9/11 was born, and is the root of the Northwoods document, and I think alot of this thinking about manipulating the excluded happened (although perhaps its as old as time), or got a boost with the decision and successful war to keep Pupin's work a secret. So clearly, a large amount of time of includeds is spent trying to figure out how to steer the underinformed sheep herd of the excluded television-newspaper public. On a plus, I think we would see the semblence of fully democratic system. In his unauthorized biography of George Bush, Webster Tarpley has a sentence that I will paraphrase as: it gives the view of wealthy big wig men with cigars in closed rooms that try to oppress the democractic opinion as expressed by the television stations. And there is a double meaning, I think, that Tarpley is trying to reach the excluded by saying that the television networks do keep track of popular opinion (obviously most people would read this sentence as meaning that the television stations typically show this image of groups of men smoking cigars in closed rooms, but clearly it can be interpretted, with a little knowledge that thought can be heard, and there are many survalience cameras, to mean what I suggest that the tv station do track popular opinion, no doubt by analyzing the sounds of people's thoughts), but again that this popular opinion is clearly rejected by those wealthy elites who control the government (and perhaps major industry...basically who own everything). Then there has to be some amount of focus on those who administer the technology. Each major city must have it's own network of survalience cameras, if you are a democrat, and you live in San Diego or Orange county, you probably will be excluded from seeing, because those people that administer the secret network are probably all republicans hostile to democrats and liberals. If you are a conservative in a liberal city, you might be excluded for the opposite reason. But one terrible potential truth is that many and perhaps even all of these networks are controlled by conservatives, and that even those who are remotely liberal are basically conservatives or middle. I'm not sure, I think there are only a few exceptions, like maybe San Francisco, perhaps Michigan or Maine. I think perhaps basically because these networks appear to be run, in large part by people in the USA (or whatever your nation is) government, and that means police and military. And when we are talking about those who are hired into police and military, generally we are talking about conservative people who are willing to wear a uniform, whose focus is on physical fitness, not alot of education many times, many times having a violent nature, and so you can see a real trajedy here. Imagine when a liberal non government group wants to put in their cameras...there must be conflicts. Hopefully, there are non-government groups who are allowed to put in cameras, it seems logical because it would take a massive effort to stop them, but then they might be able to persecute people like the person from Yukos in Russia, if you don't have a law abiding government, it's easy to see how a person like that for a person like the Yukos person, it doesn't matter how much money they have, they can still be the victim of dishonest and corrupted people in the government. It really is a battle, you know, the stop violent want the violent in jail, and the violent want the stop violent in jail or murdered. So it's really a constant battle, but I know many of us lawful people would feel alot better under a fully and constant democratic system. I go against the idea of a revolution every 4 years, or 1 measeally one vote every 4 or 6 years. A more steady system is a constantly public voting democracy, where popular opinion certainly changes over the years, but not radically overnight. Even though, yes, I would like a radically liberal president that forces unpopular enlightenment (but then they would only create a fully democratic system), and I would say by now, the USA is very overdue for a radical liberal president after decades of radical republicans, but a better more fair system is constant majority public rule over all government decisions. As an interesting afterthought, it seems clear that the laws of free market, free trade, jailing only the violent mainly, would allow people using money to buy votes, and I don't doubt this is already happening (but only for the included, and indirectly through big money ads). But I don't doubt we will see rule by those with the most money even in a full democracy for many years, and it's something that people don't ever talk about. It's a natural corruption to full democracy, but then, everything is full democracy and freeflow, if a person truly believes something no amount of money, or only a huge amount of money will change their vote.
it's foolish for me to continue on wasting my time in this forum, not only because many can hear my thoughts (and there is a huge set of simply thought only comments,and other comments from me that do not get into this document, in addition video reaches more people. So, I need to focus on my project, and away from reaching out to the public. It's something that is not in my nature, but I have to in order to get this project ULSF done.
07-14-2006
7/10
I don't think we should ever support any person that is for any kind of restriction (mainly any punishment of prison or hospital) on consensual sexuality in any way, and the same is true for a person that believes in any kind of restriction (again mainly any punishment of prison or hospital) on nonviolent speech and information. This applies to those who subscribe to pseudosciences like psychology (in particular...just seeing how this is used as an excuse to defame fine people and truthful theories is common and terrible), astrology, tarot cards, etc...people that follow these random and illogical beliefs are dangerous people to put into positions of power, because then they promptly start applying those inaccurate theories onto those underneath them, people follow a "lucky goose", or a "lucky star alignment", murderers are hailed as heros, falsehoods are held up as unquestionable truths, etc. So, as harmless and common as it seems...voting and supporting those who embrace the pseudoscience theories of psychology, etc. is opening a door for very bad, inaccurate, underinformed, and/or random judgement to be inflicted on innocent people persecuted and stigmatized for false, illogical or miniscule reasons while the true criminals, the violent go unseen as do the liars.
7/11
I saw "The Case for Conspiracy" by Robert Groden and it really is good. You owe it to yourself to take a look at this DVD, and it only costs $7 or $8 dollars at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000DC14T/ref=olp_product_details/104-4457624-4910361?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130
This video, made back in 1992, has all the known videos on the JFK murder and analyzes them in more detail than I have seen. Notable are:
1) shocking evidence tampering by the Warren Commision:
the autopsy photos were outrageously altered, all doctors verify on video that the photos of the back of JFK's head is absolutely not the way they remember, and that the photos produced by the Warren Commision (or perhaps the US Military autopsy...where clearly some evil corruption took place) are completely fraudulent.
2) an image of a person in the top left most window of the school book depository, which is all one room, evidence that if Oswald was there, he would have had to have known about this other person. But this image, I think adds to my doubt about Oswald even being involved...I am basically going on the included statement "frankly", meaning that Frank Fiorini and Lee Oswald were the main shooters, but perhaps Oswald was involved but there were others with him. Clearly, JFK was hit in the back so somebody was there.
3) a simple fact that I had never heard of thought about until seeing this video that...if Oswald was on JFK's right, how could a wound on JFK's head exit on the front right side?
4) video of the so-called "dog-man", or perhaps behind the fence moving from Nix's film
5) video of the grassy knoll person from Zupruter's film. I never knew that Zupruter actually filmed part of (presumably) E Howard Hunt's head (the narrator says the classic "hard hat" for "Howard Hunt", it's some kind of railroad worker hat).
The tampering and manipulation of the photographic evidence, is shown clearly in this video, and in no other videos I have seen yet, and it is really amazing to see. Some people, still unknown, but obviously very evil, had the photos changed to move the bullet-hole in the back of JFK up to his neck. It's the kind of stuff that Stalin did in the Communist Soviet Union...how he had Trotsky erased out of old photos...it's pure fascism. One of the younger doctors makes an interesting statement...saying .."this bone...this bone...the bund..." and I think back to the US Nazis, the "Bund" and wonder how much Prescott Bush was involved, and JP Morgan, and Herriman, etc. with the Bund...clearly they were supporters of the Nazi ideal, and funded Hitler by way of Fritz Thyssen and Union Bank, and the reporter, John Buchanan, http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htmwho uncovered all this described how they wanted to implement a fascist style government in the USA but failed...until 1963, which I honestly believe is when that kind of planning was successful through the conservatives, racists and nazis in the US CIA and military.
Next on my shopping list is:
JFK: Assassination Files (2002)
The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History (1998)
7/12
Another point about the JFK DVD: "The Case for Conspiracy" by Robert Groden. They show the colorized Mormon photo, but only Arnold (the army filmer) and Fiorini are shown. I didn't realize that E Howard Hunt was actually filmed by Zupruter...! Just Hunt's head was captured on film. That's amazing, the narrator says wearing a "hard hat", which must refer to the two H's in "Howard Hunt", it definitely looks like the railroad hat hunt wore. And I noticed in a separate photo that...it appears...although the photo is difficult to see detail in that Arnold was the first behind the fence, maybe as a look-out and signaler, then Fiorini walked up, and Hunt was the last to get there, and then only just before the shooting. But that is only from 2 photos, ... it just looks like Hunt is off in the distance and Fiorini is a little behind Arnold who was captured in a number of photos as "the black dog man". It appears that the man captured in most photos is Gordon Arnold, since his image aligns with the colorized photo of the 3 people. I dunno, it looks like the person is holding a gun of some kind, and so that would be Fiorini in the police uniform. So, as an excluded guessing from 2 photos, I would say that Gordon Arnold was the lookout from the US army republican rouge faction, who signaled Fiorini to come over, or was simply stationed with the camera long before Fiorini and Hunt arrive. Next, just seconds before the murder, Fiorini arrives followed a few feet behind by Hunt. All 3 leave, perhaps even running? after the murder. Since Hunt is caught on the camera, maybe he was the last to leave? It's interesting to think about what happened to Arnold...no doubt he had to run too with his camera. I still think the public ought to pass a law requiring the Army to produce the film, and to release to the public all films in their possession, including inspections of all bases. It's an interesting phenomenon for unarmed civilians to be the supervisors of armed employees in the military. It really depends on the trust of the agreement of supervisor and employee that is a democratic government, ruled by the public, civilians, in command over those employed and armed in the military. And it's a phenomenon because, here unarmed people are supervising armed people...even de-employing them...the person without a weapon is de-employing the person with a weapon and you know...that's proof of the power of the democratic system, but ofcourse there is always the risk that those people with weapons would turn on their unarmed supervisors, and ofcourse the unarmed supervisors would have very little choice, but to use the portion of armed people that do respond to their instructions to de-employ, disarm those who reject the democratic orders (someday when orders are democratically supported) and de-employ, disarm, contain and capture those armed people that have violated a violent law.
I guess there is not going to be any arrest, trial or jail for that Chechnian guy that was murdered, perhaps he murdered innocent people but without eye images and video I can only speculate, they could have studied what the deal with his beard was had they arrested him and actually had a lawful trial, etc.
7/13/06
That's a complicated situation in Israel with the 2 hostages. One thing that seems clear to me, is that a person should not blame a nation of people for the crimes of a few people of that nation, and I advocate nonviolent solutions to these nonviolent problems. I think people need to use free-info, the camera networks, etc. to identify where these 2 people are being held against there will (I mean...there are millions of people being held against their will around the planet, and answers to this common problem are not new by now, the arrests of drug users, prostitutes, POWs, there are millions of people currently held against their will, and violence and secrecy (or prayer for that matter) are not going to be successful answers). I think people should think about some kind of non-violent way of identifying where the people are, and working to secure their release as peacefully as possible, basically, going there to get those people, identifying and jailing any people that do violence on the way. Maybe working trades of nonviolent people potentially jailed in Israel, what about capturing and holding two of their soldiers? I am against this idea, but I'm just throwing out ideas of nonviolent answers...my advice is to work towards the release of these two people, and the strengthening of the bonds between both people of the interest in a common law which seeks to stop violence above all else, and secondly to free the lawful being jailed. This is a classic confrontation that is seen in 9/11, in the Iraq invasion, in basically almost all modern conflicts: those trying to enforce the laws against violence ...trying to capture some killers...(and in this case, to free nonviolent lawful people contained against their will) versus those who feel that they are only defending their property against trespassing and theft. In theory, people trying to capture a violent person, in particular a murderer of a human, should be free to walk into some nation, nonviolently to get that person where they may be on earth, but the reality is much different...for example, Chinese citizens coming into the USA, without permission, to arrest violent people who clearly have murdered with plenty of freely available public video...even if perhaps it is just and fair..obviously you can see that would cause large scale violence, and the same is true for people in the US going into China, or some other nation to arrest those who murdered other people...you can see, currently this approach can not get off the ground. But, I think as the future continues, we will see the stop violent people gain an overwhelming majority, total free info will make the truth very plain to see, and the lawful, nonviolent, and as I said the stop violent majority will start to exert their voting power and authority to actually capture violent people in any nation on earth and nonviolently. Full democracy will clear up the laws, and place the laws against violence clearly at the top. It's a hopeful vision. Ofcourse, jailing nonviolent humans, although nonviolent, is illegal and a bad idea, but at the same time, murdering innocent people who happen to live in the same nation as those who have illegally jailed a lawful citizen of the planet is worse. This is similar to the US hostages in Iran that lowered Jimmy Carter's popularity. I think then, looking back, I probably would vote to nonviolently occupy some nation like that and release the people nonviolently, identifying, capturing video evidence of, any humans that violate violent law, capturing, democratic sentences, and jailing any person that does violence. I think that's the best answer, but let's see what everybody else votes for. 7/14/06 Adding more comments: I think there is the case where, for example some religious mercenaries, or intrepid adventurers from democratic nations go into a dangerous nation and are jailed, etc. and that is perhaps different from the Iran hostage since Iran had just changed and the hostages were larger in number. For a single person or a few democratic citizens to be held hostage in a dangerous non-democratic nation...is it justified to use planetary democracy people to occupy the nation and work to free those few people? I kind of lean to the no side, because mainly I can see working to free unfairly imprisoned people in the democratic nations themselves first. There are many unfairly jailed people here in the USA and other so-called democratic, more-like democratic wanna-be nations, democracy afficionado nations. I think we need to use cameras and free info, and full democracy to make a planet free of violence, and free of unfairly imprisoned people. Being excluded, like many millions of people, from the secret camera and thought Pupin nets, I can only imagine what is going on behind the scenes...the classic modern example is look how Bush jr took over the US, out went peace, in came 9/11, which they obviously perpetrated, and the state of constant terrorist fear. And so as applied to Israel, I wonder if pro-violent people didn't just simply use a microwave beam to give Sharon a stroke and then proceed to start up violent war...we excluded can only guess what evil is being done by those in the Pupin network with access to our houses and thoughts...it's kind of unusual that there would be two people captured...where was everybody when this was happening? Wasn't there an effort to stop the capturing and removing of the people? Wasn't anybody aware that there was an attempted abduction going on? Like 9/11 it's a convenient excuse to wage war, and so probably many excluded like me have some suspicion, ofcourse most of the major media news is paid for a corrupt to the denied DNA. And then this raises another point that, for many of these problems, the slowness of those people in power is the problem...why didn't they see the rise of Khomani and the danger in Iran early enough to order people out until things became less dangerous? Perhaps it's the laxidazical view on violence that is so shockingly a part of this century. People are tolerant of violence, calling anybody that objects, gay and pussies (not simply the "law abiding"), and then they turn around with violent antipleasure ferver and sentence never violent people for hundreds of years for drugs and sexuality. They appear to fail to, for example, stop a murder, and as is the case for JFK and RFK we have been waiting 40 years for these cases to actually be solved and the truth explained.
On the radio I overheard (I don't listen to radio or television...the views expressed are far too brutal for my likes)...what to do "if your child is gay", and I thought...what about what to do if your child is "violent"?! That must be difficult. Besides the hassle of having to worry about them being jailed sometime and how that might effect their career, what about the fear of them actually assaulting, or murdering you? maybe in a fit of anger. What are the answers to a violent child? Do you try to lock them in their room or press charges? Try to work with a judge or police person to just jail them for a day? Is counciling effective, or does that make matters worse? How about if your child is "antisexual"? What do you do then? The child just shows a revulsion for sexuality...what can you do to change that? What if your child is a "homophobe"? or "racist"? What can you do, what should you do?
I saw this beautiful female with really nice big chest, wow I could live the rest of my life with a female like that, she is maybe late 30s or early 40s and still just hot hot hot! If you're out there please contact me and let's get together. It still makes my heart flutter just thinking about my memory of this female. Just after that a person in the Irvine police pulled me over on campus near California on 7/12/06 around 5pm for "making an illegal left turn out of a gas station". This was an asian male in his 30s or maybe early 40s with the name R. Chiu, and badge number 936. Chiu left his calling card by saying "evil", obviously I have heard of them, they help to keep the 9/11 mass murder secret and protect murderers like Thane Cesar, in addition to lying about how they secretly watch people in their houses. Chiu then said even crossing a "double-yellow" is illegal. Is that a plea for racial purity? against racial mixing? I would not doubt it. Irvine if filled with inbread racist fascist violent yokels. I vote against the sign there at the USA gas station on California and campus, and also against the no left turn on the Ralph's exit on Harvard. It's overly restrictive to make such trivial regulations. People generally will perform safely when turning out of roads. Next these people will ban u-turns. I remember reading that a U-turn can be done even over double yellow lines, but perhaps I am wrong. In NY it's legal, Oregon doesn't allow U-turns...they have already reached that fascist no-uturn state. I think Chiu basically stalked me, waited for me, at the instruction of other evil.gov and evil.org people (they don't own any actual web pages, they use the secret camera microphone net all the taxpayers denied this right paid and pay for), who knew I usually make this illegal turn. The goal for these evil people is to try and get a 5150 (72 hour jailing in a psychiatric hospital), violent conflict, arrest, argument, etc. I am a person who believes strongly in jailing the violent, in returning stolent property, in making those who damage property responsible for paying for the damage. And so, I want to record my votes: I vote that the following humans should be banned for life from 1) ever being hired 2) ever seeing and/or hearing inside houses, condos, apartments, and heads:
1) R. Chiu in Irvine police
2) two other people in the Irvine police that were stalking minutes later
3) Irvine Police Chief Maggard
4) All people who supported this traffic stop
These people are simply too irresponsible and dangerous to have in the camera-thought net, in government police, ... you can see how they are abusing this secret technology in petty destructive ways. For example Maggard and these people in the Irvine police, see who stole my 3 bikes, obviously simple street cameras show it all, but they have mind cameras no less at their disposal, they see who smashed my window and stole my $100 garage door opener, it's simple, again if simple street cameras don't show it, the mind images certainly do...they know it all, all about Thane Cesar, Frank Fiorini, 9/11..the "Tom E" and "Andrew O" who are mass murderers free...because ofcourse, murder is fine...in the camera network as long as it's neocons against innocent people. So does Maggard and these government police arrest the window smasher bike stealers? no, ofcourse not, my 3 bikes have not been returned to me, nor has the equivalent of cash, and I paid to replace my window for $170 and the garage opener $100 out of my own pocket. No infomation of any kind of arrest, capture, no info of any kind has been sent to me. I defintely support voting Maggard out, if the Irvine police chief is voted on, he is a petty do nothing person who allows people to place dead rats, for included to stalk the excluded, who uses his authority to harrass political opposites, ... and obviously has not returned one stolen bike, one stolen motorcycle, has not made one vandal pay for their damage...the guy is a do-nothing and do-worse and it's long past due to dump Maggard and get an educated enlighted police chief in Irvine who is going to open up the info for the public, so the citizens of Irvine get to see the street cams, so that stolen bikes are returned, violent people captured, stopped and jailed. My advice for people is stay away from people in police...it's only asking for trouble, go out of your way to avoid them, and generally on the road, it's better not to do any thing remotely unusual. Even if legal, don't make a u-turn over double yellow lines, and try to avoid u-turns all together. The time for the 9/11 murderers, those who protect Thane Cesar and Frank Fiorini is coming, for those liars in the Pupin net...it's coming. They probably laugh and doubt it, but I feel strongly that long-overdue justice for those who have murdered innocent people in the USA is coming, and even punishment for those who protect them, and who have lied a million lies. And it's not just talk, I think the public can do it, we deserve justice, we have a job to do, and it's not filling the prisons full of nonviolent people...it's catching Thane Cesar, the other Frank Fiorinis out there, those who killed this family in Garden Grove, the killers of Bonnie Bakely, Jam Jay, Nicole Simpson...the public has a real job to do, and I think eventually the public is going to pull their head out of their asses and start doing this long overdue job. I vote for free wireless Internet in Irvine too, then we can put in wireless webcams into our cars to do the police's job for them while they try to stop us or slow us down as usual.
8/11/06 as an update, I want to mention that I did not get any ticket, which I appreciate. Maybe for those things, an email is all that is needed to inform a person that wants to obey all the traffic laws, but may not necessary know how they violated a law.
It's interesting that there may be large amounts of video and audio in various frequencies out there waiting for average people to detect. Many of these video streams might be FM just like television (as far as I know...it's not something that people are explaining to the public, for evil reasons obviously...to keep the technological advantage for their evil purposes and leave the public behind to victimize with the technology). No doubt many of these video signals are wireless (in photons), are sent either in a sphere (as is television and radio to my knowledge) or directed in some direction. So it's either frequency modulated, pulse code modulated, pulse width modulated, or like wireless networks, modulated over a variety of frequencies. There are audio signals and video signals. From there, probably most of the signals are scrambled with complex encoding that is probably, like Home Box Office, Cinemax (although these are wired signals), etc. perhaps difficult to decode.
Check out this chart at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
It shows that the USA is the most sexually repressed of all nations except the arab nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG
shows that most of Africa, the Arab nations and India are more anti-homosexuality than even the USA, I know it's hard to believe. I have to wonder what the deal with Guyana is?
I am reading this good book by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush". Tarpley is a smart guy, he is involved in the truth about 9/11 group too.
A person or group of people employed at UC Irvine blocked my wireless card access, and I certainly vote for a hiring, seeing inside houses and heads ban on them, and all involved. But then this is the era of Heil Bush! or Heil God! how about Heil Jesus! What a terrible group of secret evil doers, but they have to know they are going to be seen soon, and all their dirty secrets are going to come spilling out, and all their lies, years and years of malicious lies and secret violence.
07-10-2006
7/5
What I want to see and maybe will someday implement is a massive database people log into to:
1) vote (yes,no)
2) submit new sentences for voting
each person logs on, is identified by:
ip, name, address, ss#?
can check votes to verify correctness, report any errors, votes are public
Basically tracks what should be laws, and what should not be laws, but can simply track popular opinions too.
truedemocracy.org or fulldemocracy.org
Lists of Most Popular Sentences (most voted on)
List of Most Approved Sentences (most voted yes on)
List of Most Rejected Sentences (most voted no on)
Could be as simple as:
"Person A should be locked in prison until dead."
"Person B should be freed from prison."
"Alcohol must be legal."
"Movie A is a good movie."
"Vegtables are my favorite food."
"Person A is the smartest person on earth."
"Person A is the most beautiful person on earth."
etc.
7/6
If we look at the history of Communist nations we see that basically Communism always appears to be reduced to a monarchy. Many times the monarchy turns into a dyansty of one family. And the principle is clear: most people do not like to give up power. It's an amazing phenomenon when a leader steps down, which happens in the USA every 4 or 8 years, and other developed nations in a similar interval. That's why even a training-wheel representative democracy like that in the USA and most other nations, and a stone wheel that moves inches every decade at that, is better than Communism, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Capitalism (a system strictly run by money), any other available system. Look at the Communist nations, it's rare for the leader to step down. In Russia: Stalin was replaced only upon death, Kruschev lasted for 11 years and then was jailed for 7, Brezhnev ruled 18 years until death, only with Gorbechev and Yeltsin did the system change from a monarchical system where leaders step down before death or arrest. North Korea, another so-called "Communism", although the nations name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Clearly in North Korea it has been a monarchy for a long time, and here we see, under Communism, basically a family dynasty with Kim Jong-il replacing Kim Il-sung. In Cuba, a typical Communist nation, we see Fidel Castro as monarch since his violent take-over 50 years ago. Whoever replaces Castro will probably presume the same position as monarch of Cuba for life. Ho-Chi Min ruled over North Vietnam until death, again clearly a monarchy type of structure where the leader never steps down or changes jobs. This leader for life doesn't reflect the natural trends of democracy. No one person can remain "most popular" for 20 or 30 years in my experience, from time to time there is always somebody else who gains in popularity over the former most popularly elected person. There are only 2 other Communist nations the remain on earth to my knowledge (clearly Communism and the philosophy of Karl Marx it's founder are fading to the past), and they are Laos and China. Laos has elections (although secretly, but then our votes are kept secret in the USA too, which I am opposed to, I am opposed to secrecy of any kind) every 5 years, so Laos appears to be slowly transitioning to a democratic structure. In the People's Republic of China (PRC), Mao Zedong was basically the single ruler who ruled until death, again, exactly like a monarchy. Like Cuba and other Communist nations, China has a one-party system. Since Mao there have been a number of leaders of China. Something interesting happened in 1982. At that time, the position of Chairman, changed to being an elected position, every 5 years, with a 2 term limit. It is interesting that the translation changed from "Chairman" to "President", while the Chinese word for the position remains as "Chairman" ("Zhuxi" ZUsE?). The position of General Secretary still exists. Clearly there is political change there happening... Zhao Ziyang, leader for 2 years (1987-89), was sympathetic to the Tienanmen Square protests and so was forced out of power and spent the last 15 years of his life under house arrest. Its difficult to figure out who has more power the President or Secretary, I would think that the President since the title is still "Chairman" (which had more power under Mao, but changed in 1982), but wikipedia indicates that the Secretary is the highest ranking position in the Chinese Communist party since the removal of the chairman position in 1982. But it's confusing because, for example, Jiang Zemin was both President and Secretary from 1993-2002. Perhaps the Secretary represents the older conservative view, and President the newer liberal view? Wikipedia has: "Also since the 1990s, it has been general practice for the President to also serve as the General Secretary of the Communist Party. It is key for the general secretary to seal his power by adding the presidency to his powerful collection of titles. This effectively removes any power tension between the top communist leader and the Head of State. The relationship between the President and the military is a bit more murky. The potential for conflict is lessened when, as during the Jiang era, the President is also chairman of the state Central Military Commission. " It's interesting, China has basically three major positions: so-called "President", "Secretary", and "Head of Military", where in the USA and other nations, the President is even more like a monarch even having authority over the military. There is a large amount of "representative" democracy within the existing Chinese government system. People vote directly on the members (although not decisions) of the local congress, who vote for members of the larger layer of Congress...I am not sure how many congresses there are, but it appears that there are a number of layers from local to national, all elected to 5 year terms. We have to understand in the context of history that every major nation was ruled by kings and/or queens for thousands and thousands of years...the Shang, Chin, and Han dynasties in China, the Pharoahs and Ptolemies in Egypt, the kings of Europe, India, Russia, Africa, Persia/Arabia, etc. Technology and fairness will hopefully make most nations on earth move toward a system of recording the public's votes constantly on all decisions. To me, full democracy is the inevitable outcome of all governments, but it's interesting to see how the path to that future happens. In the full democracy system, the majority vote is what ultimately decides all decisions and policies, from what is and is not a law to who is hired in the military and police, to who is jailed and who is freed, etc. It's clear that even the maintaining, counting and storing of the public's votes will probably be voted on, in order that the most people possible can feel comfortable and trust the vote counting. Let's hope that the majority chose to focus on stopping violence, stopping torture, stopping imprisonment of people who use drugs or are involved in prostitution, that they vote for total freedom of all information, for science, evolution, and continue to vote for full and constant democracy.
7/7
With the Mexican election, it raises a point in my mind that it's interesting to see so many close elections, and the chances in my mind, are against close elections. Because the chance of being .5% difference is less than there being a 1% difference, 2%, etc... It seems rare that an election would ever be so close. And so when there is a close election, to me it suggests the possibility of one group only corrupting as much as they need to. In other words, they only have to buy up as many votes as they need without the need to buy a 5% margin for example...they only have to buy up to a win just 1% over their opponent that got more votes. Only in ex-Soviet states do they greatly exaggerate elections, saying "ya we won by 900%" (and so you know there is something wrong because 900% is impossible). For Bush jr in the USA in 2000 all they needed to do was to corrupt the votes of a few states, and just enough to win the electoral college vote. Why spend extra money to corrupt and buy votes when you don't need to? So that is what I think happened with Mexico, Calderon with US neocon funding help, bought up just enough votes to win over Obrador who actually probably got many more votes than Calderon. It's an amazing thing, in the current "pseudo-democracy", the way most governments are now that are representative democracies, because they only have to focus their money on that one or two days every 4 or 5 years, that one day when there is an election. In the future, I can see people voting anytime they want in a constant vote, allowed to change their vote as often as they want, and all done through computers (even with paper it could be done, although more slowly). So, on that one day, it's like a honeymoon or something...the parties must spend a large amount of money, because that is where the actual decision is. And it is documented that the Mexican election was corrupt as recently as the 1980s, that is a public fact that I read recently. All the sudden the electoral process in Mexico was made uncorrupt? In particular with the brain imaging machines, you know there has to be some foul-play there, would the elites take advantage of their technological supremecy over the excluded? Ofcourse, they would and do. As an aside, the excluded are viewed more or less like cavepeople...unable to affect any real change, barefoot, uneducated hill people...far removed from the elite society of those who routinely see and hear thought, those that get video beamed in front of their eyes. But I think everybody knows that justice is coming, and it has to be an unsettling feeling for those included to see the excluded publically talking about what the included life is like, exposing all their lies and their lives of lies and secrecy.
In making this ULSF (now ULSFHS) project, I am realizing more than ever just how fragile life on earth is. Here we have depended on a regular motion around the massive star for billions of years. If ever that orbit should change, for whatever reason, the inhabitants of the warm blue planet earth could find themselves thrown far to the back of the star system, in the icy cold regions of Pluto or beyond. Alternatively, the earth could be sent into the sun by the tiniest disruption to our long evolved orbit. The earth is so tiny, and all of our civilization is located on earth, we have no outposts where life could start again, no other moons or planets to rekindle the growth of humans, plants and other species. We are stuck with everything on this tiny rock, absolutely dependent on it's regular daily motion, on the atmosphere, and the water. The inside of the earth could come floating out onto the surface and cover the planet in molten rock at any time and we would be done; a 4 billion year evolution gone in an afternoon. A virus, bacteria, or fungi that is instantly deadly to humans, transmited through air, with no cure could easily end humans, and perhaps all mammals. This is why it's so important to get the story of the future out to the inhabitants of earth, to inform and inspire them to reach the next step in lowering this extremely high risk of complete destruction, and securing life throughout the star system, which is clearly the inevitable course of all life in the universe. We need to drop the religion, just like that, the antisexuality, the drug hysteria, to identify, capture and jail the first degree violent, we need to embrace science, to promote free info, to protect the air and water, promote full democracy, make videos that explain evolution and the history of science, we need to build robots, rocket planes, get into orbit, get to the moon...we need to get going as soon as possible. Hopefully, future people will look back at this time, and recognize the tremendous risk their ancestors survived, even despite many people's best efforts to destroy or postpone that inevitable future.
how did protists and fish get to fresh water lakes and rivers?
1) rivers from oceans reach lake on continents. As time continues land deforms to send fish in river to other freshwater lakes. Since water is a liquid and so movable, it seems possible that constant land deformations could send fish from the ocean to fresh water lakes (mostly formed from rain) in the center of continents.
2) attached to land moving arthropods
3) through evaporation
ex: can protists be evaporated with water? or does evaporation filter out some or all protists? This can simply be tested with a container of water with an angled drip surface, the collected water from the evaporated water can then be searched for protists. And I would try the same thing for fish sperm, ova, zygotes (these I doubt can be transported through the air).
there are really the two kinds of people, the included many of whom want to keep information a secret to increase their power over the excluded and from fear of being punished for their violations of privacy, and the excluded, many of whom, are anti-free information because they want to protect their privacy, unaware that privacy is now a myth because of the phenomenal albeit mostly secret growth of camera technology since the early 1900s. So, for the most part either the person next to me is an included and their anti-information view is evil, or they are excluded and their anti-information view is stupid. It's really a parting of the sea, on one half those who don't want to get caught and love the system of seeing inside people's apartments and heads, and on the other half those who walk around with their head buried in the ground not the tiniest bit aware of the importance of free information.
In particular with the excluded, they appear to me have absolutely not the tiniest notion that millions of people are routinely watching their thoughts, and watching their bodies in their houses...not the tiniest remotest notion that such a thing could be big business enjoyed by million of people.
in my song "everything to hide", in the lyric "everybody shit, nobody tell", the word "shit" should be taken as an adjective...as in everybody has poor ethics, morals, values, sense of fairness, etc....not as a noun, that everybody is actual fecies. As an aside, I think that we humans, and fecies itself are both made of photons. But beyond that, keeping the Pupin advances in science is unethical, is crappy...watching people without their permission is a shitty thing to do. The excluded haven't become involved in that kind of unethical decision, so I can't place a similar criticism on them, although no doubt they have numerous other unethical decisions. It's easy for the included to stand over the excluded and take a fine-tooth comb over the excluded' life, in particular since the excluded never get the opportunity to peruse the included people's lives. But beyond that, many of those included people knew never to, for example steal, because they knew everybody could see them, where the excluded never had such an advantage, but the included never, in my experience, appear to think about such things...and really the main point of importance is how cameras and a massive camera system...a public system available to all, not some evil criminal elites who parade around as perfect god-humans, but for all people...how wonderful a thing it is, so people know from day one that it's not worth stealing, assaulting, lying, etc...because like so many included they know they are going to be seen (but ofcourse...included lying and stealing from excluded happens all the time, because within the included, there is very little law and order...and that is why you can have a 9/11/01 for example, and the excluded are murdered and all lied to. Similar things no doubt happen with included spouses who have extramarrital sex (although an excluded married to an included is no doubt a rare phenomenon), with stolen property, with violence, etc...look at how the many murders: of Nicole Simpson, Bonnie Lee Bakely, Jam Jay...I can't imagine those people were all excluded, but maybe they were, no doubt their murderers were included, since never convicted.
I think possible views for democrats on the drug war, instead of absolutely in favor of current approach, they should focus on the brutality and callous punishments typically recommended by conservatives. Saying that drugs should be illegal, but that locking nonviolent drug users in jail for longer times than violent criminals is wrong, and that a more humaine, less cruel approach is to try, like alcohol, to help people break the addicition to drugs. They should mention how the current approach in the USA is resulting in the most people in prison of any nation, and these are for the most part nonviolent people. I think a democrat can takje a tough stance on drugs, for example when asked, as Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, and Ross Perot were, if they would legalize drugs, all three simply saying no, and expanding about the evils of drugs. An alternative would be for a democrat to say...yes I am for making drugs illegal, even though 72% of people in the USA think marijuana should be decriminalized, and ofcourse, a good democratic president should enforce the opinion of the majority, but I want to add that I think that the typically crude and cruel conservative approach has been to lock people addicted to drugs into prisons for years, in many instances for much more time than violent offenders is probably not the best approach to stopping drug use and addiction, or in any event, I think that this filling of the prisons is a brutal answer. I think we need to focus on jailing violent criminals, and exploring with the public a new approach to punishing those people who choose to use illegal drugs. In any event, I empathize with those millions of people who have loved ones stuck in prison for years and years who were caught with drugs, and I know how people's lives are ruined by this, and I honestly think that locking people who simply made a mistake and got addicted to drugs in prison for years and years, while violent criminals get out of jail in a few months is not the best approach, but ultimately, we need to listen to the majority of the US people, and enforce their will, no matter how brutal, underinformed, backwards and idiotic it may be...otherwise we would be parading around like a bunch of monarchs enforcing our own elite minority personal views, as is currently the standard course as pertains to this drug war. It's like the prohibition of alcohol, how terrible was that? I think the key to the liberal approach to the drug war is to focus on the prison issue, not the issue of drugs being bad, and comparing the drug war to prohibition of alcohol. Because it's true that most people can agree that drug addiction and illegal drug use is probably bad...at least the argument that drug use is a personal choice, is a nonviolent crime, that violence is worse, will probably not reach dumb people which hold the vast majority, but by accepting their main feeling of "drug bad", but then saying...ok so drug bad, but where do we go from there?...when the inevitable happens, somebody is caught with drugs...the current approach of locking those people in jail is too brutal, and they should not be in jail for more time than people arrested for violent crime (here is where to pull in all those arguments, about right to body, etc....for the far far far future when people are educated and logical).
laws: arrests for drug addiction (or drug use), only last for short times, to see if the addiction can be broken, but longer times, with repeated arrests, since addiction appears not to be broken. Not 10 years for first offense, where the person may lose addiction and decide to never use addictive drug again in only a few days.
7/10
possible dual nature of atom intrigues me
Clearly, and perhaps others must have noticed this before me, but the pattern on the periodic table does not appear to represent a spherical shape, because the inert gases have protons: 2 +8 +8 +18 +18 +32 +32 (although this last atom has not been made, but at least the 2 +8 and +18 divisions are clear). This clearly shows a dual nature, in my opinion. A spherical atom would be more like 2 +8 +18 +32 +64. Before I said that it's difficult to imagine an atom built around 2 particles that accumulates more particles on one of the base particles until 8 and then on the other particle. More likely, Neon would represent a stable configuration of 1+4 and 1+4, each of the 2 base particles being stable with 4 added particles, and then stable again with 8 particles 1+8 1+8 (or perhaps 1+4+4 1+4+4?). Perhaps one of the base particles is positive and the other negative (although I have doubts about this, but it is a creative interesting theory). It's definitely clear that atom have a dual or two part nature, but beyond that I don't have any other ideas relating to this.
07-03-2006
Some person smashed the front side driver's window on my 1997 Ford Escort wagon while it was parked in the Watermarke Condos parking garage. Nothing was taken and the car appears to be otherwise undamaged. I have been talking for a long time about getting some kind of low cost wireless camera that uses a wireless Internet connection to transmit images to my web host. Like so many things a simple 2 or 4 low cost cameras that archive to a computer maintained by a security person is all that is needed to capture and punish these property damagers and theives. But, there appears to be an interest in stopping the use of cameras, and I think the main reason is not privacy (obviously since that is violated in every dimension with secret Pupin thought cameras and lasers in the USA), but it is because those people in power, in the Pupin-thought-net want to have anonymity from the excluded public...they want to do criminal things like this...or in any event, they would prefer if there were no 7-11 camera, or Rodney King videos laying around, etc. as evidence for the public to go to court against these violent murderers, assaulters and property damagers and destroyers. For those in power, less information is the way they like to go, they are absolutely opposed to cameras that the public has access to in every and any way, and again, obviously not on privacy grounds, but so to reduce the chances of their secret illegal activity being seen and exposed by the public. People say Orange County is safe, but I think they are tampering with the statistics, after my Geo windshield was cracked (UCI police said...it was either a branch, or some natural crack...uh-huh), 3 bikes have been stolen at UCI and in Irvine, 3 dead rats placed in the bike path I use (a UCI police person responded by saying...'they'll just call animal control.'), and now this violently smashed-out window, I have to say that Orange County has just as many, if not more violent people and property thefts than anywhere else. Then look at the liberals...that is some security...it's more proof, as if any was needed that the liberals in the USA are non-existent, and do nothing even despite overwhelming injustice. I think this has to be related to the video I am showing on public access that exposes the Bushes, which is an honest documentary...these reichstag republicans are like Nazis in everyway, look how they are shocked and upset that 5-4 supreme justices ruled that people must be allowed trials, that Bush's plan to hold people for years indefinitely goes against the Geneva convention...wow am I glad for the Geneva convention...it doesn't take a genius to see that right to trial, free from torture is a natural human right, but these neocons are putting every effort into destroying what little of democracy remains in the USA, and make this like China where people are scooped up in secrecy and held without any charges, their families just left to wonder where they are. I am looking forward to 2008 here, and with the Mexican election...where was the news coverage? We only find out the day of that they are voting? The US media is such crap. I hope for Obrador and the liberals obviously. So who knows what is next for me and my property, obviously the security for me is terrible, and whatever is happening in the USA is disgusting and scary. But you can be sure that republicans will continue down this path of violence, lies and secrecy like there was no tomorrow never catching the tiniest bit of light or understanding about all the people being trampled on, murdered, assaulted and violated because of the idiotic decisions they make. They keep heading right on through the fires of violence and destruction not feeling the tiniest heat. And to think we could actually be stopping violence, using cameras to make the USA safer, using this technology for all people to see and access. We could be moving forward, but republicans and even many democrats want to go backwards in time, into more ignorance, more secrecy, more violence and destruction...less democracy, less freedom of information, less free speech, etc.
Ok something was stolen, the garage door opener. The person in the police explained that some people might just want to quickly take the garage door opener and then use it to get in to steal other vehicles, like motorcycles. My car is near the door. I still have doubts, but I feel a little bit more like it may not be as big a deal as I thought. Still, if I were police chief, I would tell everybody relax, and sit back, and let the cameras do all the work, then put in plenty of cameras and start realing in people who steel, do property damage, assault and murder...maybe we wouldn't be able to stop the violence or property theft but we definetely would catch the people. Eventually this place would be free of violence and theft, and if I were judge I wouldn't be giving people 30 year sentences just for a third nonviolent offence...the sentences would be logical based on the number of crimes, and the amount of violence the person did, the most violent being jailed for long periods of time, 30 years is for violent people. The door opener cost $100 to replace. The good news is that the people in the office can block the opener from working again. And if they were on their toes (forget it with these people) they could detect if anybody ever tries to use the card and get some video of them. A simple security camera in the garage would solve all of this. They could even have a policy of only having a person view the images when a crime happened, if people were worried about privacy. In some way, I feel like, when these things happen, I actually win to a certain extent, because it shows people what is going on, it brings their attention to it, and hopefully, they will be informed, inform themselves, realize what is going wrong, and make better decisions.
06-30-2006
6/28
Flag burning bill fails by one vote. Vote is clearly divided on party lines, showing as clearly as ever, if evenr there was a question that republicans are unquestionably stupid, and democrats on average are not unquestionably stupid. What is next the nose picking legislation? What a waste of taxpayer money and time. What a bunch of idiocy a "flag desecration" bill is. To think that some person could not draw a picture that looks like a US flag and rip it, that is absurd and is absolutely covered under the 1st ammendment, and popular opinion (at least I hope, but if not, obviously I would rule the majority to be absolutely stupid). It again shows us that for the time being, and no doubt for a long time to come, voting for a republican is to be voting for a backwards idiot, and voting for a democrat is probably not going to be voting for a backwards idiot, and I am not being dramatic or sensationalizing this.
It's interesting, for example, I reach out to conservatives and religious who are being judged insane because of their unusual activity to help me in the struggle to end the constant ferver about and persecution of unusual behavior. Take for example, religious people that go on public access...you can be sure that the religious condemn them as being fruity and weird...why not use that time instead to speak out against the overly judgemental? ...those who would end the unusual activity and freedom to say what we want on public access television or on the Internet or in life. It's interesting that the price of puritanical overly judgemental behavior eventually hurts the cause of even the conservatives when they are the victim of the puritanical ferver they whooped up to begin with. In some way, many liberals might find it a sweet desert or just reward for conservatives caught in their own fanatical net, but that net is mostly undiscriminating and is clearly a bad thing, the hysteria, whether it is centered around mental purity, sexual purity, etc. can equally crush liberal and conservative alike.
I heard a good interview with Morgan Reynolds (again as usual on video.google.com) who Bush jr appointed to work under a cabinet member, and it is really good what Reynolds says. Reynolds openly recognizes that 9/11/01 was an inside job, and describes it saying, to my memory, that like the JFK killing, these murders happen and this time this group went way too far over the line and did this massive murder, and that saying almost identically what many of us are saying ... that it's too big and that its going to be exposed and the one word reason is simply the "Internet", which is now reaching, Reynolds claims 200 million people or something...its a very astute description, Reynolds goes on to say how the public is simply used to believing their leaders even despite ludicrously clear evidence....it really is an amazing phenomenon...the way people just absolutely ignore the truth...take a movie like "The Second Gun" and the entire RFK conver-up and protection that goes on to this day of Thane Cesar...I mean the case is open and shut...the autopsy and the eyewitness accounts say it all, the physical evidence (even that which was not destroyed by Wolfer and other LAPD)...it's open and shut that Thane Cesar killed RFK...anybody who can add can see that...but yet they don't see it. It defies logic and common decency, it's a total failure of the majority to act responsibly and honestly or wisely.
6/29
I don't think anybody will look back and say that the general theory of relativity was easy to conquer or displace, it was not, mainly because of it's high level of abstraction, and it's 100 year reign that was so sunk into people's minds. You have to understand the details...you have to go into the textbooks (those that exist which are very few) and look at what Einstein and others were claiming. I think I have done a good job of approaching a take down of relativity, by showing that since all matter is made of photons, only the light-like equation is of any value. Then, since all matter is made of photons, an electron or any matter accelerated near the speed of a photon, could only separate into photons moving at the speed of light, it's complex, and I don't remember all the details all the time...I have a million things to do, if I was paid to dedicate my life to this, we would get even more clear oh so clear and simple precise answers and explanations about the impossibility or misinterpretation of "time-dilation" which in my opinion is a mathematical abstraction that doesn't exist. In my view time is independent of space as I have said. These arguments are abstract and complicated, but what is not is the basic idea of a galaxy that is so far that not one photon is going in our direction, or can possibly reach us...I mean this is as simple as can be...any human can understand this...it can easily be modeled on a computer...there is nothing complex at all to understand there. And this idea alone, throws out the magestical and divine "background raditation" which can be simply explained as photons from galaxies that are not far enough away to escape detection. That idea is as simple as can be. The holy "expanding universe" theory I think will take more time and convincing. Mainly the red-shift has to be explained, and my current view is that this is the result of the fact that...at some distance no light beam from any galaxy is going to reach us directly, it's going to be bent by other stars and galaxies, and when it gets bent it stretches out. This can be modeled, the spectrum shift of galaxies we do see directly do represent their actual velocity relative to us. So you have to understand that the idea that all galaxies are red shifted is not quite accurate once you read into this, you find that only the most distant galaxies are all red-shifted, close galaxies may be blue shifted...M31, the andromeda galaxy, the closest galaxy to us, is blue-shifted, it's coming at us very quickly. As I have said before, put yourself in the most distant galaxy, and imagine that there is an M31 there too, that is blue shifted...and the fartest galaxy they can see is our galaxy which is very red shifted. You can see that this red shift is a phenomenon of only great distances. With a blue shift here and a blue shift there, everywhere in the universe things look the same. The key idea is this: does spectrum shift indicate relative velocity=yes, except an extra shift can be added if light is bent around other objects such as galaxies....and this effect is largest the farther a light source is from the observer. I don't know for sure that this is what is happening, but I definitely reject an "expanding universe" theory, as being too unrealistic, based mainly on the idea of "there is new space being created? Well where? Where is the new space added to the universe that stretches the matter apart?" An alternative, and really the same idea...and it is interesting the story of...the Bragg and Raman effect...and with Raman...I honestly believe that he may have been convinced that the expanding universe was wrong back in the early 1900s, and that he was working to disprove the expanding universe idea, but was overwhelmed by it, or simply overpowered by it, and didn't risk the public condemnation that might result with publically criticising the theory. Because, simply, much of his work can be used as evidence against the expanding universe. Maybe that wasn't Raman's intention or driving motivation, and then it is simply a happy coincidence. Because Raman produced a red shift in his lab, he was perhaps the first to red shift visible light, Bragg was the first to red and blue shift light, to my knowledge.
As a basic rule, and it's simple, any time a person is against free info, it's evil...you know it's evil...stopping the free flow of info, even bad info is simply evil in my view....what have they got to hide? what do they need to keep secret? If somebody doesn't like it don't watch it. I am talking about legislative censorship and legal controls on the freeflow and copying of any and all info, not people simply making choices about what info they want to promote or demote...for example look at this republican (the republicans are always the worst...and the dumbest...the most elitist...the most monarchical and power hungry) Congressman Peter King, R-NY and Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), gee how could they be republicans? and anti free info? what a shocker there eh? You know that is pure evil. They hear and see thought...they have everything to hide...about the 9/11 murders and coverup, about Fiorini and Cesar, about Pupin and how they have been secretly watching the public and their thoughts. They want to punish the NY Times for some info the NY Times printed. Why keep electing these evil information hoarding people who lie for a dime? wake up and get smart already. But again, isn't this just more and more proof that there is not one decent republican? that the entire republican party is filthy, corrupt, dishonest, monarchical...I've said it before...many people still view the government as being superior like a king and queen, not like people who are employed by us, like a janitor who is supposed to enforce our will to take our orders...not some priviledged elites who get special access to information that we the boss don't get to see. I could go on for hours...no more secrets in government...free info is a tiny price to pay for a priceless benefit all free societies should have.
6/30
What a smart and interesting person Morgan Reynolds is ... just listening to this guy on video.google.com...he explains things about 9/11 very nicely, wisely and honestly.
Wait until the old people finally get a chance to punish the laser people, the so-called zappers...that will be sweet...to see old people together with the rest of us finally punishing those unseen violent criminal bastards the way they should have been punished decades ago.
People can talk about science or physics all they want. There is nothing wrong with
asking for people to define "energy", and my point in my science video (which was made 2 or 3 years before now, I have learned alot more since then), is that energy does not apply to any physical object in the
universe. Maybe energy applies to some aspect of matter, or some way
matter moves, but nobody has ever told the public that energy is not
physical matter. And I am saying basically, what is clear is that all
matter is made of particles of light, which are matter, but a matter that
moves at a constant velocity and only changes direction because of other
matter, not velocity as Newton's laws of gravity relate. In addition, the idea of for example "potential energy" is entirely human made, it exists only as perceived by humans...there is nothing internal to matter that we can call potential energy (the classic example is a boulder at the top of a hill...that it can roll down the hill is true, but I doubt seriously there is some internal property based on it's physical location...so yes there is potential energy...but it's not something that is internal to matter...it has to do with a piece of matter moving to some "more stable" location...but really, the laws of the universe are constant and it's simple matter moving in accordance with gravity [although clearly the gravity felt by photons appears to have a different math and I am going to describe more about that now). The entire idea of energy I think is too abstract to be of any use, but by all means people prove and explain me wrong.
I want to allow people to entertain
these questions. One of the main points is, like the theory of the earth
centered universe, eventually some human had to ask..."are we sure that
the earth centered system is the correct one? Shouldn't we think more
about it and entertain alternatives? and...here is one alternative...a sun
centered universe...or a galaxy centered universe...", and that is exactly
what happened.
I have studied physics enough to know that much of the claims are
undeveloped and inaccurate, and then beyond that, one of my complaints is
the secrecy that surrounds, for example, the theory of relativity...here
millions of people accept relativity 100% as true, and we have never been
shown one computer program model of a single photon, atom or planet moving
under the laws of relativity. Beyond that, from all I have read and
learned, I honestly think that, for example, time dilation is pure
mathematical abstraction and has nothing to do with the real universe, and
so to me...in particular seeing people (albeit 30% of the public that even
remotely follow science) unthinkingly follow time dilation, the idea of a
finite universe (and you know...I see nothing unsensical about my very
simply direct explanations, in particular when compared to
string-theorists and worm-hole mathematicians). Finally, that is another
point, any science videos are going to be good...we have a planet full of
anti-science people, "science" is practically a dirty word, any history of
science and new ideas in science are excellent in my view.
look beyond a "world", it's a large universe, and we are going to be
moving to other star systems (not us ofcourse us individually, we live in
a backwards era of christian revival).
Do a search in video.google.com for "evolution", number 1-17 are by antievolutionists. And #1 is Kirk Cameron who openly rejects evolution...it is something to see. I have to credit Cameron for going public with his opinions about evolution, and for every "there are no cameras" Cameron, there are another few million celebrities, sports figures and politicians who feel the same way but don't let the public know about it. I want "are you an evolutionist?" to be asked at all political debates where questions can be asked. We should know the truth about who the anti-evolution people are. Still, can you believe that the guy who was on a major sitcom for years, is a person that rejects evolution? Is that what parents accept for their children? I am glad I learned about evolution in high school. And you know, evolution is an answered question in my mind, there is more than enough evidence to support evolution, but at the same time, I reject the big bang, I reject the expanding universe, I reject time dilation, I reject black holes, all of nonconsensual psychology and much of psychological theory...and these are accpeted by most people as absolutely solid as can be mainstream scientific theories. So you know,...it's an interesting phenomenon, that in my view, evolution is beyond doubt, but many and perhaps most theories of the current mainstream science should only be doubted (and probably not coincidentally the same is true for most news stories and police reports in the last century).
Some times people in the secret camera thought Pupin net will just come up to me and say "leave!". And I think back (because ofcourse like a jewish human talking back to a nazi humans in auschwitz, obviously it's a no-no), but I think back to them on occasion: "not until you get some more people, some torches and there is a burning cross in my lawn thankyou.". But seriously folks, yes I am trying to move out of Orange County, I tried for a solid year, I postponed buying a house for two years (when the prices doubled!), like a fool, so that some Bay area liberal could hire me, but it didn't happen....they went supporter of "The Second Gun" on me...nonexistent!
I am thinking more about the photon model of all matter, and there are 2 clear physics:
1) the direction of a photon is determined only by all other photons
a) a subset=the direciton of a photon is totally determined only by nearby photons.
2) the direction of a photon is only partially determined by all other matter
a) a subset=the direction of a photon is only partially determined by nearby photons.
And I am starting to lean towards 2a or 1a. I think that it's hard to believe that a photon would feel the influence of very distant photons, and probably only close photons are relevant to its direction. And then I think that other photons, like gravity may only partially influence the photon's direction. This is a model I put forward before which I called "momentum of direction is preserved", in other words, the direction the photon is moving in is not completely determined by other photons, but is partially determined by its current direction. Other photons do not determine a photons direction, they only can influence the photon's current direction. These models look much better, and more easy to handle and look more like gravity. So we can think of this direction changing influence similar to the way we think of gravity, as functioning mainly on particles that are very close to each other. There still remains these wonderful mysteries about...why does a photon need to be in constant motion? it's really an amazing mystery. Why do two photons change each other's directions at all? it's kind of wild. tedhuntington.com/photons.avi shows this model. So perhaps there is a gravitational constant, maybe even the gravitational constant used for Newtonian gravity, but as applied to influence on direction, not accleration. Again, I think this is such a classical example in this video that as any person would expect, when the 4 photons are tangled their collective velocity decreases significantly, the other single photons sail by at the normal speed of c, when a photon of the 4 does escape, it leaves the slow moving "particle" behind and gains a large amount of a lead on it's former "particle" four (now there) photons. And this is probably exactly why no particles move as fast as photons, ... and it's mathmatical, and the math is highly complex, much too complex for me to bother with...but you can see that any two photons tangled together with constant velocities can never have the velocity of a single photon, it's geometrically impossible. In fact there is perhaps even a limit on how fast they can possibly go, and we may observe particles that exhibit this 2 photon velocity. The more photons tangled, on average, the slower the collective particle (and I am not even sure we can call these tangles particles, but since people have for years, I am going to stay with the convention for now). So what is that 2 photon velocity? I think it could be something like .5c or even higher. It really depends on how much photons change each others direction...if it's very little, in theory there could be two photons moving in the same direction only orbiting each other in the x-y plane, and then the particle would have a velocity very close to c. So if I had to pick a physics I would probably now choose the 2a, photons partially change other photons directions, but only the closest photons (which can greatly reduce the simulation calculations), and again we are talking about a gravitational constant...I don't know perhaps very small like 6.67300e-11 m3 s/kg, and then I am not sure what the units are, something like m3 s/photon? I just know how to plug it into the equations; the for loops that go through each particle determining the direction of each photon.
Remember what I said about there being a problem with the nucleus being spherical with the current interpretation...I mean the periodic table doesn't reflect a sphere shape to my estimation...(it goes 2-8-8-18-18-32-32...that doesnt form the layers of a sphere which would be more like 2-8-14-20-30-40..etc...) ... can somebody explain me wrong?
06-27-2006
6/27
I want to make an "Excluded Forum", and or an "Excluded Gazette" or "Excluded Daily Times" or maybe "Hourly Times" if things get rolling.
We have an exclusive excluded interview with the person that is responsible for the recent death of the UC chancellor, Denise Denton. It turns out he is a 40 something caucasian male, a member of the US government that flip flops from the CIA and military, from Oregon, named Kyle Sanders, who loves his daughter, who also has two sons, so lets start the interview:
Excluded Times: "One big question for us excluded has to be, how much of this death was Denton responsible for, was this actually a high-tech murder? It boils down to the question of did the republican person/people simply beam suggestions, or actually control the decision making part of the brain?"
Kyle: "Wee Ted this was an unusual event, let me start by saying that normally, in my group in the camera-thought net, as you call it, we usually only beam suggestions onto people's brains, but since Bush got elected all kind a new doors have been opened up to us, and this was one of the rare times when we actually forced a conscious decision in a person for them to end their own life..."
ET: "So, can you explain this technology to us...normally you only beam suggestions on people, but this time you used the technology to force a conscious decision in Denton...in other words...Denton, or anybody else would literally have no choice..."
K: "Yes, for example, we will beam a song onto a person's head, and they usually will start to hum the song we are beaming on them, but they might not hum or whistle the tune...they have the choice not to, although it's not much of a choice for most people. We can use this to implant strong suggestions...like to eat a sandwich, to say something stupid, and...ofcourse, to jump off a high place like a cliff, to drive off a cliff, or walk into traffic, etc. ... now usually we only plant the suggestions, but this time, as I said, it's rare, but we were allowed to actually force a conscious decision...in other words, we control the part of the brain that instructs the body. It's amaxing technology, we can instead of just playing a song inside a person's head, you change the part of their mind that decides to whistle the song directly...in other words, the choice is made for them, but it appears to them, and those people watching them that they make the choice themselves."
ET: "It's complicated..."
K: "It's hard to explain"
ET Narrator: Talking with Kyle a person might almost forget that they are talking with a cold-blooded murderer of an innocent woman. But Kyle says that he doesn't like being called a murderer, and compares it to the people that called the Vietnam soldiers "baby killers", he insists he was just doing his job in a war for freedom.
ET: "Now the President personally congratulated you for your deed, how do you feel about that?"
K: "Yes he did, and I appreciate that, it means alot to me, I'll remember ir as long as I live."
ET: "Which raises the question of whether the opposite side will use the same technology to force you off a building..."
K: "I doubt it, the liberals are pussies, to be honest. It happens from time to time, but it's rare, the republicans control most of this technology, the government and the media...I'm not worried"
ET: "Do you think you'll ever be caught and jailed?"
K: "I doubt it, there are 100 years of people before me..."
ET: "Many of us are interested in the technology...can you explain more about this advanced technology?"
K: "Well, ... as you know there are millions of tiny cameras all over the place...in every building...for example, the cameras in this apartment building in San Francisco were installed at construction back in the 1990s although they have to be periodically maintained and replaced. Ok so, for example, now those cameras, and there are microphones too, and all kind of special lasers and cameras and stuff, now they are normally controlled locally..by the San Francisco people in the US government, and then you know, every person has an archive...so for example for this Denton lady her achive is mainly located in the San Francisco chapter of the government...when she goes to, for example, Washington DC, they have minicameras there, and the hotels and building owners working with the government military, FBI and CIA there will ofcourse, keep all their video of her, but they will then forward it on to various places, included her main archive in SF...so even from Oregon or where ever we can control what is getting beamed on to anybody's head."
ET: "So you don't even need to be in Santa Cruz or where ever to administer or remotely control the technology used to beam onto people's heads?"
K: "Well yes in theory, but mostly this kind of thing is done locally...for example...mostly the people beaming things on your brains are close by."
ET Narrator: Kyle ended his interview with us, but we can add that he says he did this for his country, that he is proud of what he did, that he apologizes and is sorry, but that he was just doing his job. For many of us excluded and law abiding citizens, it's a frightening picture. Who knows what these murderers will do next, who will be next to be remotely walked off a bridge or into a head on car collision...it's a frightening reality for the excluded. Good night and god bless, but bless in the way that a god blesses murderers by locking them in jail thank you.
06-26-2006
6/23
BIM: When a person request to see a person (as millions appear to be doing), ie have video of that person beamed directly into their eyes, there must be at least 3 basic images of the person being requested that can be included:
1: camera image of person, perhaps frmo ceiling or some other location
2: a video of what the person's eyes see
3: a video of what the person sees in their mind
3: is an important point, that there is a second screen in our mind that we use like a scratch pad. I have never seen any real documentation about this, but it's clear that what we see, the screen of our eyes is different from the screen of our mind. We have 2 screens, at least, in our heads, one for our eyes, and a second for our mind. On this second screen, even with our eyes open, we can visualize a nude statue, for example, or a tree. I think this internal screen must have evolved many years ago, perhaps some species don't even have an internal screen. For some their screen must be very low resolution, in particular if their eyes are low resolution (for example snails). I am interested in thinking about what species exhibit this anatomy of being able to have a separate image in their mind from the image they are seeing. Do fish have this? Do insects have this internal screen on which they can visualize objects? We have to remember that if a species can only receive a square of 10x10 pixels (dots), that is probably all they will be able to remember...is 10x10 pixel memories. Perhaps people are usually shown with 2 squares, or a single square...perhaps this: they flash an image of the person's face, and then simply play the internal screen revealing their thoughts, in addition to the audio of their thoughts. I guess a complete image would have a live image of them, perhaps their face (and then a major question is, how did the camera get there? is it wireless or wired? how small are these cameras? are they in everybody's houses and apartments?), so an image of their face, next to, above or below an image of their thought screen, and with the audio of their thoughts (perhaps also with the audio of their voice, and also a third square with what their eyes see).
So then a major question is:
1. how small are these cameras?
a) clearly they are so small, unlike most cameras we are used to seeing
b) wired or wireless?
1) probably wireless, since wires would be easy to find and uncover
2) must have electric source, could be solar powered, but would have to be a tiny battery, and then the battery might run out, and have to be replaced. The power source must be a major area of research to make such tiny long term battery power possible. Maruoid describes a power source as a coiled spring, and no doubt some kind of microscopic power source was developed, maybe a few atoms of radioactive material?
3) with wireless scrambling, or encryption, people could even detect the photon signals, but not be able to decode them.
a) there may be an unscrambled group that works against the secretive by exposing their encryption codes, but clearly, the secretive control every aspect of government and no doubt use the full force of that power to intimidate those who try to "compromise" (read, make honest) those secretive encryption people who form the majority of people that own these networks and own vast estates on luxury islands for the years of monopoly on information they have enjoyed.
2. where are these camera?
a) are they in the ceiling?
b) are they from satellite?
c) are they from light posts?
I have been thinking more about the RFK murder, and it seems clear that Thane Cesar had to know about Sirhan...how else could he be so prepared. By the way just as a quick note, clearly it looks like Cesar did an execution shot to the back of the head, but (like the story by Donald Freed), RFK's arms moved and he was still standing (perhaps since clearly the bullet paths are very vertical from bottom to top according to Noguchi in "The Second Gun"), and Cesar, scared that RFK was not dead, shot 3 more times, I still think its possible that RFK still had the presence of mind to turn around (he must have recognized that the sharp pain was from behind...most of us would turn around to see what is causing it), see his murderer, grab Cesar by the throat, but then becoming weak, and only pulling off the clip-on tie Cesar wore which falls to the side of RFK. Charach is adamant that RFK never pulled Cesar's tie off, he believes Cesar who told him that his tie came off when he fell to the ground, which may be true. Charach claims, and it would appear that Alcan may hint at a verification that Thane Cesar ran away from the crime scene, and only returned later. Still it's amazing that Donald Shulman definitely saw the guard fire his gun, and stayed with that story, and the evil liars openly discredited Shulman's story, even as is shown in "The Second Gun", that there was more than enough evidence that Shulman's story was his original story and no other story came from Shulman. So getting back to that point that Thane Cesar must have known about Sirhan...there is no way Cesar would be that johnnie-on-the-spot, to have that kind of quick thinking to say "hmmm here is a murder attempt, let me now take advantage of that". But what was the nature of the way that Cesar knew about Sirhan? I think it was perhaps only a one-way knowledge...in other words Cesar knew about Sirhan, but Sirhan didn't know about Cesar, but it's possible Sirhan did. Just as a reminder: William Harper and others clearly recognize (you will see in the second gun) that the RFK bullet is totally different than the Wiesel bullet from Sirhan (one has 3 cannelures the other only has but 2). Is "The Second Gun" the only Golden-Globe nominated movie never to be purchased by a major media company for video distribution? The thought net has all the gory details on the RFK murder and a million others.
So how do the excluded expose and open up the secret Pupin thought network? I can only tell you this: that it is probably going to be a long tortuous path of many decades. And the method I suggest is this: focus on freedom of information, focus on eliminating punishments for violations, information crimes. For example, to see images of people's thoughts, there has to be total free info, those people who might want to be whistle blowers, and provide video of thoughts will never go public (for example on the web), with the current laws of free information. My advice is to vastly reduce the copyright law, to vastly reduce punishments of those who are caught with illegal images...for example...images that violate people's privacy, images that show violence, images that show sex, etc. even images of violence against innocent people, and child pornography...so you can see, that this is a long way away...the public will never stop the persecution of people that own images that invade people's privacy for example...that is clear...it will take decades for people to learn that their punishment of people who simply own images is what left them in a stone-age ignorance, while others partied to the end of time watching and hearing thoughts galore.
I think I have narrowed the 9/11 thing down to 2 major guesses:
1) actual planes with passengers flew into the WTC, remote controlled by neocon military, all passangers actually dead.
a) "ao" could be atlantic ocean (and "andy o", just like "frankly" does 2 in 1)
b) "in water"...although maybe I hear this wrong, but it's a tiny word slipped in, in the Ed Bagley hosted video, good luck finding that tiny hint, I can't remember who says it, but it might be bagley himself...only the included know for sure.
c) people who kill thousands in a planned collapse, don't think much about the lives of other people on planes
d) bush sez "horrible accident", maybe refers to Olson's wife, but could be double-talk, bush gives an example of this is spelling out "ATA" in his initial speech...for those poor people in the excluded who spell the first letters who actually think Bush is anything other than a cold-blooded killer and 100% liar on every issue across the board. As a funny aside, a woman in NYC sez "you know...we are a little bit disappointed in president bush's investigation into 9/11..." and to me it's funny because I can see Bush responding to a letter like that..."...(in whiny sarcastic voice) oohhh yer a little disappointed with the way we conducted the investigation?.... don't you got damn get it? we're goddamn killers! arrr!..." and then tearing up the letter with his teeth and sending it back in teeth torn fragments. I mean when will these people understand?
or
2) planes were landed and 2 were replaced with military planes which flew into the 2 towers and a third drone flew into the Pentagon.
a) explains image of missile explained on In Plane Site
b) explains phone calls better than advanced technology, although advanced technology does explain phone calls too for guess 1
c) explains eye witnesses that said plane didn't have any windows
d) then Olson would have volunteered for this idiot mission with maybe a hundre other idiots
e) explains Atta phone call to father
either way for sure:
1) WTC buildings were brought down in controlled demolition
a) not going to list all the evidence...see below for list of 12 pieces of bedrock solid evidence....it's beyond a reasonable doubt
2) Bush knew and supported 9/11 attack
a) clapping after getting video of WTC2 collision beamed onto mind screen
3) no 757 hit pentagon
You know I realized something intersting:
To claim that Jesus rose from the dead or made ten loaves from one is an honest mistake, it's stupid in my opinion, but hey, I voted for Bush Sr. we all make underinformed stupid decisions. But to actively try to convince people that the official 9/11 story is true, when a person knows it isn't, I find that to be not an honest mistake, but obviously a deliberate lie, which is much different from an honest mistake, a mistaken view a person honestly believes to be true. So I view the honest mistakes about gods, religion, muhommed, jeziz, etc to be less offensive then the deliberate lies that protect murderers for example.
6/26
It's sad to hear about Denice Denton ending her own life, and that is, in my view, a terrible way to end a life. I really blame the brutal people that beam images on people's heads, and in my experience, the beamers in SF are some of the worst, but probably not much different than most cities or nations. Who is the person or people that beamed nasty suicidal suggestions on Denton's mind screen? What do they look like? What did they beam there? No doubt they are ultra conservative caucasian males whose biggest concern is same gender touching, not violence. One of the people in the police commented that it was a "straight up" suicide, and that is such a harsh view on life, I don't doubt that this suicide is like a touch down for the conservatives who celebrate murder, lies, secrets, death, etc. in particular of enemy liberals. The NY Times stressed "apparent" in their hidden headline, because you know, parents are citizens, non-parents are lesser citizens who are not good role models in their scewed conservative view. Real news would show all the street video, the video of the body, 3d animations or actual video of the fall, what her eyes saw, what was on her mind screen, etc. Back to the police person, as if gayness is the big worry, what about violent people? hey down with the violent, down with the secrecy, down with the antisexuality, down with the arrests of people simply using drugs, up with free info, up with truth, science, sex with consent, etc. I have a million things to say. When I was in SF last the unspoken theme of this conference was "jump out the window" I shit you not. This was in a high rise hotel with open windows that anybody could be thrown or jump out of and fall to their death. There are plenty of places on earth where we are inches away from death, simply driving or walking next to moving vehicles, walking by people with guns, like a person in the police, flying in planes, we are always inches away from some high probability death, that's why I try to reduce those possibilities, and I think by the way a public registry of violent offenders is yet another way to reduce that risk of death, as are public cameras for the public and the elites too. A few thousand could buy, for example sensors and motorized nets that catch falling people from bridges and tall buildings, but people perhaps think the technology is excessive or grissly, for example, a nice electronic wall for subway and train stations so people cannot fall, walk or be thrown into the train. Basically the future is about lowering risk of violence and damage, adding air bags to planes, helicopters, cars, adding parachutes to planes, etc. So who beamed on Denton? And these people don't ever get punished, because my feeling is that, you know we have a 50/50 planet, in particular in the USA, where 50% are these conservative religious violent criminals, and the other 50% are law abiding people. And 50% is a huge number of violent criminals to be on the loose unseen to operate behind an iron curtain of secrecy with high tech advanced secret technology, do you know I counted at least 11 distinct secret technologies I will enumerate later. And so, this criminal network goes seen only by the included elites, and what we would see, is no doubt, all equipment is ofcourse paid for by us, and our ancestors, from tax money, but basically it's controlled and occupied by these 2 groups, and there is simply no way of dislodging evil people from the other side, except as I have said by showing the public what is going on, and even then, ... there are simply 50% of them, and they don't police themselves, they are not about to fire the people that beamed on Denton and millions of others (classics are Mark Chapman, no doubt Sirhan...people who are highly suggestable, we have all been and are victims of this advanced image sending technology), the evil people won't fire those like-minded evil people, and the decent people can't arrest them, or expose them...there is nothing anybody can do. And another point about this Denton suicide is that just like Ted Charach for exposing the true killer of RFK, where are the liberals? Where is the liberal unity? The unity for protecting killers like Thane Cesar is far stronger than the unity to expose and jail them, and its a disgrace in my view. Why weren't people beaming positive images onto Denton and millions of others? Why don't they unite to jail Thane Cesar? to expose Frank Fiorini, the 9/11 reichstag fire?... I think it goes beyond fear, because ultimately anti-violence is their view, and standing up for those things is simply a natural view and point of discussion. But it does look like Denton was a suicide, if not for the reports of her mom being there, and of here taking sick leave, I would have far more suspicions...no doubt like sharks these neocon anti-gay forces circled around and beamed megawatts of negativity onto her brain once they got a taste of blood or weakness. So it's a sad loss, and a "terrible loss" yes people should "tell". I wonder if Denton was active in the liberal cause, maybe she was trying to help hook me up with a job at UCSC, although I doubt it, but it's possible. That is something that keeps echoing in my head, if I had Denton's kind of money, $275k/year (that is a ridiculous amount of money for what a person like that does...that is $132/hour...$1057/a day...by the time she sits down with her coffee and turns on her computer she just pulled in another hundred), I would be building walking robots, rocket planes, history of science videos, history of evolution videos, nude breasty women would be parading around my house for me to fondle and cuddle with at my will, anti-religion videos would be pouring out...I mean where do I begin? So it's really a waste of a liberal person who could have done something. Ofcourse, it was Denton's choice to end her own life (depending on the brain image sending...ofcourse...) and I vote for painless ways. At that conference, there were many people beaming on me and others about jumping out the windows, and it was annoying, and anxiety causing...I always sat far away from the windows. I thought "ow...what a painful experience that would be...". Not that I would ever jump out of windows, but you have to understand this technology, as I do...I felt it strongly in Utah on the chairlifts...I had the feeling that this technology literally can make a person willfully jump from a chairlift, or out a window...it's that powerful...the control over our muscles happens in our brain, and these areas can be electronically changed somehow, I don't understand how, but it's clear that, like Galvani, people figured out how to move muscles, but this goes beyond simply moving muscles...it's changing the neurons, not only that move the muscles, but that we use to figure out what we want to do...what muscles we want to activate, etc. When I was in Utah, as usual evil neocons were beaming suggestions to jump from this chair, and then this evil 40 something white male behind me works "jump" into his sentence...what evil people...and here they are part of this secret group that casually hears people's thoughts...the entire thing is of a nazi era film, but we are living in it now. So in some way, it's not surprising that Denton chose to jump off a tall SF building, since that, as I said was the unspoken theme of this conference I went to in SF...very powerful evil beams...I had trouble sleeping the beaming was so strong there. I am the only person to talk about this publically, perhaps it's because in SF there is a feeling of total free info and they view punishing these "beamers" as harsh, I am on the opposite side there...to beam these images is not like watching television where a person can close their eyes, it goes through the skin and is a violation of the body, although a nonviolent violation...it's along the lines of lowering the priviledges and opportunities of those who abuse the secret technology, not as much an arrestable offense, although for example, in the case of Denton, perhaps there would be public support in a democracy for jailing those who were beaming on her. But I think another point might be, and I thought about this then and since, that SF is a focal point for republicans...the republican party gets about 5% of the vote perhaps, about as much as the liberatrian party. The SF people view the republicans as like a neonazi party, which in my view is very close to the truth, at least since 1963, and no doubt long before. So perhaps the republicans spend much more money and time on the people in SF, and perhaps northern california in general, but who knows? only the included do. Let's vote that the next chancellor be as liberal and even stronger and more active than Denton. I think my philosophy is pretty good, focusing on getting the story of science and evolution to the public, speaking out strongly to stop violence, to end the jailing of people for drugs and prostitution (maybe this is more controversial, but to me it's progressive and obviously the future). Those are mainstream ideas, and yet, I don't see these views popular among the wealthy and powerful, intellectual or otherwise. I like interesting people, and Denton was an interesting person. I like dull people too, but to me the real special people are the interesting people, people that have used their life for some special purpose, in particular to help life of earth in some way. It's rare and special to see a female in electrical engineering, clearly Denton must have been a smart person to understand electronics, and simply being a female in any engineering is sadly a rare occurance, and I hope that changes as time continues. So to me, I kind of am like the opposite of most people, I prefer the interesting exciting smart people with something interesting to say, where others prefer dull average people. You know the psychiatric mystic soothsayers are going to be in full-force now, with their "commit" this "ment" and that "ted", etc. It's funny in some way because, a high profile person ends their life in an unusual way and, no doubt some people are ready to abandon science for psychology, horoscopes and religion. First the naked guy now Denton. It looks like somehow a powerful negativity entered her mind and there simply was not enough positivity to reach her. Sorry to hear about Denice Denton, what an unusual occurance. It's a terrible loss for liberals and those people like me who are actively for bi, gay and lesbian equal rights. I wonder what Denton was doing behind the scenes for the cause, no doubt she was actively changing things for the better. Simply existing as a women in science and openly gay certainly helped the cause of fairness, science and justice.
TP holds the #7 and #11 spots on "science" video.google.com duration:long! I am the single voice for science of this time apparently. It's amazing, search for "evolution" I plan to dominate there too within a year, the top ten spaces are creationists...the evolutionists are taking some serious losses, holy shit. With all that money, the evolutionists are getting wailed on by the creationists who are far more productive. The only example is like #17 where Dawkins is interviewed.
10 different secrect technologies:
1) seeing what people (or any species with eyes) see from behind their head in the infrared.
2) seeing the internal mind screen of people (the image we see when we think of a tree even though our eyes are open...it's an internal drawing board where dreams are played too)
3) sending images to this internal mind screen (an image from a video can be beamed onto this internal mind screen).
4) sending images to our eyes screen (an image from video can be beamed into our direct sight...it looks exactly like the object in the video is there...the person literally sees the object out in front of them with the rest of the real objects reflecting light into their eye screen from in front).
5) hearing the audio of our thoughts (and the thoughts of any species..which must be fascinating or fascistnating for those that can hear...birds may rehearse, fish and many other species that don't make oral sounds probably show no signs of any audio)
6) sending audio to our thoughts
7) moving our muscles from a remote location, the last recorded info on this was Galvani.
8) using lasers to make us itch our skin
9) causing small pin-point pains with lasers (perhaps is the same technology as 8)
10) somehow having cameras and microphones small enough to not be seen by average humans
06-20-2006
David Ray Griffen, said something I can really identify with. He says "When they call Gulinanni before the commission, do they ask him about [this or that]? No! They treat him like a hero!" This is the way I feel about so many people. The public views them as heros, if only they could see and hear the truth...the way they knew it all, allowed 9/11 to happen, and then helped to cover it up. It's people like Griffen, Stephen E Jones, and all the 9/11/01 truth people who really are the heros in my view. For bringing the truth about 9/11 to the public who deserves to know what happened.
Here is my conclusion about the famous old claim that heavy and light objects fall at same speed. Of 3 similar mass objects, with no other objects near them, a heavier object will reach a second object faster, since both are accelerating towards each other with:
a1=Gm2/r^2 and
a2=Gm1/r^2
But when the second object is very much larger (the earth) than the other 2 objects (rocks and feathers, etc.), then the acceleration on the earth (a2) from the other masses is almost nonexistent, and since their acceleration depends mainly on the mass of the earth, and the earth remains stationary relative to their movement, both a heavy and light object (much lighter than the earth), dropped from the same height, in empty space, will have the same acceleration, and reach an object much more massive, like the earth (or earth moon) at the same time.
So the acceleration of an object does not depend on it's own mass, but the mass and distance of all other objects around it.
So, this law of Galileo is not true for 3 similar mass objects in empty space with no other objects near, because the second object will move towards the first object, and in addition there is an additional effect because the distance gets smaller faster for a heavier object too, which increases the attraction acceleration.
EX: This would be a cool experiment to see in empty space...to see if a heavy object does reach a second object faster than a light object does. The force of gravity is so small, that it might take a lot of time, or massive groups of objects, but that would be wild to see. Is gravity noticable in, for example the space shuttle? Do objects start orbitting each other? I kind of doubt it or else we would have seen this effect by now, my guess is that it is a very slow attraction, but perhaps noticable over time.
I like that idea of an ipod for the thought-camera-pupin net...for each 3 minutes of audio they listen to people like me, and others in their houses, they can pay us $1, and then make up to 3 copies of that brain-wave, our thoughts or whatever audio.
You know here is a cool adjustment:
LAW: whats about limiting the copyright to individual people who earn less than $100,000/year, and business that earn less than $500,000/year? Because, at that level of income, they have the money to take advantage of poor people's copyrighted works,...and aren't poor people who the copyright law was mainly created to protect? Who cares if a millionare is not going to get another million for their copyrights? Don't they have enough from the simple permission to copy information? That certainly gets my vote, as does a total elimination of copyright altogether. Then we would never have the mage-billion dollar Microsoft and Time-Warner at the top of the income getters. It's our ridiculously anal info laws that put the sale of info at the highest profitable business for an elite few with great wealth already.
A person should make a comedy act entirely on dull beaurocratic people, determining things like 15" or 15.5" paper, and what a wonderful determination that was, and how the people responded positively to the newly reduced size of the paper form. And then a person might say: "I'm sorry, I know I am way out of line here...but what do you think about 15.25"? I'm sorry, I know...I don't mean to step on anybody's toes here." Many people of this time revolve around those kinds of mind-numbing ideas, where every trivial statement is scrutinized beyond belief and trivial dull matters are amplified to major issues, where they are way into their dull job but not at the level of common sense and normal technological progress, but at a more acceptable beaurocratic level, where the most minor trivial changes, or changes to make things less progressive are made only after hours of long winded debate, documentation, and discussion.
06/14
For all my alledged insanity, I am proud to say that I have never once turned to first degree violence, how many people can say that? Even relatives of mine, co-workers, I know for sure cannot say such a thing. The same is true for my mom who also shares a reputation for insanity. Despite all the immense pressures, the massive thousands versus one, kind of style of people on earth, I have never succumbed to first degree violence, and I never will. I wish I could say the same for most other people. Or even threatened or alluded to first degree violence to my knowledge, certainly not too often if I have, even Bill Clinton publically advocated a violent assault of a reporter when his anger and the pressure got the best of him. Bush jr, not only advocated violence, but actively planned and allowed the 9/11 mass murder to happen, and I doubt it was from pressure or temporary anger that made him advocate that act of violence. Then what you see, is that, for all the harsh punishments of these so-called "insanne" nonviolent people, all it really is, many times is punishing harmless playful many times legal creative behavior. And that is the idea, so that all people act and think like drones without any even tiny difference. Nor have I ever, for the vast majority of my life, ever turned to religions, mysticism, cults, gurus, pyramid schemes, dieties.
I am interested in the history of psychiatric laws. When did these loop holes to basic well worn human rights arise? Some how habeus corpus, the right to trial, right to a finite sentence, right to be charged with a crime when held in confinement, the freedom from assault, drugging, cruel and unusual punishment, torture, all these various basic laws, to not be experimented on, formulated over centuries are avoided, they apparently do not apply, for the psychiatric system, and to this day, the public, presumably, still approves emphatically.
Where there was heresy and the Inquisition, now there is only the psychiatric system, where there was witchcraft and witch trials, now are all the nonviolent sex-related crimes and trials, where there was slavory, now there are things like the drug war, etc... more subtle substitutes have evolved to replace old systems that officially fell from popular opinion or by law.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, but the shock still amazes me: There are millionaire presidents and faculty of universities, a billion dollar National Science Foundation, and yet, not one dollar has been spent, to my knowledge, on a free video for the public which describes and explains the story of evolution and or the history of science. Not one free web video, not one free DVD, not any DVD even for sale, how can these people make their profession so deeply nested in the field of science, and not be concerned or show even the tiniest interest in such a thing for decades? It is so clear and simple to me, that they simply are in it for the money, and it would appear that they really have no love of science, or certainly not enough to share it and teach it to the rest of the planet. And openly and repeatedly explaining that is not going to motivate them any either, because apparently nobody likes to be told what they should be doing, they like to stumble into ideas accidently and independently.
6/15
Its ironic that those in the pupin-camera-thought net (the PCT net), don't have empathy or sympathy for those jailed for drug addiction, because look at how they are addicted to seeing inside houses and hearing thoughts. An average person would think, "don't they see the parallel?", I guess it's easy to dismiss other people's suffering when you are strung out and happy on your own addiction.
"Mental clensing", like "ethnic clensing" is popular, in particular among people whose minds are terrible to begin with; those that are immersed in religious fraud, stamping out sexuality, are routinely dishonest, support murderers, secrecy, etc. It's the view that people should be forcibly jailed, drugged, and tortured to conform to the majority view. This is a common phenomenon, it's based strictly on conformity. This is the exact same process that was done against people like Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, many many people. In their minds, everybody has to agree, everybody has to have the same religious beliefs, everybody has to like the same music, the same clothing, the same food, etc.
Again I see the Penn and Teller video, this time in more detail on video.google.com. What a bunch of scum bags for money. Who paid them to make this? Why hide that? Then they support the idea that Oswald killed JFK...that should be a clue as to how obviously paid for fascist neocon violent criminal proaganda this is, in fact of the popular videos, it's the only video that criticizes the 9/11 conspiracy theoriests, all the rest except one are bravely exposing the reichstag fire that was and is 9/11. As a society we should never support people who murder, or even those who lie to protect murderers, or else we would all be in danger of the violent people murdering us and or other innocent nonviolent people. I think it's shockingly simple common sense, murder is wrong, those who murder are evil, those who cover up murder are evil too. I call for a total ban on any kind of funding for Penn and Teller, a ban on them seeing and hearing thought and seeing the secret cameras in buildings, and also on all those people involved, the woman employed at Hobart University, and the Fire Engineering magazine person, etc. What neocons funded them to be in this video? Then look how they advocate assault and attempted murder openly against the innocent and nonviolent person...it shows how lawless, violent and nazistic they are. We don't need more nazis, there are already too many with the Bushes and their neocon followers. And that evil philosophy is nothing to support, we need to enforce the homicide and assault laws. It's amazing to me, there are only really 2 major laws, only 2...it's amazingly simple...the rest relate to nonviolent crimes. and ofcourse, those are the two laws that the neocons in power (and through-out history) like most to violate. Look how peoeple employed with our tax money, and ordered upon pain of imprisonment by criminal neocons just upped and murdered 150 people overnight in Iraq, no trials, no capture, no images...that is modern society? That is modern technology and law and order? That's democracy and human rights? In some way this Penn (the innocent in prisons) and (never) Teller nazi propaganda video is an ad for what many of us know, that there really is something wrong with 9/11 or else why would the neocons spend such money hiring two slimy scum bags like p&t to spew their obvious lies? Listening more to Jimmie Walters, it's interesting that he says something there that was not in any other video, so the video is not a total loss, many times, these paid for scum bags put in little tiny language or video to try and save their ass years later when the tables might be turned, but to me I say, no way...to the bottom with people like that, there are plenty of others who paid the price for truth who deserve to be rewarded and supported. But in any event, Walters describes his theory that the 4 planes were landed, and replaced with military planes (or even just the 2 WTC planes replaced). In this theory the passengers are held in secret government locations, Walters claims that the neocons know the passengers and perhaps the passengers comply to such a radical life change. I find the idea of housing a few hundred people possible but doubtful, but I am keeping an open mind, the WTC being military planes fits the missile on the plane, no windows pieces of evidence. I guess there are 2 questions:
1) were those supposedly killed on the planes (Beamer, Ong, Olsen, Atta, etc)
a) killed in the plane that hit the WTC, etc
b) stored and still alive
c) stored temporarily then murdered
I can see c) because, look at how these people cared so little when doing the 2 WTC demolitions...I mean those were casual mass murders of thousands of innocent people. b) is entirely possible because look at the secrecy of the Pupin 1910 network...is there one physical piece of evidence of what thought looks like? absolutely none, but yet somewhere on earth there exists jpg after jpg, many mpgs of images and sound recordings of thoughts. b) or c) imply a military plane for the 2 WTCs that is controlled by remote control, probably by a satellite. And here is one other last thing to think about for us excluded (the included obviously know this story inside and out, but we are left to guess), is it possible that a commercial airliner might not have had the technology on board to do remote piloting? And so therefore, the US military had to use a military plane? Perhaps it would simply be too much work, and maybe the airline companies would not comply with the placing of remote control technology on their planes. Then, all that remains to do for the neocons at the top of the executive, and military of the renegade US government, is to force the media (which they own anyway), and the airlines ...all they have to do is ground the planes, and stop any reporting about it (which they apparently could not do for the Pennsylvania plane). So I think that my current view is that:
1) all 4 planes are landed, and their numbers changed (in fact the actual planes in question are probably still in service)
2) all people from the four planes are taken to a secret building complex as of yet unknown, but probably in the US. (the 2 extra planes besides the 2 WTC plane plan, may have been to add extra size to the event, to make it look like more of an invasion, and less like a single terrorist event)
3) the two remote control military planes, already painted in AA and UA colors (but probably with no windows), with probably a missile, but maybe a radar unit on the bottom, are flown into the 2 WTC buildings. (for this they had to secure all satellite companies...there could not be any 1 satellite company that would not agree to release images of the top of the planes, perhaps even threatening them not to attempt to capture such images)
4) A Drone is sent into the Pentagon, and a bomb is exploded on the ground in Shankesville.
5) The two WTC buildings are brought down in controlled demolition most likely by the company "controlled demolition", or by military explosive engineers.
passengers might agree to make phone calls if still alive, that adds weight to the passenger-hostage theories, in addition, passenger/US-military-hostages explains why there was not one drop of blood in Shanksville.
It's such a shocking thing to think about, how these people have a separate society where they manipulate the excluded public...thats what they talk about all day...is how to steer the herd of excluded where they want them to go....and it's a conversation only between included...the excluded are just in the background, in a different world...totally unaware of the main conversations going on between the included...and no doubt much of it is thought...very little is spoken....speaking is a taboo...and frowned upon as being stupid and risky. And maybe they watch violent videos beamed on their heads all together and applaud when their side wins, while poor people execute their evil wishes in exchange for payments.
This statement, is my statement to the excluded if I ever do get included, which I have not been yet, and it is doubtful I will any time soon. But in the event that I am included, I will probably agree to not release any more information (other than that which I have released) about the pupin camera net, and infact, I may have to stop all commentary on my web page, potentially deleting my opinions page, but I refuse to remove the bim.htm page and all I will have figured out up to then. So I am just telling people that this might happen.
I think a serious love of communism is in those conservatives who support marriage, the way, the spouses are supposed to suddenly pool all their assets into one big hat. There is a clear spectrum, on one side is individualism and on the other is communism, I am strongly in favor of individualism, and property rights. The other side is against individualism, one spouses earnings and property can easily be split in half and given to a person with less. I can see paying for a female while pregnant and paying a mate who raises the mutual children, and funding the children for a certain amount of time, but I reject the idea, in particular between two mates, marriage or otherwise, that their property should be thought of as mutual or communal. But yet, that is a major belief.
There is another good video on the 9/11 mass murder at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6974878786621931221&q=911+edna
In this video you can clearly see the white colored mini explosions all around the WTC, I mean if there ever was "smoking-gun" physical evidence, isn't this it?! Ofcourse, the number one argument from the neocons has to be they are "photoshop'd in", but I have since seen these small white explosions in other videos of the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2. To me, obviously no collapses like that without explosives, and into dust...it's obvious. I can't believe I didn't realize that initially. I didn't think much about it, I only saw the collapses once or twice on 9/11/01. Now, it is as clear as day, it's so obvious. And what a bunch of evil violent criminals. There is one video with a poor guy who is on the phone when the towers collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=729009483337815648&q=911+man+phone, they guy says "oh god! ohhhh!" as these neocons bring down the building while the people are still inside, burned, crushed, exploded and buried alive in what have been tremendously painful. What a bunch of vicious criminals the neocons are to do this, what a bunch of idiots to plan and do such a thing and to think they could get away with it, and worst, so violent and criminal. When will the public wake up? The big question now, is what is going to happen in January of 2009? If there is a democrat (which may be difficult for the republicans to fix this time), let's hope they seek to expose the 9/11 mass murder and arrest the major people involved, or certainly expose those people. I think that is such a key...to simply show the public, and a very large audience, all the best evidence, including seeing and hearing thought, and hidden video. As much as possible, to get the truth to the public.
I view so many of the liberals, and in particular the people exposing the 9/11 mass murder, like David Ray Griffen, Steve E Jones, David vonKleist, the 3 "Loose Change" people, Eric Hufschmidt, Alex Jones, and all the rest, and even people like Ted Charach, Oliver Stone, and the like, are basically people who want simple basic bare bones justice in the USA and on earth. I don't think people like this, and I group myself with this crowd, are asking for anything radical, but just simply to expose and stop homicide...all the other stuff takes a backseat...it's nice to have honesty...it's nice to have this or that...but mainly these are people who simply want the most basic of law and order in the USA. There is nothing radical about people like this in any way, they are simply the people for the most basic of laws. As I said here we have 2 of the most important laws, homicide and assault, and the people on earth cannot even get those right...in the case of the neocons, not only do they ignore homicide and assault laws, but they are active violators of those laws, our most basic and primative of laws.
6/19
anheuser-busch are huge conservative republican doners according to buyblue.org but yet democrats legalized alcohol. It's almost like saying: "we don't want dirty people like us in power". And then look at how alcohol was such an addiction and problem for Bush jr. He is a perfect example to the conservatives, perfect fuel for their anti-alcohol, prohibition tirades. Traditionally, the liberals are against prohibition and the conservatives for prohibition, so it's ironic to see an alcohol company supporting their own potential undoing, but religious ferver can't be stopped, no matter what logic and truth may exist, even when directed against the self.
No people have received protected status in the USA and on earth like the violent. Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a news story that referred to "the violent", to "violenters" or "violent offenders"? Like some kind of endangered species, are the protections for the violent. And they are far from endangered. The violent do not have any kind of public registry...the records of people sentenced for violent crime remains a complete and total mystery to the public, kept secret from the public who pays for all the prisons. And after all, in my mind, violence is the worst evil on earth, I can't think of any evil that is worse, not lying, not theft, ... drug use...they are all nonviolent...they may be nusances, but clearly violence, destruction, assault...that's the real evil on earth. And look how the violent have been protected..Frank Sturgis, Thane Cesar, the 9/11 reichstag group, the millions of violent offenders that live in anonymity, the millions of assaulters who are never arrested. Clearly those wealthy in power are protecting the violent, why? I can only conclude that they themselves are violent, and are supporters of violence...that it's in their interest to protect the identity of violent offenders, murderers and assaulters, etc., in their interest to not raise any anger, or awareness about violence and the violent.
Many people want this to be the "United Secrets of America", or "Nazis of America", etc. but I don't think that's going to continue as time goes on, because of the increase in free info. The values are there in the public, waiting to be expressed and realized, but they simply have bad, wrong, and or no info. And when these nazis are exposed, lets vote not for any pussy punishments, I want to see some serious punishments, in particular for the violent and those that participated in violence.
It's interesting how there is a massive lobby for gun rights, but among those people where the right to own a gun is so fervent, there is no massive strong feeling about the right to own drugs. Like Heston, there is of yet, no "over my cold dead junked-up strung-out coked-up or stoned hand". It's interesting to me that people that would battle so ferociously to have the right to own guns would think it ok if the government stops them from owning drugs, or engaging in prostitution for that matter.
I looked at a few surveys from 1970 to 2000, and what appears clear to me (although....ofcourse anything goes in terms of what may actually happen in the future), is that a really interesting phenomenon might gradually happen up to 2800 CE. At 2800 CE at the current 1970-2000 rate, all humans in developed nations would not believe in any gods, heaven or hell...all these estimates appear to converge (although maybe it sounds mystical, it's simply statistical) around 2800 CE 800 years from now. It makes me wonder because religions have been in power for many centuries, and to simply end in 800 years? Although this reflects the view of gods, heaven and hell of now...maybe in the future some other mystical religious explanation or vocabulary will arise. And I was to emphasize that this is only among the developed nations, the undeveloped nations are moving at a much slower rate that puts this time for them around 4300 CE, a tremendous difference. To understand how slow this process is: when I die, perhaps in 2070 (at 101 years old) only a measely 12% will not believe in a god, 88 % will. That figure now is about 94% believe, 6% do not believe. So, clearly, at least statistically there is no a lot to look forward to, but there is something at least. And ofcourse, anything can happen to change the rate of education, etc. Around 2425 CE, 439 years, is when the majority of people in developed nations would be atheist. In 400 years, a lot can happen, I would expect by then that definitely walking robots would be in abundance, as personal assistants and food servers, and that there would be perhaps a few thousand people living permanently on the moon with a few thousand visiting, and many thousands in earth orbit.
Epicurus, this brings me to a point that, I think we should go back to the Greek names for the classic scientists and philosophers instead of the Latinized versions. It is inaccurate to refer to them by a Latinized name, when they were refered to in their lives with the Greek name. All the "os" endings were idiotically changed into "us" endings and even worse the "k"s turned into "c"s to increase the confusion about what sound to pronounce. As a result, caeser was actually kaeser, the Lyceum was the Lykeum, ... I mean I am just realizing this massive corruption that happened. Aristachos, Epikouros, Aristoteles, Platon, the names look almost unrecognizable, but for the sake of accuracy, I am going with the actual Greek names. But Epikouros (Epicurus), has a wondeful quote on a god being either cruel to allow evil or not omnipotent if not able to stop evil. And I offer a similar view on same gender sexual arousal...although most people are strongly attracted and focused on the opposite gender, either people are occassionaly aroused by same gender touching and they are lying about it, or they are not allowing themselves, out of fear, to think about such things, and then they are stupid (underdeveloped, delayed, slow witted, or overly timid).
It's an interesting debate about when all the papyri were destroyed in the Library of Alexandria, and I think I am leaning towards the later 2 (of 4) events, since Theon and Hypatia were around up until 415, it's clear that there were still scholars there even as late as 400AD, then the famous Arab quote about burning the papyri taking 6 months is possible. It's tough for me to be sure as of now, but I don't think it's beyond an educated estimate. One student of Hypatia writes to her that the Jesus cult complains that the papryi in his library are not
It seems possible that Hypatia had brown eyes, short hair (although I have to check more references)...simply because many images of females from a similar time in Alexandria have short black hair, many times with ear rings, laurel vine in hair, necklace, hair complexly braided. It is interesting, I had no idea that ear rings were in use back in 100 AD, and the same for complex hair braiding.
One interesting argument is that Hypatia was one of the first punished as a witch, since Constantine II recommeded a similar painful murder of those claimed to be witches.
Many people say I have character flaws and am derangerd, but I swear, I am like from a different planet where creatures are curteous and friendly even to those who they deeply disagree with, but I think many of the other people I encounter have the serious character flaws...they can't help but put me down with insults about my mental purity, as a pervert, gay, psycho, make allusions to how violence should be done, ... and these people, who appear to me to be mean 80% of the time, have the serious character flaw in my opinion. Who is mean 80% of the time? I would rate myself as mean about 5-10%, very rarely do I lodge a first degree insult or put-down, I am busy thinking about the universe, ULSF, the robot, etc, and the same for my mom, my dad is about 30-40%, my brother 40-50%, my wife 20%...again another alien...from planet regular kindness and niceness. I don't think people should be punished for anger, and anger at injustice is healthy to a certain degree, but why would people want to support hostility, and hostile people? I don't think they should be drugged, or tortured into submission, but I certainly don't want to support that kind of open rudeness. Many of these people can be catagorized, many are like the "Francis" character from the movie "Stripes"...where they have taken the hatred of "gay" to a new overzealous level, never realizing that they simply don't have to participate, or that gayness is nonviolent, and therefore should be the least of the things to worry about. Yes, many of these 80% people take hatred of "gayness" to an extremely fanatical level, even when there is no gay to be found...and only people that they think might be gay. In some way, it's like the jealous spouse, always suspecting some outside pleasure or romance is happening, a person that thinks every body wants to have sex with them when it's not true, or wants to kill them when it's not true, etc. psychology, religion, and antisexuality (anti-gay, anti public sex, nude images, etc), marriage, nationalism, and secrecy form the basis of many of the 80% mean people's lives. I think some expressions that don't apply to these people are "easy-going", and "happy-go-lucky".
I think for the 2 WTC towers the best evidence of controlled demolition is:
1) video of camera on tripod shaking with audio of loud sound, piece of building fall off
2) videos with spools of smoke
3) video of little white explosions in WTC tower
4) video of smoke from bottom of WTC tower, with audio which reveals even small explosions, but in particular large initial sound.
5) video of liquid metal pouring down side of WTC, ala thermite
6) red hot metal, Nasa temperature readings of "ground-zero" site even days later, two hot for anything other than explosives and/or thermite reaction.
7) WTC7 is openly a controlled demolition, and it is nearly impossible to analyze the blueprint, and wire up a burning building in 8 hours all the way up to the top, which clearly is indicated as having explosives set that run up to the top of the WTC7 building.
8) fact that no building has ever collpased from fire
9) fact that building was designed to withstand 2 fully loaded 707 impacts
10) fact that no building has ever collapsed into powder before.
11) buildings would not collapse into their footprint, like in earthquake, many fall on their side, or parts collapse and base still stands. Base of WTC would have supported falling top.
12) eyewitness testimony
Best evidence Bush jr knew and apporved of the 911 plan:
1) video of Bush jr clapping seconds after the second plane collides with WTC2. (With Clinton and Oklahoma City, and the first WTC/FBI planeted bomb, there is no such smoking gun video which lends evidence to the rogue neocons simply doing Oklahoma City, part of a rogue FBI doing the first WTC and Clinton and law abiding liberals could not stop it)
06-09-2006
6/8
I guess there will be no trial, evidence presented as to his activity in first degree violence, arrest, etc for al-Zarqawi. But the excluded public has not seen one single piece of physical evidence that Zarqawi was involved in any violence to speak of, not one video of this human has been released to the excluded.
CNN is definitely owned by Time-Warner, the trillion dollar info selling business, whose owners and employees watch people in their apartments, condos, and houses in clear violation of the fourth ammendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees a "reasonable expectation of privacy", which I interpret as the "average person's expectation of privacy". In addition, every day violates the copyright of millions of people. Time-Warner secretly watch and hear the thoughts of millions of humans every day. All owners and employees of Time-Warner are accessories to many millions of murders before, and after the fact, and are complicitous in many murders. They have participated in violating people's bodies with photons from lasers, beaming images and sounds directly on their brains without permission or informed consent, and are involved in moving their muscles without permission or informed consent. All the time, they collect revenue on copyrights they hold. So I think my vote, and your vote too, should be for this company "Time-Warner" (Warner Brothers, CNN, Time, HBO, AOL, WB, TBS, People), News Corporation (Fox, TV Guide, 20th Century Fox, National Geographic Channel, MySpace), "Disney" (ABC, Touchstone, Miramax), "Microsoft" (NBC), Viacom (CBS, Paramount, Dreamworks, MTV, VH1, BET) , and all major newspapers, to be denied the right of copyright indefinitely, and to pay those they watched $1 for every hour they watched them through secret hidden cameras, $1 per hour of audio listening, and $1 per hour of watching their thoughts, or an amount based on their total net worth, and this is obviously, and naturally a logical start at justice, fairness, punishment, and payment for violated copyrights and privacy. In addition, any of those employees or owners directly involved in homicide or assault are to be imprisoned by democratic sentence.
6/9
I think perhaps that huge corporations perhaps should not be allowed to use alternative names for their businesses, for example CNN is not CNN, it's Time-Warner, it's misleading and a pseudonym to be using "CNN". The same is true for "FOX", which should be accurately called "News Corporation". I am for full free info, but since we currently have strict info laws, I see no reason why this kind of accuracy in representation should not be made law. It's deception to label various parts of some company some other name, as if they were separate businesses.
Excluded people may ask "ok, maybe people get video squares in their eyes, and can see and hear excluded people's thoughts, but where is the evidence? You have not produced one single piece of video evidence that this is true, no video of people actually seeing what a person is thinking, no video of people getting video beamed onto their brain...I want to believe what you are saying is true, but without any physical evidence I have a tough time believing it." And to those people I simply think, look at the typical example of 9/11/01. These people in this Pupin-camera-thought net own and control everything accept for 100% of our mouth muscles. So that is another reason why I speak out, since our mouth muscles are the last free objects on this Pupinet-controlled-planet. Look at 9/11. Maybe many people don't even know, but there are basically 2 major theories about 9/11, the "official" story and the "reichstag" story, and the "reichstag" story, for which there is overwhelming physical evidence, even despite the best efforts of the massive pupin-net violent criminal organization to confiscate and intimidate, only exists in the form of a few self-published books, and videos, found mainly distributed on the Internet for free, basically mostly found, in fact, at various self-owned web pages and video.google.com. In fact, I have less disrespect for Google than I do for Yahoo, because compare:
1) video.google.com is actually hosting the 9/11 videos that explain the truth, and my video which exposes the Pupin net, Yahoo is not, although Yahoo may link to such videos in a video search (and in fact now Yahoo has decided to host videos, but not in Real format which all mine are in, so now I would have to convert them just for Yahoo, but for a bunch of million dollar employees...they can't get videos to play in their window..they still play the majority of videos from other pages. I am going to wait until it is remotely usable.). And you know, Google stepped up and hosted those videos, at great risk to themselves...the neocon nazis and camera net could easily say...look we will sick the SEC, etc. on you, pay for media stories, make a scandel about you if you host these videos.
2) Google contributed to the democratic party, Yahoo bizarrely contributed to the republican murderers. (buyblue.org).
3) Google stood up to the Bush jr government in challanging their request to snoop on the public's search words (and have so far won), Yahoo instantly complied without an argument. And this has implications for those of us who use mail.yahoo.com instead of mail.google.com, because Yahoo may hand over all our email to the Bush jr government (who ofcourse can already see all of this through our eyes, but they can't use that official in a US court...although perhaps they could simply produce the email without stating the source, they probably could even simply fabricate email...how could any excluded defend themselves?).
And you know the video.google.com, the #5 ranked "Loose Change", "In Plane Site", my own "Emergency News", Ted Charach interview, and other videos, the Alex Jones videos, "Painful Deceptions", "The Thought Reading Machine" book, the Barry Zwicker videos, ... all these videos (and books) are basically the "hard place" for the neocon nazis, who are stuck between "iraq" and this "hard place". That is where the line has been drawn for them, they can't eradicate those videos, they can't eradicate Google, they can't eradicate the Internet...at least at this point in time. So that is where the truth is at...a few measily books and web videos...they can either be totally and completely squashed as they are in China, or they may grow to become hugely popular and form the basis of large-scale change (in other words, actual honesty, law, order and justice) in the US.
I saw a news.google.com article about how the catholic leaders were complaining about prostitutes for the world cup in Germany where prostitution is legal. How many of us in the Time-Warner States of America had ever even heard that prostitution is legal in Germany? And then ofcourse all the articles are completely 1 sided, only giving the plantiff view, not even interviewing one prostitute or prostitute advocate. And as usual, the plantiff Jesus cult give their major complaint that "females are forced to work" and females have to "sell their body", both of which are obviosuly false. Nobody is forced to flip burgers at McDonalds, I mean we are all forced somewhat to work, or else we would be go hungry, room-less, be without a penny...but obviously we are consensually working, we agree to flip those burgers or whatever we do for money. So, it's simply a major lie and popular lie given often that people in prostitution are not consensually working. Then ofcourse the argument that they are selling their body, which is again obviously false. People that provide sexual services, for example masturbation, kissing, or even simply sleeping with other people, are no more selling their body than the person flipping burgers is, obviously we are not selling our body when we allow our bodies to move packages for the post office, clean toilets or serve food. It's obvious that these Jesus-cult puritans are simply anti-sexuality, anti-pleasure. Something about pleasure and the fun and love of harmless, consensual sexuality (and not just penis to vagina or anus sex...even blow jobs, clit licking, nudity, masturbation, dildos, kissing, fondling genitals, etc.) that bothers them tremendously. And again, to me it's obvious that violence is the true evil, not consensual harmless sexuality for free or for money.
remember how Time-Warner sat on the Zupruter film for 30 years? Isn't that upstanding of them to hide such a valuable piece of physical evidence of a major murder? and ofcouse a still unsolved murder, although it's clear, no thanks to Time-Warner, Viacom, Disney, New Corp, and Microsoft that Frank Fiorini killed JFK.
I think a good skill for excluded people to learn and practice is the ability to quickly clear their mind of those included invaders that beam on it. The second I get an external beam, I have to learn not to think about it, to forget it, and to move on to what I want to think about. The included send images and sounds to excluded brains, in the hopes of prolonged thought on those topics, and many times I find myself responding and discussing (in my mind) the images and sounds they send. Many times they trigger memories of some wealthy celebrity, and it seems clear that it is either to cause conflict, bother the excluded, or may be some kind of ad campaign...in particular to get you singing or whistling their song...they are advertising on the excluded brains, getting excluded to think about them and therefore create a few second ad for them. You know, the included have way too much, and the excluded have way too little. It's obvious to me that this needs to be reversed or at least evened out. What I have been saying is: you know, what friend would treat you like a second class citizen, exclude you from seeing them in their houses, why simulatenously watching you and your thoughts in your house, using that technology to fully gain wealth and take advantage of the copyright, privacy, democracy and violence laws, and then constantly explain to you how you are too immoral or otherwise unsuitable to be included, while they run around going through your bathroom drawers, watching you in your house, watching your thoughts, beaming video over your dreams, participate in the 9/11 mass murder and coverup, covered up and protected Frank Fiorini and Thane Cesar, lied for 100 years about Pupin and hearing thought...but yet we are the immoral perverted weird violent insane dangerous people? Many comparisons can be made to South Africa and the struggle of black people there. They were supposed to think they were inferior, and no doubt many, looked up to the white celebrities and powerful wealthy white people, and felt they really were inherently inferior, that they had done something wrong, that they were not as smart or good looking, etc. and nothing could be farther from the truth, even when millions of people and dollars were dedicated to that effort. It was the white elites in power who were the immoral and criminal, and on average are no smarter, ethical or better than any other person.
Many people appear to be quoting the "How many times" quote from "Loose Change", and it's an inspiring phenomenon. That music play over the spools of smoke from the WTC explosives caught on video that escaped to the public. I still have to wonder what "Loose Change" means? It can only refer to how much money these neocons/Republicans/Christian conservative/religious right/murderers have. It's people saying..."hey that 9/11 mass murder and coverup thing is evil and wrong" from all walks of life. It's true that a large amount of anger was created inside the minds of the public by the 9/11 mass murder and that makes me feel better...they at least recognize that mass murder is evil and wrong, but sadly and wrongly, it was all directed at the wrong people. Obviously it should be directed at the Bushes, and their allies that plotted and carried out the entire 9/11 event and subsequent coverup, and then, as I have said numerous times, let's vote to jail them, and to uncover the truth, all the video and eye images, etc. that surround the 9/11 event (and many other events), that is one of the best answer there is in my mind. although I am excluded, and don't know all the complex forces at play. It's an interesting point that there have to be complex systems, as I have said before, as a result of this advanced 100 years of secrets technology. For example, one of the best examples I can think of is how there is, perhaps, a highly described set of events in the event of laser murder. Because laser murder can be done so quickly (as can gun murder and that is something to think about), many humans could be murdered very quickly, thousands in a matter of seconds, with a simple laser burn off their head, or something. And these lasers are in every room of every major building, to my excluded knowledge, no doubt some included have info to remove many of them, but I can only guess. So, each of both sides (although we are seeing a different two sides, included versus excluded...and you see the included have a lot in common...there are really 2 groups of included...group 1: included and for secrecy 2: included and against secrecy. It can be extended to 4 if you include liberal and conservative), each of both sides of conservative and liberal may have some kind of laser murder protocol where, if a liberal leader is murdered, some other (less popular, or less important) human is assigned to murder a conservative leader, and so on down the line. And so can you imagine, if some neocons decide to do a rapid laser murder of one or more liberal leaders? You would see, probably, the instant laser murder of many conservative leaders. And there would be waves of laser murder on earth, kind of like the use of the guillotine in the French revolution. And it's not a pleasant thing obviously, and who knows the nature of those plans if any exist? But at some point, the laser murdering would stop, and some laser murderers would remain, and no doubt it would stop because of fear of being murdered by many people. If you are a person that murders a person...even somebody that murdered somebody else...even a murderer of an innocent person, you would probably be viewed high on the list of the opposite side to murder, since you murdered one of their murderers. I can't believe these things don't happen already. There must be some tiny particle of interest in living or in peace, maybe fear of death or pain, that stops the neocon anger and violence from launching first strike laser (or gun for that matter) assaults on their liberal enemies. It definitely has to be some form of laser stale-mate, or something like that. And here, the shocking thing to me is that, all it takes to bring down these neocon murderers is not advanced lasers (although in reality maybe that is infact what it is taking), but is simple nonviolent showing of the video of their crimes.
06-07-2006
6/6
oc register has a front page section titled "orange punch blog"
and clearly this is people paying money simply to promote violence, as far as I can see. Why explicitly use the violent word "punch"? Definitely "a drink" is one definition, but obviously "assault with fist" is a major definition of "punch" too. Perhaps this is from people who want to assert their right to free speech, and in particular the right to violent speech, to threats of violence being covered under the first ammendment, and you know, most conservatives don't go for that...in particular when it comes to threats of violence against conservative people, and as far as I know threats of violence are in fact illegal. I can see tolerating threats of assault/violence as being free speech, I am willing to accept that, although I think we can all accept that threats of violence are low-brow and the worst form of speech...the worst price of free speech, obviously since first degree violence is the worst evil on earth. But I think it's clear that the funders of this "punch" section are people who are paying to inject violence and violent chaos...fist fighting into our society, funding physical fighting between family members, couples, neighbors, classmates....is there some other interpretation of the facts? It's money purely to promote violence. It is typically "conservative", remember Richard Nixon's punchline after winning in 1968? The republicans choreographed a joke about the murder of RFK. Nixon says "after losing one...blah blah blah...I can say this....", and some unknown person behind the curtain shoots a starter pistol, which makes a very loud "bang" sound, and Nixon continues..."winning is a lot more fun!". I thought about this, and you know...if it was JFK in the opposite place, celebrating the secret murder of Nixon, even then...I doubt I would laugh or feel good at all...I would feel like...you know...maybe it's nice that an evil criminal like Nixon won't be around, but still...I don't feel comfortable cozying up to a murderer, or even somebody that advocates first degree murder as a legal and desireable option. Who knows if they would advocate that for you some time if you ever disagree with them?
Just a quick word about the primary elections, I am glad to see that Angelides won, I would have voted for any of the winning Democrats, and I voted for the antiwar person, but Angelides was my second pick. By the way the results are listed at: http://www.oc.ca.gov/ELECTION/Live/pri2006/results.htm, after reading through the propaganda in an latimes.com article that used "avert" for a cool $15,000(?), I thought...what am I reading this tripe for? just to find out the results, and found the above page. I can't believe that Tom Harman won so easily in Orange County, his page reads like a nazi manifesto as I said before...I was like..what the?...this is a democrat?...then I saw the no this was a republican, and it shows how backwards the people are in Orange County, and Harman won by a large amount...there wasn't much doubt in the minds of people in OC... and how about in San Diego where Bilbray won with the promise to build a wall from the Pacific coast to the Gulf of Mexico? It's shocking to me, because that is an idea from 200BC China, which is still predominantly one race of people. How about people in NJ supporting Tom Kean jr? Here Kean is the son of Tom Kean senior who actively worked to coverup the neocon mass muder of 3000 people, many who were NJ natives...there are many examples like this...if only the people knew...but then probably people like Lt. Robert Dominick Cirri and Patricia A. Cody, both killed by neocon murderers who Tom Kean Senior is friends with and is actively helping to protect from prosecution. Kean senior would see the futility of lying and protecting murderers when everybody could see. Feinstein won, and I didn't even get 1%, I guess it's more Bush jr, and this murdering criminal "Jesus+Gods" group. As a final note, again I want to point out that the vast majority of republicans have again voted for Arnold Swartzenegger, a person whose father was absolutely, no one questions, and is public knowledge, was a believer in Nazism, in the Gestapo, and joined the nazis at a time when joining was illegal in Austria. Not that Arnold believes in Nazism, but for Arnold to reject Nazism, Arnold would have to reject the vast beliefs of his father (and mother). I certainly reject some of the beliefs of my father, I reject the Jesus cult, but I think it is rare, and an exception to the rule that siblings would reject the values their parents believed in and fervently supported. If there was any doubt, Swartzenegger invited Kurt Waldheim to his wedding...where were the fervent antinazi German and Austrian people? In any event, that Arnold's dad was in the gestapo is a clear fact, and these california republicans chose to support that ideal, and to me that shows how brutal, racist, violent, lawless, and stupid the california republicans are. There are some good libertarian videos on video.google.com, with Mark Selzer, "The Libertarian Alternative", Judge Gray is in one interview, Harry Browne, an interesting female who is defending one of the people jailed in the Santa Cruz cannibis clubs, Allison Mangolin...what a pretty and interesting smart person, and there was this one female in the Bureaucrash.com who viewed democrats as basically anti-capitalist, and in my opinion that simply isn't true, but it's interesting to see what people find themselves relating to libertarians, it's a diverse group, albeit only 1%. Capitalism to me is not the big issue, there is always going to be individual property ownership and free markets of people, like ebay, buying and selling, the real issue of this time, in my opinion is democracy...who is for full democracy and who is for representative democracy? and ofcourse the other major issues of violence, free info, drug war, psychiatric system, prostitution, science, evolution, etc. But, this person, to me, reminded me of something...to me it doesn't take a genius to figure out that over there on the other side is Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, the Green River Killer, the 9/11 plotters and murderers, etc. all first degree murderers...I mean that is simple, and you know...Sturgis, Nixon, Bush, Thane Cesar...they all worked together...they all protect each other...I am simply saying it doesn't take a genius to figure out the basic sides here in the USA...I mean the republicans, the right, the conservatives are a bunch of first degree murderers, and the democrats are not...whatever the democrats are...and there are definitely many flaws and issues I disagree with, but their history is not littered with first degree murder. Beyond that...many smart people recognize, beyond the obvious issue, that even excluded can understand that Oswald didn't murder JFK, and a massive industry of evil people exists to protect the actual murder (who clearly was Frank Sturgis, even the excluded are coming to realize)...but beyond that, on a more subtle level are issues like drug use...well...clealy if you ever used drugs you should not be voting for republicans, because those are the people with a clear history of locking people in jail for that very reason. Reagan made the mandatory minimums which now force many drug users into jail for longer periods of time than violent people. Nixon was big into the drug arrests...and it's no surprise...because generally, liberal artist people experiment with drugs, spartan people usually go for alcohol or abstain from all drugs and alcohol...when you arrest people for drugs, the vast majority of people being arrested, those of us who have used drugs, are liberals and intellectual artists...the enemies of Nixon, of the spartans. So on a more subtle level, to see a person that has used marijuana, or cocaine voting for republicans is to me, stupid...because why would you jeapordize your own freedom and the freedom of anybody that like you, Bush jr, Bill Clinton, and millions of others has used illegal drugs? And we can go down the board on, issue for issue, and so I am saying...that most smart people have figured out or certainly should soon about the basic two sides in the USA...those republicans who murdered, and fill the prisons full of nonviolent intellectuals and consensual sexuals, and those democrats who oppose first degree murder, and certainly do less jailing for drugs, and some of whom are even against the drug war (Kucinich is one example). So I think, you know, people have to be informed about this basic principle, and in my mind, the smartest and most impressive people are those who fully understand the nature of the past 100 years, how the republicans have been nothing but violent criminals and persecutors of the innocent...which should not take a genius to catch wind of. The democrats are not above criticism, and much of my time under Clinton was me criticising his callousness and continuing of the drug war, for not challanging the Reagan mandatory minimums, for not promoting science and evolution, for not speaking out against violence (another person who advocated "punching" a person, just for their non-violent words...and as usual...this was the president of the us, and they are advoicating violating the assault law...I mean...gods of air and fire save us, what hope do we have for those violent laws being enforced any time at that rate?). So ofcourse, and massive taxing and spending on military or whatever other frivelous unnecessary things these representatives spend our money on...they all need to be critisized and exposed, but let's recognize the basics...the republicans murdered JFK, RFK, they did 9/11, they covered up all 3 of those murders...and the democrats didn't...and it's clear...the republicans are way too evil to ever support (beyond any reasonable doubt), and that only leaves the democrats, libertarians, greens, independents, etc. Still I just wish some female would whip open her shirt shake her boobs a little and say to the world, "What do you think of them green apples hm?" or something like that....wouldn't that be delightful and a nice release of pent up repression? But ofcourse, she would be labeled insane for the remainder of her life, and no doubt tackled by massive uniformed police, strapped to a table, injected with drugs, and locked up for at least 3 days, and endless hours after millions of marshmellow-head puritans that ask "are you ok? are you sure yer ok lil' buddy?"
You know, one of the 9/11 videos features the scene from the movie with Martin Sheen, where Sheen holds the baby up to protect heself? and you know, that movie was made in "The Dead Zone" made way back in 1983, and I can't help but think...maybe the film makers knew back in 1983 that the US military had promoted such a plan, as putting the president in a crowd of children to protect the president during their evil murders...the "Northwoods" document shows how they had various plans to trick the excluded pee-on public who can not see and hear thought. and as an aside I think by the 50s the pupin net was basically polished and was at that point an uncontrollably large well polished criminal group of evil. By the 50s there was no more debate, no more amateur anything...it was like after the early Jesus cult years...by then any dissent had been hammered out and the machinery, those who own and maintain the networks too large and powerful, entrenched in the major businesses, the media, and government. Like "how many non-whites are hired", people will someday ask "how many excluded were hired?". And then so...just like some unknown northwoods document that Sheen and them saw, and bush and them saw, but we all didn't see...and so bush jr and them, the joint chiefs of murder must have recycled that idea of putting the prez in with the kids for the 9/11 thing when bush claps a few times right after the WTC2 is hit with the second plane, etc. In the movie, the president's reputation is ruined, but here in reality, the president's reputation was lifted to a new high. go figure. It seems clear, that these beaurocrats would recycle some old evil plan, it's like people that rubber stamp things, and then the oldest one appears the most legitimate, no matter how evil or stupid...its been there the longest, it is the least radical...or the conservative dumb idiots that do these things feel more comfortable...it's like an old shoe to them...so it was the put the president with the children for protection plan they chose.
I am thinking more about the future of the universe, along the lines of the natural possible evolution of spiral galaxies to elliptical (which I am calling "globulars" for more accurateness and simplicity). So in my amateur level of knowledge, I see that most galaxies we see are spirals and only a tiny minority are globular. So as I said last time, perhaps a very few are "intermediate" between spiral and globular, and certainly some are "deformed" from gravitational collision with other galaxies, and finally some are ... I guess "being eaten"? I don't know ... some say "cannibalized", but how about a nicer word..."injested"? or simple "collision". In any event, is this an early stage for the universe? Can we expect as time continues that most galaxies will become globulars as advanced life starts to shape matter into "orderly" purposes for it's own complex needs? Can we expect a universe of globular galaxies in the very very very far future...I mean we are talking about many many zeros after the 1 in terms of even galactic years....or maybe in terms of galactic years it's some reasonable number. So I am imagining a universe full of globular galaxies, but clearly, the nature of stars is to send photons out in all directions, and so there would definitely be nebulas forming from the collective accumulation of photons from these globulars. Clearly, globulars need to expend photons to move, and no doubt they need photons to perform other functions (like we need food, water and air)...I think we can presume that movement is a requirement because there is probably a great interest in seeing other galaxies, and the rest of the universe, and in addition, if you don't move, you are moved by other galaxies...and most people probably want to be in control of their own movement, I know I do. So that must be a kind of harsh reality, that to move anywhere you need to destroy some matter of yours, and that may involve using some stars as fuel (although certainly gravity can be smartly used as was done for the voyagers and other ships), and think of those inhabitants of those unfortunate stars...they would be immigrants to other stars...and then only if they had enough personal matter to get to those other stars within the globular galaxy. So on the larger scale, can our descendents expect to see some time a universe of mostly globular galaxies? I have never heard such a postulation, hypothesis, or simply question. And then will those globulars eventually have to confront each other (initially they will no doubt confront other spirals with are less defended and easily included into their globular galaxy, but will spirals eventually be rare)? And what might this say for the structure of the universe in time? Is this a natural evolution in other unseen parts of the universe? Maybe that has some relation to the microscopic particle physics...that we are seeing a similar effect as electricity, or some kind of mitosis or natural evolution of life, but on a larger scale that is inevitable. Then ofcourse, I wonder what, if any, disruption there would be to that final homeostatis, of globulars moving around the universe...would some mighty evil (at least in theory) group plow back the entire thing into just random photons? Or maybe that homeostatis would simply last indefinitely...simply another incarnation, grouping, pattern, or structure of matter in a universe. In any event, it's interesting to think about for some time.
heat (photons in infrared) changes direction of photon in visible.
like over a grill, and I think this phenomenon needs to be understood, why is the direction of photons changed around heat (large amounts of photons with infrared frequency)?
possible order of evolution of reproduction systems
There are some basic reproduction systems:
for prokaryotes:
1) binary fission
2) budding
3) (conjugation)
for eukaryotes
1) binary fission (yeast for example)
2) budding fission (again, one kind of yeast reproduces through budding)
3) mitosis
4) (sex/cell and-or nucleus fusion)
And part of the order of this evolution is clear, but much is in doubt:
1) prokaryote binary fission
(prokaryote conjugation+binary fission?)
a) eukaryote binary fission (both nucleus and cell binary divide) (asexual)
b) eukaryote closed mitosis
c) eukaryote open mitosis
2) prokaryote budding? (planctomycetes)
a) eukaryote budding? (protists-euglenoza, fungi - yeast, animals-choanozoa)
or is it this?:
1) prokaryote binary fission
a) prokaryote cell conjugation (sex) with binary fission
1) eukaryote cell conjugation (sex: for example the green algae spyrogyra, ciliates) with binary fission
b) eukaryote binary fission
1) eukaryote budding
a) planctomycetes is eukaryote that loses full nucleus but retains budding
It raises at least one question for me, does budding happen in the nucleus or in the cytoplasm? I think budding has to happen in the nucleus, and the new cell must break out of the nucleus and the cytoplasm, but is that true? Or is the new cell created outside the nucleus and then must only break out of the cytoplasm. I know there are some cells where there are many new cells and they all bust out of the cytoplasm only, but are they assembled in the cytoplasm? If yes, that implies a complex system of reading the instructions in the nucleus but assembling copies outside the nucleus.
Cleary some lines are definite:
1) prokaryote binary fission
(somewhere perhaps here there is conjugation and sexual cell and nucleus fusion)
2) eukaryote binary fission (of nucleus and cytoplasm)
3) mitosis (which is basically a spindle assisted binary fission)
a) closed mitosis
b) open mitosis
(or maybe here for eukaryote cell fusion)
and then all that remains is "budding"...but now for the first time I am really seeing that ... I can see that maybe there are 2 major lines of reproduction: 1) the binary fission line and 2) the budding line. It's possible that budding was transfered, or evolved more than once, but I think more likely budding is inherited from one ancestor. And so, there may be two clear lines of those eukaryotes that bud, and those that do binary fission and mitosis. I think there are initial problems in that, how can a binary fission yeast and budding yeast be so different, they are both in the yeast family, they are both clearly fungi. A hydra is a multicellular animal that reproduces by budding and can also reproduce sexually, so perhaps sex came after budding. I think it is possible that sex is very ancient (perhaps even in prokaryotes), and that many asexual cells either lost the ability, or simply have the code but don't ever use it, or are descended from asexual ancestors.
It's interesting that the budders are mainly fungi and animals which are closely related as opithokonts. Biologists really need to put together the chronology on reproduction, that is a basic and very important task to get to the public. I think all the evidence has to be there, it's just that there are millions of Genes to decipher and compare between species. It has importance in figuring out what cell truly came first. Are the eukaryotes that copy by asexual binary fission the oldest eukaryotes? Are eukaryotes that reproduce sexually through conjugation (green algae like spyrogrya, and ciliates) the oldest eukaryote? Cleary the closed mitosis species have older ancestors than the open mitosis species. I think there is an argument that can be made for ciliates and green algae being very ancient eukaryotes, but you know there is a lot of doubt in my mind. The rrna/genetic view and fossil record has both ciliates and green algae as coming much later, after oxymonads, after euglenozoa, after heterokonts (like brown algae).
pope visited auschwitz and said can't understand how a god could allow, but to me that is almost like saying...its all part of a god's plan...the reason we have injustice, etc. is because god has willed it, and I definitely disagree with that view. It's to suppose that a god suddenly changed it's mind on the issues of slavory and the right for females to vote, etc. it seems more based on human values and human education, etc. to me. It goes back to the classic debate about the nature of a god that is either cruel to allow pain and suffering, or powerless to stop it if wanted. I question how a god would allow the belief in gods to plague the earth for as long as it has.
CNN took a few thousand to promote "creepy" "TP"...in "Leggy creepy crawlies resurface in California"...and see if that pans out anything for the neocon mass murderers. Who paid for it? Who is behind it? I vote to ban all the CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC employees from even hearing thought or seeing inside people's houses, from ever getting video beamed onto their heads, that's my vote, it's a tiny one vote, but please record it for eternity and until further notice, and I also vote that they should pay compensation to those they watched without permission in the form of $10/hour of watching/person. I'm not sure what creepy is, but I know what murder is, I know I don't do it, I know the neocons did, and I know CNN employees cover it up and protect them from the public knowing who did all the murdering. And how about how the orwellian gestapo of CNN, like the secret elitist voyeurs of the Colubus Dispatch and every other major media outlet, sat back and watched the citizens of the USA in their houses, and watched their thoughts, not bothering to inform them that thought can be heard, I hope CNN get majorly fined and has to pay compensation for all their corrupt lies, violation of privacy laws, and elitism. And let's hope disgraced for the rest of their lives, as is only natural for people who abused the public, and were accessories after the fact and complicitous to many first degree homicides for a century. I feel a lot like Dave vonKleist feels..."shouldn't we have nothing but contempt for the major media", absolutely, what a bunch of evil liars, protectors of murderers, and elitist criminals. I vote too, that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, TimeWarner, Disney and PBS must be open to public inspection at all times, must make all their video, in particular all thought recordings available to the public in digital format, at their own expense indefinitely, property of the US government and public for their crimes and violation of privacy laws, secrecy surrounding seeing and hearing thought, and complicity to mass and individual murders. In addition, I vote for those named companies to forever lose any right to copyright which may still exist by popular law. It's a classical conflict, like England over the colonies, democracy is inevitable, and I am looking forward to it, I know the major media and their neocon allies are not obviously.
06-06-2006
Here is a view of perhaps what the trial of the neocon 9/11/01 plotters and murderers might say:
Judge: you are charged with being an accessory before the fact to first degree murder of 3000 people, how do you plead?
Crimino: I plead Jesus!...I'm a christian...yer the devil...yer satan...im a christian....
Jury: hmmm...on one hand 3000 murders...on other hand...they do say they are christian...hmmmm....can't figure out...
6/5
What we need are people in government tough enough to take on the violent criminals like Thane Cesar, Sturgis, and the 9/11/01 neocon killers, not as much the nonviolent people like the drug users, prostitution, molestation, theft, etc. Obviously arresting nonviolent people like those is not difficult and risky, it's the violent people like Thane Cesar, the killer of Ron Goldman, Jam Jay, Bonnie Bakely, the neocon 9/11 WTC mass murderers...you know we just had a triple murder in Garden Grove in Orange County, and by now, all those included must know what person did this triple homicide...so what are they waiting for? Why aren't they arresting the human that did the 3 murders in Garden Grove? Obviously when they can see and hear thoughts, and see inside houses, clearly those in power, in the government know who did this most recent murder...what is the delay? and here you can see that the morals of those in the camera network, and 9/11 is the largest example, have slid down to some of the worst set of values, although perhaps by default, but holy cow are those terrible ethics and what a low denominator and numerator for that matter.
Its frustrating knowing that Orange County is 20 to 50 years behind San Francisco County morally, and ethically...there in SF they are already preparing for legal prostitution, and legal drugs, that will take 50 years if not more to catch on in relatively backward Orange County...it's like the year is 2006, but it's 1956 in Orange County for all practical purposes. Although I think the amount of violence may be more in SF than in OC and so that is to the credit of the people in OC, and I hope the people of SF use their smarts to stop violence and become the most violence free city in the USA.
6/6
Tienemen tank man, do you know this person?
Frontline has a free video where they interview young Chinese people about the "Tank Man", the man that stood in front the of the Tienamen tank line in 1989, and the young people don't recognize the picture saying..."is it some kind of parade?". And I want to do this to people in the USA...get a photo of Frank Fiorini and ask "Do you know this person?", "Have you ever seen him?", and Thane Cesar "Do you know who this is?", "He played a critical role in US history...a terrible dastardly major role in major US history...do you know who he is?", and a photo of Michael Pupin, "Do you know this guy?...have you ever seen this person?...do you know his name?...it's Michael Pupin...does that ring a bell?...he made an invention that changed life on earth in a way perhaps more importrantly than even the television had...", "You don't know any of these people? really? such major major pivotal humans in the history of the USA...? Clearly there is something wrong here...".
iraq security, this is safer? This is obviously the same kind of approach to stopping violencing in the USA too, basically almost none at all. We could use cameras available to the public, walking robots, free info, full democracy but don't.
walked past army recruiting at UCI university center, militarization, uniformed employment, and war obviously the future under republicans.
major media, and major money going with "The Omen" theme on 6/6/6, why not "the Exocist", "The Shining", "The Brotherhood of Satan" (1971: gee could it have been christian conservative anti-kennedy propaganda?), "It's alive!" (whose tv ad scared me as a child), ... it's interesting to learn about the "Omen" movie where a young black haired child is the antichrist, or son of satan, clearly a movie for humans in the Jesus cult that believe in this main myth (Pagans, Buddhists and Hindi would probably not relate as much). It's interesting because Omen was made in 1976 when I was 7 years old. Maybe I showed an advanced ability then to those that watch people in their houses and their thoughts secrectly since Michael Pupin in 1910, or maybe some other child did. It's amazing that even when I was born the camera-thought net elite were propagandizing against atheists like my mom who enjoyed Ayn Rand books. I have a newspaper clipping from my birth and there is only one contraction used in the 6 or 7 paragraph story, the word "he'll"...already in 1969, the voyeurs in the Columbus Dispatch knew all about Sylvia, all about her reading activities, and commented to those in the know, and even those excluded that...ofcourse, naturally in their small minds, atheists are for "hell", or atheists are satanists, which is a typical belief among the Jesus cult. What a tolerance for different beliefs eh? What an evil network of Jesus cult liars and secretive voyeurs. Big money Christians probably used their money, not to enlighted the public with stories about history, science, and the future as revealed by science, but with multi-million dollar propaganda, aimed at lowering the popularity of those popular honest atheists, the sexual, the smart, the scientists...to justify the murder and persecution of atheists. One small point is that atheists are not satanists...they are simply people who think there are no gods or devils, that such things are human creations, etc...they don't worship a devil, those are satanists (and many argue christians themselves, for believing a devil exists). And this justification for first degree murder is classic in the Jesus cult. They murdered many Jewish people on similar grounds, and perhaps most destructively and stupidly of all, they murdered many brilliant scientists, like Giordano Bruno, even children like Chavalier La Barre were murdered in religious (Jesus) ferver. So I think the major media is going with the Omen theme for this "satanic" moment, because perhaps that one is the most believable, perhaps that one of all the satanic theories of the past has panned out because I am hugely popular, million watch me and find comfort from my exposing of the truth and criticism of the prevailing dishonesty and violence, ... from my teaching of science and history, my appeals for full democracy, nonviolence, law, sexuality, human rights and freedom of info. Perhaps had a female been in my place, as most popular human of the USA, or biggest threat to the popularity of the Jesus cult, "Carrie" or some other idea would be the theme today. If an asian, african or native american human...some asian, african or native american as a devil theme would be most popular. Mainly it's wealthy christian people that fund the major media, they pay for these stories directly, but...that is one of the most major pieces of news never, and I repeat never ever ever, reported by the major media....that each article, each video, is absolutely paid for with either money or influence, and has very little to do with actual news. If it is actual news, the wording is shaped absolutely to fit the opinions of those major funders. Look at many articles about an arrest, for example, we only hear the plantiffs side, we never see one sentence from the defense typically. So, I will be glad when this 6-6-6 mysticism is over, I hate holloween too. It's still shocking to me that "horror" movies are popular at all, if I do reproduce I will clearly never take my children to any kind of horror movie, and explain clearly that demons, ghosts, spirits are all artifacts of past beliefs, and no such things exist or have ever existed. What a terrible trend...to try and scare people with mystical spirit-world murderers...even as a child I didn't understand the appeal of the horror movies that were popular with my brother and his friends....out of curiosity and to try and fit in, I persevered and watched some of them...but as time continued...it was clear that I wanted nothing to do with horror movies, and that has been my view ever since. Now, I view such things as excersizes in stupidity...I mean it's obvious that no houses are haunted, ghosts exist, etc. and only idiots and the backward believe such stories, in particular for me to know now what the future may hold for life of this tiny planet, to see clearly our destiny to grow to other stars, to build globular clusters, to make the Milky Way an elliptical galaxy...which reminds me that...there must be galaxies out there at a very "in between" stage...where there are many globular clusters, but still whisps of gas and nebulosity from the spiral galaxy that was...where are they? Maybe here are some:
These are called "irregular galaxies", maybe some could be called "intermediate galaxies"
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041110.html : definitely very developed
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/NGC_4490.jpg perhaps very early stages of transition from spiral to elliptical, or simply deformed from gravitational interaction with other galaxies, one appears nearby, so perhaps only deformed spiral.
http://www.godandscience.org/images/irregulargalaxyngc1705.jpg I think this is a good example, clearly there is still a large amount of gas and dust, no clear deformity, and very globular appearence...I would say this is one of the best examples so far, but it is still relatively late in the evolution of a spiral to an elliptical, this is mostly an "elliptical", which maybe we should call a "globular".
http://www.3towers.com/FingerLakes/FingerLakesNGC/ngc6822color.jpg similar to the last one, but smaller...perhaps the small size has something to do with the shape, but I could see this being an intermediate too: there is still some dust (I mean apparently), but mostly globular.
http://www.godandscience.org/images/galaxyam0644-741.jpg this looks like a gravitational deformation, but perhaps this is developing from the inside out...maybe that's the way most do...who knows?
http://www.godandscience.org/images/galaxyngc2787.jpg This one is interesting, I see no globular clusters, but maybe the galaxy is too far, if this is intermediate, then it is very early.
http://www.godandscience.org/images/spiralgalaxyngc300spitzer.jpg This is an interesting galaxy. I can almost see the outline of a spiral galaxy, as if it basically stopped momentum and was frozen in some last stage of spiral movement. I think is may be the best example of an intermediate galaxy of all of these, except I don't really see much globular structure. I do think this is the best example of an intermediate that I have seen yet strictly because of the lingering spiral shape that appears to be a remnant of the past.
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/C_SPRING/NGC5128.HTM this is either intermediate, or I think may be an example of "globular feeding", a major advanced globular galaxy basically reaching it's long term goal of finding new matter to consume, and consuming lesser evolved (less defended) spiral galaxies. I doubt there are many globular versus globular events...most globular civilizations would not want to bother, in particular when a defenseless spiral is probably near by.
It's shocking to me, and no doubt to many smart thinking people, that humans give money to religions instead of to science endeavers. They hand over millions to the Jesus cult, and nothing for rocket planes, for walking robots, for helicopter cars, for a history of science free web video, for a history of evolution free web video, for even great daily sex...not even to enjoy our own bodies...you know we all live in total abstanance, without even physical touch, not even daily, weekly or monthly sex, and certainly not with a wide variety of people...I mean it's a terrible terrible time on earth and will be for hundreds more years. One thing that seems clear to me in putting together this ULSF story is this: Now, we have the time to drop religion, to embrace science, to solve out problems...we still have time to solve our problem of being stuck here on earth, of humans living on every square meter of earth without any space for other species, of overpopulation, ... mainly the future problem I see is overpopulation of earth...which is inevitable, I mean eventually in thousands of years earth will be totally like the death star, totally developed, as will all the other planets and moons, that's simple logic, providing we don't go extinct at our own idiotic doing first, ... and there is a clear path out of this overpopulation mess for the next few centuries...and that is by moving out into orbit, onto the moon, onto mars, gearing up to go to Centauri and move to other stars...it is very very clear to me, that only hardcore earth fans will stay on earth at some point...it will be absolutely uncomfortably populated with humans...a real city lovers dream, but beyond that...to an annoying extent...most people that have enough money will fly far away from the massively overpopulated overcrowded earth. And this path is obvious, moving humans off of earth through science, through rocket planes...but here is the problem I see...the vast vast majority of humans are lost in a religious haze, not remotely aware of this impending problem, not remotely interested or supportive of science in any way...how can we possibly have rocket plane transports and supplies ready on the moon when the vast majority are busy in temples, churches, mosques, etc...busy with their religious cult? As an intersting aside, I am finding that around 2700 2800 CE (or AD), all the trends add up to the vast majority of humans in developed nations being basically religion free at that time, and that is a good indication. If I live to 100 and die in 2069, still only 20% of humans in the USA will define themselves as "nonreligious" by my estimation, up from 10% now. I estimate 50 to 100 years for the truth about Pupin to be shown to the public, putting my most likely estimate at 2100, when I would be 140, but no doubt dead by then. So, this is the feeling in my mind as I put together this potential story of the future of life on earth...that we are walking into a brick wall if we don't embrace science and soon. I think we will face that brick wall, or a few may just barely escape it, a tiny welathy minority, before we reach a big crunch, where overpopulation is an obvious problem but there is no clear release to other planets or even into orbit, because none of the technology was developed. All the other species will be packed into zoos, botanical gardens and arboretums or extinct...I mean there are many potential escapes, I think walking robots will be walking around, replacing most low-skill jobs (fast food preparers, cashiers, fruit pickers) by 2050..and that is one major step towards the future independence of earth. It's difficult to really predict, because, perhaps humans will get smart (in my experience all probabilities are against it anytime soon, but it is inevitable in the long term). It seems clear that to protect many of the species on earth, if we wanted to, we would need to conquer much more space and matter than we currently occupy...we would need to be able to live on the moon, and one key scientific finding to make that possible is the ability to convert iron and silicon (abundant on many terrestrial planets and moons) into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
SCI: I think the inside of the sun is identical to the inside of the earth, liquid molten iron, and the same is true for all other major bodies in our star system, including Jupiter. I think the inside of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is molten iron, and perhaps even a terrestrial sphere with a crust.
06-02-2006
5/31/06
going to other stars like a bear hibernating, or a penguin waiting for mate to return with food. Basically, those ships will have large amounts of matter that they will nibble away on their long journey to stars like Centauri, Tau Ceti, etc. Resources will no doubt have to be carefully planned, although it is doubtful that much would happen in the vast empty space between the stars that would be unplanned or delay the estimated journey in any way. Perhaps the agricultural ships would surround the ships with humans, in case of collisions, only food would be lost, and those ships could be repaired, or recycled as food, air, etc. It seems clear to me that the journeys of humans to other stars will not be done in one ship, but in many ships at once. One ship could perhaps be made to reach great speeds, where smaller ships might have to sacrifice that kind of giant engine. But probably, these individual ships would be big enough, or perhaps fuel would be distributed as the journey progressed.
In looking at the future, some major industries are emerging:
1) walking robots
2) heli-cars (helicopters with ground driving capabilities)
3) rocket-planes into orbit
4) vegetarian foods
5) alternative fuel (biofuel+H2+[non-radioactive-waste-]nuclear)
all of which I would like to get involved with.
06/01
Bush jr. to support ban on gay marriage, what a warm welcoming tolerant guy hm? what a warm gentle bastard eh? You know, I see a future where free information dictates that any people can wed any other people and as many and as often as they want, perhaps even other species if there is clearly no objection. The bigamy laws are ridiculous in my opinion, and here the people in the FBI constantly lock up people in Utah and claim that it involves children, never addressing the fact that they arrest people who marry more than one person when everybody is an adult. Now there is a big priority...hey let those mass murderers of 9/11 go...or even the simple homicide people like those in Garden Grove...gee is anybody going to eventually arrest the murderer?....hey put that down...there is a bigamist in Utah...lets get'em! It's like the anal sex laws in my opinion...locking people in jail for making a contract is stupid, and in particular where there is clearly no pain or violence, I mean bigamy is clearly a nonviolent crime...it's stupid. My vote is for an end to special marriage laws, like joint tax filing (perhaps people were thinking that the poor female doesn't have the skills to figure out how to fill in taxes, which really should be done by the government anyway...just look at all our bank transactions...eventually like already there are very few secrets). I don't see marriage as a big deal, between two people of the same gender, between more than two people, etc. My vote is for legal marriage for two or more people of any gender. And also a vote against any marriage ban. What a bunch of trivial antisexual backwards 1400s people, there are no bigger issues of more importance? I hope this 9/11 thing breaks open, you know...it's clear that the 3 WTC buildings were brought down in controlled demolition...it's ridiculously obvious, and 9/11 shows to me at least the depth of rottenness in the secret Pupin camera-thought network...it shows how low those people and that network think and believe...their morals...etc...to allow such a thing to happen, and to persist in the coverup. Look how Condolezza Rice and all those neocons stood there and told the US public that they had no idea about anything in 9/11...when obviously not only did and do they know every little detail, but they are still actively covering it up...I mean talk about evil people...to stand there and actively participate in the murder of 3000 innocent people...whether you are religious, atheist, whatever...I mean clearly that is simply evil, and always will be if anything is evil. Here, these people in power, the neocons, the republicans, are clearly this massive evil group of violent criminals, people very actively involved with mass murder...they make the Green River Killer look like a small time hood with a measily 50 killings....but that is their nature...clearly...this is a massive violent criminal group, and here the idiot public has put them into the highest powered and most influential employments what is left of our representative training wheel democracy has. Every day is like an earthquake, or tornado...who knows what this criminal group is doing now? How many more thousands are going to be murdered while those included in the camera thought net and even those excluded people scaresly question anything? Still, I am glad for those 9/11/01 videos on video.google.com, it's evidence that some time, maybe in a few hundred years the public will at least know the truth and the memories of those people like Bush jr will be correctly recognized as being some of the most dangerous and murderous humans of history. Or even sooner...who knows? 9/11 was a massive undertaking as is the secret camera thought PUpin net, and eventually the curtain is going to fall, the evil dam is going to break, the clog in the pipe is going to be pushed through, etc.
6/2
kissinger phenomenon
There is a phenomenon that I think may be called the "kissinger phenomenon" or perhaps an updated version would be the "Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld phenomenon" and that is of Jewish people who are very supportive of traditionally Nazi people. For example, it's clear that Prescott Bush was a very definite supporter and believer in Adolf Hitler, and very closely tied to Hitler through Fritz Thiessan and Union Bank. And the same is true for many of his friends, Alan Dulles, most of the CIA, etc. So clearly Bush senior was raised by a person who was an active supporter of Adolf Hitler, and then Prescott Bush was an active funder of Richard Nixon, so cleary what Prescott liked in Hitler, he found a similar interest in Nixon. And so, it is ironic that a jewish person such as Kissinger would work so closely and be so supportive of Richard Nixon who is one person away, and heavily funded by a known Nazi supporter. And so it is with Bush jr, who clearly, as 9/11 shows, as a typical Reichstag fire type event, which they clearly organized and orchestrated...although the details are not clear for the excluded, what is clear is that the 2 WTC building were controlled demolition because they would not fall at free fall speed, in totality, molten metal is video taped dripping down the sides, explosions before the collapses are recorded on video, and the Pentagon hole was not made by a 757. So it's clearly a mass murder committed by these neocons who emulate the nazis of the 1940s. And when we look at Bush jr and Cheney, we see that they wanted Kissinger to be in charge of the 9/11 commission, and that almost was a reality, but somebody changed their mind...perhaps because it looked too much like Dulles for the Warren commission...just to obviously crooked, it's doubtful Kissinger had an moral problems with actively participating in the coverup of a mass murder of 3000 humans. According to Frontline, Bush jr told his mom that he thinks that those who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior are damned to hell. So it is definitely a real phenomenon, probably some figure head jewish people are wanted, just like figurehead black and native american people, to confuse non-white people, to enlist the support of non-white people. We should never judge people based on their race, although a race of a person should never be denied...I mean obviously there are physical differences, and to deny that is not science or honest. But it is obvious to me...let the honest people be recognized no matter what race, obviously...let the violent first degree murderers be jailed no matter what race...that is my opinion, so I reject the idea that one race of people is all one thing or the other, each individual must be judged on their actions, not their race, obviously.
13 year old wins spelling bee
Here a 13 year old human can remember enough words and has enough ability to win a spelling bee that most adults could not win, but still 13 year old humans are viewed as unable to make decisions, and unthinking property who do not have the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to work for money, the right to see pornography, the right to touch genitals...even at their own clearly independent choosing and requesting (think 13 year old males to 30 year old females in porno magazines...gee do you think they want to touch a boob? no...it must be coercion).
laptop with web cams in my car, only need battery/power supply wish they were standard.
Yes, I want to get a cheap laptop for my car and connect up a 12V battery or something, maybe run it from the lighter (could we have an electrical plug in a car sometime? or how about USB and wireless web?). Then I can have a web cam that is constantly recording images in 4 directions of all people...in case something happens to my car, in case there is an accident, etc. Evil people, there is one thing they hate...there is one thing that is their undoing and that is the light of truth and free information. It's interesting, to take a line from bush jr, these evil people "hide in the shadows"...it is so true and applies so perfectly to bush jr...evil people usually use their biggest flaw and try to apply it to their enemy...because then naturally it's the last thing people would apply to them. In any event, it is so true...the second there is a public camera there...like the Rodney King video...holy shit...do people change...they are not their normal selves at all, gone are the rude insults, the secret manuevering, the secret thefts, the violent assaults, etc.
that i am excluded and have been for my entire life is strong evidence of the lack of unity among the liberals/democratic party...here I am putting together a video history of evolution, science and the future, and will be remembered as a major contributor to public knowledge and science education, but I am totally excluded and these obviously inevitable (movie history of science, evolution, of future, promoting full democracy, full free info, walking robot, etc) projects are absolutely unfunded... I simply am saying...it's no wonder that liberals have lost so terribly in the last 50 years, and I don't think that argument that it's like herding kitties applies because it's not difficult to recognize that murder, like Thane Cesar and Frank Fiorini is evil and wrong...I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out and find themselves on the anti-cesar, anti-fiorini, pro-science, anti-violence, pro-democracy, etc side.
There was an interesting video about 9/11 on google talking about how the illegal drug market was run by the CIA and people in the US government, and that Al Kaida is actually a drug cartel, which seems logical, I was thinking that...all that money from drugs being illegal, due to the risk of the illegal drug trade could go into the hands of those people in government because since they own the camera-thought net, and control the police, they have no risk, obviously they aren't going to be jailed for taking drug money, they can then use the people in police to make drug arrests (which ofcourse they have to do to continue the charade of the ongoing drug prohibition war), but ofcourse, only arrest any competition. I am sure the details are different, but it's true that Afghanistan is the 70% heroin exporter, Bush senior's nickname is "Poppy", ... it just seems logical that that is what is happening. In other scary news I saw a mention of "major media hit", which I had to think about, and it's probably true. The major media have a big investment in the ongoing popularity and laws for copyright and privacy...any information control, and no doubt people that start to talk about how thought can be seen and heard are murdered by people in the major media establishment. I don't doubt it. In particular since Time Warner, etc. own basically all the media, ofcourse they can simply not print a homicide, or continue to not reveal the actual details of any homicide, like the JFK, RFK, etc. homicides...those are complete white-washes...very very little of the actual truth reaches the public through the major media. It's to their financial advantage to keep the copyright laws, to stop freedom of information, free infomation is their competition, but no doubt more importantly, freedom of information might result in their arrest and jailing (although I doubt seriously most people in the camera-thought net will ever do jail time, only those who actively participated in murder, assault, violence, etc would). It's definintely true that some people have to be murdered from 1910 to 2006 for "ratting", or telling the truth about hearing and seeing thought and video squares in their view. It's amazing when I think about how many little video squares could be fit in a human view. There could easily be a wall or audience of live video squares of perhaps a hundred people in a 3d half cylinder in a person's eyes.
A person, "Karen" at Radisson clearly said "no" (to which I voted "no (ban on seeing into our houses and heads)" for those involved too ofcourse) and very clearly said "freak", as I am used to this, I canceled my reservation and told them they are rude, backwards and should look into science...it's unnerving...my hands are shaking...just because it's so...like calling into Gestapo headquarters during Nazi Germany ... many of these people....the way they watch us...their elite nazi network...their brutal backwards views, how they protect first degree murderers, etc. It's through free information that the public can get to know what people really secretly think, and beome empowered by knowing the truth about who actually thinks what, who killed who, who lied, who told the truth, etc. Check buyblue.org (Hilton has 51% republican...ie investing in 51% of 50 years of mass murderer, while Hyatt has only 6%). To me it's pretty simple, are rude people rewarded? ofcourse not. Nobody like rude people, I'm not rude to people, in particular simplu because they are conservative, even those linked to the 9/11 murders, or those who helped to cover up and protect murderers of innocent people like Frank Sturgis and Thane Cesar....I tell the truth, but I don't see any reason to be rude. The rude, violent, crude, dumb...I seriously doubt will ever get a head in life, they lost the civil war and WW2 because their values were brutal, stupid and evil...and this is the lesson of history for those people. It's such a hassle and so evil knowing that we excluded could be throwing our pennies into the hands of evil republican reich-wing murderers of intellectuals and liberals, and I am not exaggerating. If only the liberals used their brains to inform and educate other liberals...watch out for this company...watch out for these people....hey fund these people...they are liberals too...give your business to them, etc. With the exception of buyblue.org, included liberals are either scared or complacent...apathetic, unfeeling about the injustice and avoidable ignorance they must see every day. I talked to a BestWestern employee and there was no such rudeness, and the call was recorded for quality assurance, much better than the "Ruddison".
I tell people not to support people with over a million dollars, like most celebrity people, unless they tell us the truth about 9/11/01, about Pupin and hearing thought, about violence, about science, about religion, etc. They have nothing to lose by staying silent and harvesting the public's pennies and everything to lose by telling the truth about hearing thought, 9/11, etc., and it's called "competition"...there are plenty of poor people who are willing to tell the truth, and the public should support them, the public should fund them, etc. When was the last time a celebrity told you that thought was heard in 1913? But yet, I am telling you that...we can count on them to keep it secret, while we can count on me to tell the truth, why pour your hard earned savings on them...besides they already own 3 houses, and millions, they don't need any more...force them to earn their millions by supporting less dishonest secretive people obviously...it's obvious, but most people in the public don't get it.
05-31-2006
I encountered perhaps more rudeness than usual last week...it's interesting how those things flow up and down, but it's frightening and shocking how neonazistic (while not being necessarily anti-jewish) things have gotten in the USA...and Orwellian...where people beam on our bodies all day from secret unseen locations, where there are definitely and clearly two classes of people, those included and those excluded, where those included take shockingly terrible advantage of those excluded, revealing nothing of their own lives while picking apart the lives of those excluded they have full access to, and then beyond that, having the world of information at their included hands, but still being as rude, arrogant, elitist, and nasty as ever. One thing I see often is the rude asshole that is nasty from the word go, the second they see me, they start with insults and put-downs...to me the people are like uneducated, gestapo thugs, who watch our lives, who watch us in our houses, monitor our thoughts, etc. and are many times paid to say rude comments, paid by similar uneducated, nasty people. One characteristic of these people that seems universal is that they are basically nasty, rude people inside...they are generally angry all the time.
5/26
bbb does not handle complaints of rudeness or racism (racist remarks [my example was "chink" and "freak" (free) from a female named "Laila" at Washington Mutual, etc), so the BBB basically protects those companies, and tolerates business with a clear record of rude and racist employees. Just as an FYI, if you thought the BBB was there to inform the public about rude and/or racist companies, you are wrong, they don't record or expose those complaints.
As more info about Washington Mutual, all major high-paid executives are caucasian males (there are 2 apparently white females too...maybe some wealthy wives?). People think Washington is a blue state, but WM contributed more to republicans (according to buyblue.com). And we excluded have to remember (and even the included), that Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer was allowed to kill 49 prostitutes while the included (including all those Microsoft included there in Washington) all knew full well, before finally being arrested in Washington, 49 humans....49....I mean if that's average for the camera-thought-net people I think we are all in trouble....so clearly some vicious violent people exist there, to allow Ridgeway to continue his murders all the way to number 49! (although the neocons outkilled Ridgeway by 2500 murders and that doesn't even include Afghan and Iraq). While they sat back and watched the whole thing, analyzed his memories, watched his thoughts...no doubt thousands of included watched the eyes of Ridgeway every night like they do a modern television program, caring nothing about those innocent excluded women Ridgeway murdered. Nice people hm? How about the Cobain homicide? It's clear that Cobain's body was adjusted after death, his hair spread out to make it look like a suicide, no blood around the body, etc. plenty of evidence that it was a homicide. So, Washington is not exactly a state filled with multiracial, enlightened liberals. And then in Oregon, just next door, remember that the anti-gay nazis (the OCA) found a home in Oregon, and how gay supporters went there in droves to stop their anti-gay laws from being passed...the Oregon nazis had to focus back on Colorado, where nazism and homophobia is king, and for example, where white supremecists murdered a jewish radio host.
Here is some Hoovers info on Kerry Killinger, the CEO of WM:
# 2004: Chairman, President, and CEO, $1,000,000 salary, $1,926,000 bonus
# 2003: Chairman, President, and CEO, $1,000,000 salary, $2,943,000 bonus
# 2002: Chairman, President, and CEO, $1,000,000 salary, $3,009,000 bonus
# 2001: Chairman, President, and CEO, $1,000,000 salary, $2,484,000 bonus
gee, just a little ol' 3 million yearly bonus...for all that hard work! That must be tough sitting back and watching people's thoughts all day and counting your money (or I guess buying up property all day). A million dollars a year salary...clearly that's not going to be enough...I guess that bonus is for extra hard work...work that clearly amounted to more than a years worth of labor. I can see an owner of a business giving themselves a large salary, since they own and control the business, but if it's just some employee, why spend exponential rates? A million people would like those high paying jobs, and are capable of exercizing popular opinion, or whatever the job requires (and let's be real, these exec job require very little effort). If I was a shareholder, I would vote for no bonus. Then I would vote for a salary in line with all the other employees for those executives, in linear fashion (not exponential...which for some bizarre reason is now popular): more like $100,000/year, which is phenomenal for most people. For most people their house alone, which they spend 30 years to buy costs $100,000. This guy is getting 10 houses a year, does he deserve that? I vote no! and thru democracy we can make the system more fair and open. There are ofcourse, wonderful things in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, and I hope that the intellectuals, the honest, the liberals, the tolerent, the pro-science, pro-racial variety, and pro-sexual ultimately prevail there.
the human population doubled from 2000 to 1960, the current rate is just over 1.1%/year (that is, human population is nearly tripling every 100 years).
At this rate (although the rate appears to be slowing), we would reach a trillion people (1e12) in 2500, and a quadrillion people 1e15 in 3100 AD. A trillion people is really going to be an important event, because, I think a trillion is close to the absolute physical limit for humans on earth, a thousand times that, 1e15, a quadrillion humans, I think is safely an absolute physical maximum for anything connected to earth, and this includes, on the surface, above the ground, in the tallest buildings possible and wall to wall skyscrapers, in the surface, all the way to the end of the earth crust, and in the oceans (oceans basically filled wall to wall with humans with only space in between to move from room to room). Ofcourse, in the atmosphere and above the earth in orbit, there will be space for many humans, but one important key is that whereever there are humans, there needs to be matter in the form of water, food, etc. So, you can see that the key focus of humans will be: "where is the matter". Where ever there is matter, there will be humans growing there, whereever there isn't matter, there will not be many humans (unless or until matter can be imported, and that costs matter in the form of fuel, but it will be worth it to be closer to the star/sun).
So by 2500AD at the current rate the earth will probably be uncomfortably full of humans. In fact, it appears clear that only an interesting breed of human will stay on earth at some point. Most people will want the extra space of a single family ship around a planet or in between planets. Initially the major focus of population growth will be on earth (and moon), but that will shift to mars, venus and mercury, the asteroid belt, and Jupiter. I think it will take a while to import matter from the outer star system, or other star systems. So by 2500, in 500 short years, we would have 1e12 humans at the current rate, but at the developed nation rate of .25%/year 1.28x each century, which I think is the absolute lowest rate possible, we would not reach this 1e12, trillion humans until 4100AD (2100 years from now), and a quadrillion in 6900. At a more realistic estimate lowering the current rate (3x/century) over the years to a steady rate of 1.3x/century, a trillion humans is reached at 2600AD, in only 600 years (1 quadrillion at 3700)...so to me, this says that it looks like at the rate we are going, we can basically count on the earth being uncomfortably overcrowded by 2600-3000AD, which really says to me that we have delayed on our path to move life to other places where we can continue to grow comfortably, and that we have really dangerously overextended our delay on science and technology (although we humans living now, will not face this kind of overcrowding, still we should think about what will face those in the future). The one main method of lowering the population of earth, and no doubt voluntarily taken by many, will be moving into orbit, and clearly people will start to grow food in orbit, but the water will need to come from earth, so there will still be a dependency on earth. There are two major events in the future: 1) converting common atoms (mainly Silicon, Iron) into more useful atoms (H2 and O2 in particular). Once this is possible, the earth moon will be able to sustain many more humans. And a second event, 2) ending aging, will seriously impact the population growth of humans on earth.
I wonder how fast a ship could be thrust to by using the mass of the sun as a gravitational push. This can be modeled, and perhaps this might be even faster than nuclear fission propulsion, and certainly more efficient since no fuel is used in the process, and no matter is touching (unlike typical fuel combustion/atomic separation propulsion).
My current view on 9/11/01 (ranked in order of certainty):
1) Both WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. ("Andrew O" brought down WTC2 and WTC7, potentially "Tom E" or a person with the initials "TE" has some major murderous role in 9/11. (similar to Barbara Olsen, one of the few decent FBI people, John O'Neill, who quit the FBI in disgust over the clear protection for Atta and others, was deliberately murdered in the WTC). Evidence: 1) liquid iron pouring over side of WTC2, exactly like Thermite reaction, 3 seconds before collapse. 2) free fall speed of collapse is impossible. 3) video of cloud under WTC2 before collapse. 4) sound recording of explosions surrounding WTC2 collapse. 5) "spools" seen from building. 6) spools seen coming from top of WTC7. 7) Firedepartment does not do building demolition. 8) building demolition takes days of planning, requires blue-prints of building. [neocons may fall back on argument: "ok yes, WTC1 and 2 were collpased, because if they fell in an unordely way, as was very likely, they would have killed many more people." First and foremost, there is no way people could put explosives in the top of the WTC buildings...they would have to deny that, but all evidence indicates that there was definitely thermite and explosives in the top of the WTC2, and clearly that had to be there days [estimated to be placed on Saturday and Sunday the 9/8 and 9/9/01] before 9/11/01, indicating prior knowledge of the murders). But clearly, all evidence indicates that the buildings would not collpase, that they were designed to withstand 2 plane impacts, and that fires were basically out (people, like Edna Cintron were standing in the hole the plane made).
2) The "Pentagon plane" was a white drone with explosives.
3) Both WTC planes were definitely controlled by remote control, perhaps by satellite. (the pilots could not fly at all, see notes below)
------
beyond here there are many doubts in my excluded mind:
-------
4) Both WTC planes were infact passenger planes and not military planes painted (although I have not ruled out the "missile on military plane" theory")
5) Neocons part of US military sent the white global hawk, drone plane loaded with explosives into the Pentagon (not the liberals as was suggested, although, again I have not ruled this out)
6) the actual plane claimed to have hit the Pentagon, with that hotty (but clearly not too smart to support republicanism...in any event, clearly she loved money and who doesn't? But perhaps to a larger extent than many) Barabara Olsen, was brought down by remote control into the Atlantic Ocean (or shot down by fighter planes over the Atlantic Ocean. As an aside, it seems clear that Theodore Olsen is definitely included, and that Barbara Olsen was either excluded or only partially included and since Theodore Olsen is most defintely included, that Barbara was deliberately murdered and that he knew.).
The Shanksville plane was shot down by fighter planes
There were no hijackings, and people like Atta were employed by US CIA and Pakistan ISS to simply fly on those planes as passengers (to be blamed later, they were clearly excluded)
The pilots could not fly at all:
What do the actual digital images of 9/11 show? Perhaps they show the pilots of the 2 WTC pilots realizing that they cannot control their control panel anymore, in particular when the plane flies off course. They must have said:
pilot: "what the...!..." (as plane turns off course)
co-pilot: "...what's going on?!..."
pilot: "maybe it's some kind of autopilot malfunction..."
pilot: "..the controls don't respond..."
co-pilot: "I guess we're in god's hands now..."
pilot: "or the devils...."
[t: I would like to interject, definitely in evil hands...that much is clear]
pilot: (thoughts) "should I tell the passengers?...."
pilot: (loudspeaker doesn't work), walks out to the back of the plane: "can I have your attention ladies and gentlemen?....we have an emergency here in the cockpit and I ask that you please fasten your seatbelts and remain seated until further ordered...something very unusual is happening....we are off course...and we need your full cooperation and assistence. So sit tight and we should be on the ground in no time..."
I can only imagine what the actual eye images show, but all, or certainly most of the included must know by now.
It's interesting that people my age are one of the few generations that did not have to enter the US military. Most of our parents had to join the US military. They didn't have a choice. It's a relatively recent phenomenon that young people are not now forced in labor for the military. But clearly, with the military-conquest based views of Bush jr, they are going to need to fill the military with more employees, and since most people would not volunteer to kill and be killed (most people join the army for the guarenteed job, with the feeling that they will never actually see any dangerous or life-threatening "action"), demand is high and supply is low. We need to start moving in the other direction, toward voluntarily hired military employees, with the main purpose to identify and capture violent people, with a large amount of free info and full public democratic voting. We need to move toward, allowing people to quit the military, not towards an inevitable draft situation.
The word on the Internet is that "Edna Cintron" is the shockingly brave woman that stands in the plane hole in WTC2 and waves. Perhaps that event sent news reports rippling through the evil neocon planner network..."there is a woman standing in the plane hole...", "so....?", "so...it could be used as evidence that the fires are not that severe....we have to bring down the building soon...."
05-25-2006
FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. This is a big claim in 9/11/01, next to the "globalists" I have to say that this is one of the very few flaws I see in these 9/11 videos, the vast majority is riviting, 99% truth, very excellent material. But this point about FDR knowing about Pearl Harbor, as was shown on History channel for example...it is such a minor thing compared to 9/11, and I think people use it to try and win over conservatives...to say...see look...we are critical of a democrat and critical of those people in government in general. But more important is the truth, and if the truth shows that in reality liberals and democrats have been benign, and US republicans and conservatives have been violently criminal, that just happens to be the truth, no matter how shocking, or apparently unbalanced...it simply is the sad truth at least in my opinion. They killed JFK, JFK never killed Nixon, they killed RFK, RFK was like most decent people, for stopping homicide, and on and on...to 9/11/01...all these murdererrs still not yet exposed or punished (many already dead, like Fiorini, the killer of JFK). But in any event, just a comment on the FDR thing, excuse me for life, but Hirohito was an absolute idiot, and this is no doubt typical of monarchs. They attacked the USA with a hug fleet of planes...even if intercepted in time, it would have easily been war between the US and Japan. That FDR may have approved 8 steps to provoke Japan does not reflect well on his character if true. This kind of "trick the public" is wrong, no tricking of the public is ever needed...because if FDR or somebody sees Auschwitz for example and feels...we must stop this...then no doubt millions of people would feel the same way...they should show the public the truth...what they see...what convinces them...not make up false stories. Still, provoking people is no reason to bomb a US island. So I think this is a very weak case for a reichstag fire, where 9/11/01 is a classic example, and I think the new example, and of history will be viewed as the worst example, and the example with the largest number of murders. And let's get smart, vote against republicans, and then perhaps 9/11/2001 will be the last such reichstag fire on earth.
Look at how the Nazi's were so anti-gay, and how the religious are so anti-gay, and there is no coincidence. The Nazi's who forced people that were even rumored to be gay (no doubt people with the Franch name "Guy" were targets), and in particular those liberals and intellectuals who defended homo and bisexual people were no doubt promptly labeled gay. And we still see this now...what I experience many times are married (or want to be married) (many times younger) females who come out of the blue to call me gay (it's very subtle...they don't just point their finger and say 'yer gay!', they usually say 'gay' instead of "ok"). And this is common...and to me it is revealing. First, it's false, I love breasts more than they love cocks, I am for making sex for money legal, they are not, I am for public nudity being legal, they are for uniformed males tackling and jailing nude people. So, as an aside, it's kind of interesting, it's again one of these "3 card monty" snafus, conservatives live by...there is no easy way to get sex, they have stopped any legal form of paying for it and created a huge illegal market full of STDs. But just by seeing our thoughts, I think they must see that what I am saying about monogomy being the exception is true. Most people, no doubt in particular males, constantly think about anybody except their wife or monogomous girlfriend, as far as I can see, it's biological, and no doubt it's there for a reason, perhaps to mix up the gene pool, to prevent the mutations of incest or similar chromosome pairs mixing. So anyway, these feelings are felt very strongly by these people (in truth even 2 young nazi males walked by me, very recently, on Monday, and one said "gay" instead of "ok", so this antigay nazi feeling, even against those who are clearly no gay, is very strong right now, strong enough for those people to feel the need to assert that opinion, not simply think...ok well this person is gay, and I am against that...but they are entitled to their lifestyle and I am to mine...live and let live, etc...instead, they feel the need to launch an insult...openly asserting their opinion...I think many times, people do this to try and convince people of something they know is not true...if it were true they would not need to argue for it.). So anyway, I think many young females, in my experience, feel that any threat to the expected free ride of marriage, traditionally a financial free ride from a male, (except for those who have to raise children...but then...once the children are in school, it's a tough argument to make..clearly they could be employed, and otherwise sit around and watch tv or have the entire day free while children are at school)...any threat to this traditional free ride, will make, many of these females who expect a free ride, and males to pay for their every expense, very angry, almost to the point of violent assault. Not quite violent assault, but very hostile open insults and unprovoked verbal attacks, (this happened yesterday from a young married female at the UCI passport office (who said "vert" when I walked in), and then later a young female employed at Fromex in University Center (who said "gay" instead of "ok"). It appears to never be enough for these people to think in their head "ok you are against marriage, you think females and males should be financially independent, that males should not have to pay for a female, other than for child care services...ok that is your opinion, I think that is wrong...and I think males should pay for females, and the female should not have to buy her own food, car, clothes, etc. and so...you are entitled to your opinion and I have my opposite opinion, ... that is ok...I am comfortable with my opinion..I know I am right...you are welcome to your opinion, even though I think you are wrong.) This is my view on life...I don't walk up to people and call them "antisexual!", or "religious fanatic!", "antiscience asshole!", "liar!", "violent criminal!", "accesory to murder after the fact!"...I am polite and courteous, I don't have an axe to grind with any person I meet...I have a million things to do, and many intellectual loves to pursue. But no, they have to initiate verbal insults and put-downs...clearly they are not comfortable in their belief. These rabid insults and laser attacks also have to do with everybody being the same, everybody must believe the same thing, everybody must like sports, everybody must support marriage, everybody must curse sexuality and pretend to be asexual, etc. Anybody that dares to go against the mainstream grain is to be harshly yelled at, to be viciously insulted where ever they go, etc. until...perhaps they conform....or maybe by then it is too late...and they are forever marked as one who went against the unthinking absolutely identical majority group. In any event, only the stupid insult people who have never been rude to them. Only uneducated idiots with absolutely no life do first degree insults, and Orange County is full of them. I have to wonder, why hire those people? Why support and reward that kind of rude behavior? You are obnoxius and rude...that is precisely what we are looking for...uneducated...good and religious...not a clue about evolution? perfect. The rude are never punished, if anything they are promoted! While the friendly are demoted and live in poverty, viewed as dangerous by the wealthy uneducated rude religious. But how many people like to be put-down with rude insults? I have to think we are in the vast majority...so why are we losing to those who initiate insults now? It is very similar...this first degree insulting to first degree assaulting. Both are done by stupid people, both are annoying and idiotic. Why are we, who must be a majority for stopping first degree violence and insults, losing to those uneducated brutes and dolts who believe in first degree violence and insults?
The important thing for me is for the public to know...one of the worst most frustrating things is when the public doesn't know what these people around them are involved in, what they stand for...for example, how millions and millions never knew that Bush Senior's father owned a Nazi bank (and no doubt there is plenty of video and thought evidence that Prescott Bush openly supported Adolf Hitler in his thoughts and privately), that Thane Cesar killed RFK, that Swartzeneggers father was in the nazi gestapo, that Bush Senior lied about being in the CIA, and that Bush Senior was very very much involved with the killing of JFK, being a supervisor of E Howard Hunt, Hunt who was absolutely on the grassy knoll with Sturgis and US army employee Gordon Arnold. But on the smaller level...that this or that person watches people in their houses...that they are rabidly anti-gay....that they are racist....that they are rude...that they are lying......etc...it's very important for the public to know these things, and the Better Business Bureau is not going to be good enough, we need full and free and total free information, without any arrest, fine or punishment at all for the ownership of any information, images, or audio.
It's amazing to me about organized religion. Here they applied red hot pokers to female humans' breasts to try and evoke a confession to 'witchcraft', to get the names of relatives who might also be 'witches'. But yet, the pope and cardinals are beloved by women all over the earth. Here they burned scientists at the stake by the dozen for claiming that the earth goes around the sun, but these people with the absolutely factual and well documented history of scientist killers are worshipped by millions. But wait...that was 200 years ago Ted, they have changed! Why be stuck in the past? To me, the truth is that they need to be punished for those crimes, and the best and fairest punishment I can think of is simply to now give them one penny, to only speak out against religion, and to expose them for all their past murders while we still are allowed to. Beyond that, look at how females are treated like second class citizens in most organized religions...never to be pope, cardinal, legally murdered if believed to have an affair, denied education and confort under the brutal Sharia laws, why worship such a system? Why participate in such a system?
Perhaps the oldest chromosomes are the sex (XY) chromosomes on all sexual species, since those are the only chromosomes that persist through time, and are absolutely required (except for asexual capable species) for survival. Maybe humans' XY chromosomes are the remnants of the first chromosome?
The more you know somebody the more asexual that person becomes. At least in my experience, the more I know about somebody, the more familiar I am with their body, the less sexual arousal there is. Perhaps other people are different, but I find it hard to believe.
One person describes this archaeological period as "the exclusion" period. It's been 100 years of this idiot dirty secret thought hearing technology.
I was saddened to read about the Berkeley "Naked Guy", who apparently committed suicide (although as usual I have some amount of skepticism without any video or eye images) recently. Public nudity is nonviolent, and there is clearly nothing wrong with it. My vote is for legal public nudity, although clearly the majority (even in the city of Berkeley) is not, although nudity will probably be legal in the USA in SF first. Just sad to see a person that recognizes that nudity is fine dying. One pattern is clear, that smart outspoken people usually live in poverty, and those who float along like jellyfish rise to the top simply because there is nothing unusual about them. Even worse, though, clearly, many rude and violent people rise up the money ladder, while those smart enough to avoid violence wallow at the bottom. How nice that other people supported the naked guy in his expression and protest for legal public nudity. I think in 500 years, that people called 911 and uniformed males tackle and arrest people simply being nude will be viewed as like a Nazi Germany.
05-18-2006
What I tell childhood friends: what a terrible history the US has, and we had no idea then.
It's true, when I was young (in elementary school, high school, college) I had no idea that thousands of evil people have kept the secret that thoughts can be seen and heard since the early 1900s by Michael Pupin at Columbia University...not the tiniest idea that such a terrible secret went before and persisted even to now and well into the future. I had no idea that Frank Fiorini killed JFK and that such a terrible crime was committed while thousands and perhaps millions looked on through secret camera technology, and then how perhaps millions of evil people covered up that murder and many others. Just not an idea of the past of religion, the religious murders of millions labeled heretics and of other faiths. Not a thought did I have then about the idea that using drugs is not as serious a crime as we were made to believe, and that guns and violence are far worse, drug use being only something a person does to themselves. Not an idea of the massive supression of sexuality, the censorship of pornography, and legal prostitution and nudity for example...not an idea that those things might not be as evil as we had been told, and at least are clearly nonviolent consensual activities. No idea about the history of psychology, and the mind policing...the overly harsh view that nonviolent law abiding people can be restrained with four straps for hours, were lobotomized, electrocuted, injected with drugs, held without trial or sentence for years. I didn't have a clue at all that the copyright, and privacy had all been made obsolete because of the secret massive decades old camera-thought networks, and now only serve to increase the power of those wealthy and corrupt people already a part of that secret system. Not an idea of the terrible history that went before and persists even to this day. What a wonderful awakening, but a terrible thing to awake to. But ofcourse, knowing even some of the truth about the actual history is much better.
What a wonderful thing that Romano Prodi was elected the new Prime Minister of Italy. Here Prodi has been a teacher for a long time, teaching University of Bologna, a visiting professor at Harvard and Stanford. Clearly, an enlightened, educated person. This is exactly what I was just saying, why can't we have an educated person as President in the USA? Wouldn't that be much better? A teacher, a doctor, an engineer, would be much better for the people of the USA. Prodi was against the Iraq invasion, and supports the planetary cooperation view. To me it's obvious that the Iraq invasion was 100% illegal, and beyond that is a huge waste of lives and money. There are many nations where nonviolent people are oppressed, jailed, and murdered, we need to take a realistic approach and identify the worst of the violent, the worst of the jailers of the innocent, etc. make that info publically available, to make the case for capturing and jailing the violent people, whereever they are on earth. If you look, there are many people being executed in many Islamic nations under the Sharia laws, executed simply for drug use in many nations, jailed for their writings in many nations...there are a million violent crimes in hundreds of nations, and to me the best approach is to identify, gain popular support, and capture and jail those people if ever they enter free democratic nations. But there are many murderers right here in the USA...I mean we have huge problems, we need to expose the killers of JFK, of RFK, those behind the 9/11/01 mass murder. There is a lot we need to do right here in the USA and in the other free democratic nations of earth. But ultimately, all the nations will be democratic and working together with many robots, moving between the planets, and to other suns.
In my 37 years alive, 10 years of exposing the violent, the secret camera-thought net, Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar...I've realized that one big reason I have never been hurt in these last 10 years is that the vast majority...a definitely large majority of people, even religious people, even the married, recognize that violence is evil and wrong.
For every activity, every thing you do, every person you encounter, imagine there being two-leg robot standing next to you recording everything they do and say. Robot cameras in your car, in your garage, in your backyard for those who have one...etc...everywhere...think of how different things would be. Mainly, all these criminals that hide in the shadows and depend on their words never being recorded and shown to the public would actually be publically recognized and publically responsible for all their statements and beliefs. How wonderful that will be. No more stolen bicycles, no more damaged cars, no more little sneaky messages planted in your path, no more rude people living behind the big iron curtain of secrecy.
I was thinking, since Bush feels it's ok to listen in on the phone calls of tens of thousands of US citizens, then he probably shouldn't mind if we listen in on his phone calls too. After all, we pay for his phone and phone bill.
05-16-2006
Yes, I say I woke up, and a person used a laser to make me itch my nose. Who this person is, is unknown to me, and many other excluded, but we can guess that it is a male that we employ in our US government. It raised the point with me though, that...I think this making me itch the tip of my nose has something to do with molestation...that because I poked a guy and once tried to talk with an underage girl who squeezed my butt. Beyond that, there is nothing in my life I have done, to my knowledge, that even remotely resembles molestation...it raises the point that many people, no doubt like Veches, didn't realize until they were arrested how serious what they were doing is, in many people's opinions. That's is why for molestation, the first offense, in my opinion, ought to be very lenient, even a second...it's the third and fourth that should be longer...I think a first or sentence is in hours or days. And one other point, that so few defend molestation, that the argument some liberals fall back on is...well people are getting less time for manslaughter...less time for manslaughter...I mean..the person was killed, but they get less time than somebody who simply nonviolently touched a genital. And many times these manslaughter people were very much first degree murders...but they pleaded down. For example, a husband who kills his wife, perhaps in a jealous rage...well, that is first degree homicide...they knew what they were doing...it wasn't an accident like a car accident. There is only the tiny difference that they were angry...as if that should make much of a difference...when is a murderer not angry? Simply that the level of premeditation was only a few minutes or hours...still there is not much difference in my mind. Then there is a person who possibly didn't want to murder a person, but only wanted to hurt them, but accidentally murdered them...in any event...even second and first degree murderers are getting less time than molesters, and then even assaulters get less time...when an assault is a physically violent crime and molestation is not. It's part of the backward antisexual view in this time, and it's not popular to talk about, and talking about it draws suspicion onto yourself, but it's better the truth be known. So anyway...I was thinking...think about the irony of this unknown person making me itch my nose...like the original complaint is how a child was molestated...how a child was touched presumably without consent...and here...this person is doing the exact same thing, and some might argue even worse, because, here many molestations are not annoying...the child is not being bothered...many are no doubt of mutual consent...in particular when you are talking about a 20 year old with a 16 or 17 year old, but even in many other examples of people of many different ages...the touching is nonviolent, is consensual...or there is no clear objection...I mean I can only imagine since I don't go looking for video of anything remotely resembling underage people...but just thinking of realistic examples...no doubt in some a child is being bothered...is objecting...and then you are talking clearly about touching without consent which is similar to making a person itch...and is annoying and a bother. So some might argue that being made to itch really is a true form of molestation...it's definitely a bother, I and many others...most average people clearly do not consent to such touching...but these unknown unseen people still touch us anyway...I mean what is the matter with them? Why must they continue to touch us without consent and against clear objection? And the irony is, that this touching is what they are simultaneously complaining about...complaining that I touch people without consent, when in reality I don't, but in the process of explaining that to me again and again...they do! It's ironic...that here...I don't touch anybody without consent, but yet they do on a regular basis, and the added irony is that the illegality or immorality of this touching without consent is precisely the point they are trying to make while simulateously violating that law, ethic, principle. And then the added irony, is that they molesters...or people that make us itch...are law enforcement people...people we pay to precisely to uphold the laws...and here they are the most routine violators of the laws. It's a backwards up-side-down system, and the public is not in any hurry to openly discuss it, or to repair it in any way.
Nazi conservatives constantly argue molesto-drugs-terror, why don't liberals take the sexual freedom-childrens rights-decriminalization-stop violence position on the other side? You can see how the sides shape up...the neocons take psychology, they take the potential pleasures of drug use, or the punishment of those so-called hippies and artists that generally experiment with drugs (spartans normally don't...although alcohol is popular among many spartans)...the antisexual...well then clearly on the other side...shouldn't there be the pro-sexual, the pro-decriminalize...the anti-psychology or pro-free-thought?
It's interesting about the future of humans on earth, as I said...clearly there are many challanges in front of us, and perhaps one of the biggest risk to many technically advanced group of living objects originate from themselves. In particular when we see how stupid the majority is in the USA and on earth...clearly the potential exists to throw away the gains of democracy gained up until now...in particular in the 1940s...look how close all of Europe came to losing democracy permanently....and again here in the USA with Bush jr. and those who murdered JFK.
Some other points about the 9/11, it's interestqing for example that the person in charge of the airforce when they stood down on 9/11/01 was General Richard Myers:
from 911truth.org:
"Little noticed, the original story was delivered by Gen. Richard Myers, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and acting chairman on the morning of Sept. 11 (when Chairman Shelton was on a transatlantic flight). Just two days after the events, Myers, an air force man who had previously headed NORAD, appeared before the Senate for hearings. These had been scheduled weeks earlier, to consider his appointment by George W. Bush as the nation's supreme military officer. Myers told the Senate that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was struck."
Unlike the 67 successful times before. And this shows clearly...well there was a serious failure...there was a serious mistake...so is Myers punished? demoted? that would fit the cover story that their stand down was a mistake, a failure to follow the standard procedure, successfully followed 67 times before then....but no....in fact...just the opposite..Myers is promoted...it's as if Bush jr is rewarding Myers for standing down the US air force on 9/11/01. So it appears clear that US Military General Myers was a key player in the 9/11/01 mass murder, and without being able to see all the video from their eyes that day: General Ralph Eberhard who headed Norad on 9/11/01, and retired NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold. It's not clear what their sentence might be if ever the public gets smart and free info exposes them...but like thousands of others (or maybe only hundreds?) the main charge would be many many counts of accessory to homicide before the fact. Again, in some states, this carries the same sentences as actual homicide, which I vote against...I think it's bad, but not as bad as actual homicide...but I do think it should be punished with some jail time, but perhaps only a year per count.
9/11/01, the pupin thought camera net, the way we are made to itch...all should be telling the public..."hey...we need to open up our government...we need to require that cameras be put in there, we need to be able to see what they do all the time...we need to outlaw secrecy in any part of government..."
05-15-2006
Sexuality, drug use, prostitution, homosexuality, blow jobs, all those things are mole hills, conservatives try to make into mountains, but look at the 9/11 reichstag mass murder, and coverup, the JFK murder, the MLK, and RFK murders, the thousands being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those already murdered in those stupid and violent enterprises, and those are mountains that conservatives view as molehills. I mean, violence is always more important than nonviolence, murder, homicide, death of human beings is always much more serious than drug use, homosexuality, prostitution, border issues, all these other minor issues.
It's interesting to me that from here, being living objects on one planet to having 10 or even 100 star systems that are ready to move out of the milky way and form a globular cluster is a long way away, there is a lot of time and evolution in between here and there. Alot of thing to be overcome, alot of challanges, alot of risks...not every group of living objects that inhabits a planet of a star is going to get that far, that has to be true. In fact, most life of planets probably does not become technically advanced enough to even leave their planet. That in itself marks a serious developmental change in life of some planet. We here on earth have basically overcome that first major hurdle, in developing and understanding the technology to at least move in between planets of a star, and to live in orbit of the star. But think about what a critical position we are in, we have so much, but we might throw it all away...we again, have all our eggs on one tiny planet...it might get thrown away for us by some geological process that quickly ends life of earth in a few days, by some virus or bacteria that is unstoppable. The next big step is being self sufficient, without any dependence on the earth. That will not happen for a long time. My current estimates identify two major processes:
1) the increasing human population
2) the ability to displace that population into space off of earth (ie, in orbit, on the moon, in star orbit, etc.)
and my current estimate is that, 1) will clearly overtake 2). Moving life off of earth will not be ready by the time it is necessary. This doesn't mean life will go extinct, it just means life on earth will be unpleasant, until the technology to move humans off the earth, and to live off the earth improves and develops. And the reason for this is because of stupidity, mistaken theories based on religions and other popular myths...most people (myself excluded!) simply don't see moving to the moon, mars, star orbit, even earth orbit as a good investment, as an interesting thing to do right now.
I think that 9/11/01 is evidence that:
1) all those people killed did not see and hear thought
I find this very hard to believe. In particular, there was the guy who left the FBI...he did not hear and see thought?! In an interview he said "day in and day out"....maybe that is "they are in, and they are out"...I can't believe for a second O'Neill? I think was his name, did not hear and see thought and get video on his head. And so 9/11/01 is giving excluded people more evidence that:
2) Yes, many of those people heard and saw thought, but they didn't see enough to know that 9/11/01 was going to happen.
But then, this is hard to believe because, certainly, the clapping Bush jr, clearly knew...clappy clap-alot...yes, Bush jr, definitely knew....so ...I mean millions must watch and get updates from Bush jr and his daily activity, or any President, ... even ex-Presidents, important Senators...it relates to the JFK, and RFK killing too...and the MLK John Lennon killings too...weren't they included?! JFK had to be, how else could he say "the inside of men's minds"? without knowing all about Pupin? It seems clear that there can only be a few options:
a) The video of the president's thoughts, and video of inside the white house are tightly controlled. (well again, I find this hard to believe...with the file sharing, etc and all the free flow of data, how could it be kept secret?)
b) The video of the president and many people thoughts and lives are kept secret from most of the public, because they don't have enough money to pay to see and hear them...it's not a free service.
Ok this I can believe. I can see that maybe only wealthy people can see some of the more sensitive videos, such as the 9/11/01 planning videos. One google video indicates that Blair and Bush "spent days discussing it", which can only refer to the 9/11 planning. Still, you have to be able to explain how those 3,000 did not know. Ok first, some of them were definitely 100% or 99% excluded, like me and millions of other. But clearly many people are included...even low income people...many many people...one estimate was 300 million, practically the population of the entire US. My final estimate is that, some of those people were included in hearing and seeing thought, but somehow, the news of the 9/11 plot did not reach them...that hints that there must be some "dark houses", where no thoughts or videos reach even the elitists in the main network. Then a very interesting thing must happen. Those who were involved in the plan, must not think or remember it when they are out back in the public thought-hearing and seeing active areas...that must be kind of difficult to do, but definitely not impossible. In particular when they own and control the net, although there must be 2 sides, it could be easy to close off some areas, although it's devious and more decent people don't keep secrets like that. In addition, they can see people coming for miles, they can see where all the other side's cameras and microphones are. I don't doubt that the planning for 9/11 was a large amount of well kept secrets....it's hard to believe that not one clue could reach this thought net where memories are shared at the speed of light. Some people must have figured it out and alerted the liberal side...clearly some people in Israel told their underlings...so maybe it was a thing of...none of the execs were there...they all knew...but many underlings were not told by execs that did know...I can't believe that they were all excluded. Look at the JFK example...some person was saying that Fiorini got the opportunity to reload...that potentially some lasering could have been done, or some thoughts beamed onto JFK to duck in time....maybe even simply muscle moving him down. But how could JFK not have heard about the Fiorini, Hunt, Oswald, Nixon, LBJ, etc. CIA plan? Weren't there people that were paid simply to watch those people's thoughts and report any important info to the liberals? What about with RFK..."somebody detain the guard..." beam a warning onto the head of RFK about the guard...about the other arab guy with the gun, etc.
There is a censored Mastercard commercial that is really funny, and sexual. It's on video.google.com, the one with the guy that asks the girl for a blow-job and the mom comes down and says, look I will give you and blow job and even dad sez he will give you a blowjob if you just take your elbow off the intercomm...or speaker-thingy. I think Mastercard might be in the running for a Photon award for stading up against antisexuality, it's up to the public. Isn't that sexy? and the mom is hot...I would say ok you blow me, and let the girl blow dad..I'm sure the dad feels a special possessive love for his daughter...it's erotic because it's forbidden...but truly most people feel being sexual with people you know is not exciting, I never had a sister, but even with friends, I don't even want to think about sex with their girlfriends, or egad boyfriends for that matter...oh well...if it's somebody elses family it's erotic I guess...ok they are all actresses and actors anyway.
Democrats who put forward Clinton made a benign choice...I mean the USA did not enter into any wars, the economy was fine, the deficit was balanced. Maybe Clinton was not the best, and had flaws, but for the most part, whatever flaws, the democratic vision was benign, nonviolent. But look at the republican vision that gave us Bush jr. What a violent, murderous, war and destructive set of values this group of republicans put forward for the USA. The values that republicans supported that brought up Bush jr have left 3000 citizens dead from 9/11/01, and another 13,000 humans murdered around the Mediterranean, and given us the biggest deficit in US history...that is not benign vision...it's clear a radical, fanatical set of values in the republicans. Clinton didn't cause nearly as much damage and lawless destruction as Bush jr has....I am just making the point that....we see, historically that the democrat vision appears to be a well rounded, albeit, slow, non-radical, seldom changing vision, when the pendulum swings to the 50% of republican, so-called religious right conservatives...we may expect a fanatical vision...and this appears to be the typical republican vision that is unleashed onto the USA and the rest of the planet. It's not a mellow, progressive vision or people...it's a radical fanatical lawless military vision that the republican voters seems to have, which to me says that there is a real danger in allowing republicans to be in charge...because of that fanatacism, because of the radical vision, because we can expect that uncontrolled violent activity which is in such a stark contrast to the democrats, at least as expressed by their votes for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who again, in many ways were no heros or perfect by any means, but clearly not nearly as radical or destructive as the people the republican voters chose, and I think that is very very obvious.
05-13-2006
ok these votes are complete. One note that where only one person was on the primary ballot I am recommending that Democrat person for the final vote, and not libertarian or green for the most part (although I do specify these parties in certain catagories), although simply so that a republican has less chance of winning.
update 5/14/06 on Monday 5/15/06 I will give my final votes (which may be just what I have described below, or I may add more).
My votes for election of 06/06/06 (as a note, watch out for religious fanatacism that day because of the idiot myth about 666 being some how an evil number, some people argue that 616 is the actual evil number, but anybody that is remotesly smart recognizes that no number is good or bad, lucky or unlucky in reality, only stupid humans add to such beliefs.
for candidate statements:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/state/vote/
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/state/state_executive.html
***IMPORTANT*** (can pass bogus laws)
Governor:
1) Michael Strimling
a) schools not prisons
b) antiwar
2) Phil Angelides
+had magnifying glass on one of 3 ads I received
-had I'll, not another Judge "mental", but then who isn't? Psychology has passed horoscopes with all time pyramid scheme ponzi winnings.
-no antiwar statement
-no talk about ending drug war, freeing nonviolent (does say open the doors wide...on the schools...but may the secret thought camera network? somehow I have doubts, but even lip service is something)
I think Angelides will win the primary, and then I will certainly vote for Angelides in the final election. Look at Swartzenegger and Angelides as role models for people...Swartzenegger whose father was a nazi in the gestapo in a time when it was illegal to be a nazi, who grew up with nazism, whose mom remarried a nazi gestapo person, who no doubt heiled Hitler as a child(?), who never went to college (to my underinformed excluded knowledge), whose wife is adamantly against free info saying "down and out!" and wears a cross (and has not been polluted with one particle of science...but everybody...step back...she has a Kennedy name...it must be instant genius and human rights hero...just put on a name tag I guess), Arnold never went to college, but lifted weights all the time...is this the message to send to young people? What about the Nazi upbringing...is that something we want for kids in California? that spartan, corrupted, racist, monarchical, single person idol worship? no we want somebody more like Angelides...educated, logical, got an education, parents were not nazis, is not racist, is not proviolence, might be pro-math, etc. Arnold said he loved Kurt Waldheim the ex-nazi, and invited Waldheim to his wedding. Then Alex Jones reports that Arnold used to give friends Hitler records when Hitler was a rising star, Arnold used the "n" word and said down with the blacks or something to that effect when younger. Then there is Arnold's performance as Governor which ofcourse is not noteworthy, he has done nothing for the California citizens. Didn't end the drug war, didnt' legalize nudity or prostitution, didn't campaign against violence, didn't expose Thane Cesar, didn't expose 9/11, didn't do anything for free information...he just sat there and tried to look pretty...we need somebody that is more than looks, we need somebody with a brain, it's time to drop the obsession with appearance and movie stars, and go with an obsession with justice, truth, fairness, wisdom, honesty, stopping violence, free information, human rights, full democracy, racial variety, equlity and harmony. ok, Arnold did support stem cell research, but that's all...that time he went with the popular opinion, and that is a point to Arnold's credit. I think it's very important to vote for Angelides, to return the state of California back into liberal intellectual hands...California is a blue state in it's core I think...it's artists, scientists, intelligencia, free thinkers, experimenters, futurists, the conservatives killed RFK in LA, they all covered it up, Evil Younger, the late Ed Davis, Joseph P Busch, ... Reagan was involved in the John Lennon murder (and maybe Vicki Morgan) he helped to make it happen using the brain image and sound sending machines and more, the neocons absolutely did 9/11/01 there is growing and growing evidence of this fact...they killed JFK and protected the killer Frank Sturgis...I mean I don't know where to start...but we have to turn things around, and removing Arnold from Governor is a fine start, his dad was a nazi, Bush jr is a neonazi, enough already, this is the USA, we defeated the nazis, we didn't fund and vote for them, there are a thousand secret conservative murders of liberals we need to uncover some decade...Anglides is not going to do anything like that, but let the seeds sprout and in 10 years maybe Thane Cesar will be jailed for first degree homicide, maybe in 10 years we can see what images were beamed on Bush jr's head when he clapped 4 times, seconds after the WTC2 plane collision. Yes, Bush jr applauded that act of carnage and mass murder, he and other neocons orchestrated 9/11/01 and who knows what they have planned for the USA next? They've got 96 year old secret thought seeing infrared cameras, they've got 93 year old secret thought hearing recordings thanks to Michael Pupin, they have lasers that make us scratch and we can only guess what else they want to do with those lasers...it's time to turn the tables on these US nazi bastards who did a coup in 1963 and have murdered their way to stay on the top ever since (except for an unusual phenomenon in 1976 that abruptly ended in 1980, and then again in 1992, but then to be shockingly thrown to the wolves in 2000 and the prompt neocon mass murder on 9/11/2001).
*SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT* (might be next governor)
Lieutenant Governor (can we say "vice governor now? and then remove vice department from all government):
So this is tough call. For me, it's between Figueroa and Speier. It's relatively close. I think I am going to go for Figueroa for the primary and then Speier in the final election (if she wins the primary). I just think the hypocrisy of putting privacy as the number one concern is hypocritical and that is the nicest term I can think of, given that Speier has been seeing video of people in their houses and their thoughts for perhaps 2 decades. Garamendi just doesn't have a lot of info there, he has some high powered friends in Clinton and Gore, but the cowboy hat is worrisome...it's too old fashioned and represents, perhaps a people that were very brutal to the native humans of North America, but, you know, it's also a hat that many people, native and otherwise wear in Texas and some southern central states...so then...yes, a little worry.
John Garamendi
top priorities:
1) "best education system"
2) "environment"
3) "every Californian having universal access to affordable health care."
what's about stopping violence? what's about free info? what's about nonviolent out of jail?
what's about full democracy?
"The elimination of racial and economic barriers must be our goal."
+has a web page
+appear to be not racist, or is pro racial variety
-not a lot of specific info
-owns a cowboy hat
-wears that cowboy hat
-wears that cowboy hat while fishing
Gore supports Garamendi
worked for Bill Clinton
Liz Figueroa
Top Priorities:
1) "fight for children and working families."
2) "as UC Regent ... fight against the scandals and waste that have recently come to light"
3) "environment"
+might be bi...ok unfortunately ...lingual
+wants to be first woman, and first latina as lt gov
+does have web page
"created the 'Do Not Call List,' which enabled Californians to block telemarketing calls"
"environment" (this is as required in California as "follower of Jesus" is in Christianity, which is probably a good thing, but again, I think it's taking on a "jesus" or "god" aire, because you know these bastards all have 10 ranches and have only contempt for moon stations, orbit stations and rocket planes, nuclear and genetic engineering)
+defended a woman's right to choose and has earned a 100% Pro-Choice voting rating from the Planned Parenthood of California.
-not a lot of really good specific information
"first Latina from Northern California ever elected to the State Legislature, and she is now attempting to overcome one more hurdle to become the first Latina ever elected to statewide office."
+kind of sexy (I often search for "latina" and "porno" on the Internet), still smarts is more important.
+doesn't have a cowboy hat, ok now I am getting too campy
+appears to not have been assigned a husband
"I'm a mother and a grandmother, and now I'm trying to take the fight for California's chidlren and working families to the statewide level" (ofcourse, how could a nonparent ever be elected? and then...watch out for the overlyzealous on children...people are being locked up for this kind of hysetia...but also, ofcourse, many of these people are zealous about restricting the rights of children...but I can imagine that there is a zelot for children that wants to open children's rights...but I doubt that would ever gain popularity...not until 2050 at least). children is misspelled, but then how about a phonetic alphabet for all languages already and some walking robots to clean out houses.
-web page is kind of sparse
Jackie Speier
TP's (Top Priorities):
1) "Consumer Protection" (yeah its ok, but whats about the free market, and besides this is a nonviolent crime...the answer here is free information, not the rack).
2) "Guardian of Higher Education" (yes, and that means a non-religious education ladies and gentleman)
3) "Keep Government Accountable to the People It Serves", I don't know what this means, but let us vote on the laws directly already...we've got the accountability right here on our keyboards... but also, I do agree in a balanced budget if that's what it is refering to, and legal "refers", or marijuana cigarettes for all that want, and only with consent.
NOW and Feinstein support Speier
ok I see the webpage
+has a webpage, this is a female I envisioned a male...good thing for photos
+has a video
+looks pretty, but we must look at smarts too
this photo with all the supporters in purple shirts raises this point with me...you know...I can see excited support for a person that is really going to do something...like stop the suffering of those in prison for drug use, and nonviolent people, for supporting total freedom of info, for speaking out against the copyright as serving only the elites and megawealthy, as fighting to stop fighting and other violence, for ending 4 pt restraints for the nonviolent, for introducing the right to trials for all people, for ending military law, for letting people vote directly on the laws, even just letting people's vote be counted...even if it don't count (ok I know I should have used "doesn't"). But...fanaticism for a luke-warm leader?...ahhh...i tell you...show me somebody who stands up for some real truth, an end to suffering, for justice...that takes it to the 9/11/01 reichstag plotters like Boxer sometimes does, and even she is not fierce enough with these war mongering pro-violence violent conservative criminals. now hows about a campaign against non-sexual assault, would it kill us to do that? for adult genital touching...is that so wrong?
+is "on the issues" (this is always nice to see and I have not indicated where others have this), first let me say, if I see nothing of note, this is going to be a two way between Fig and Spe.
1. Privacy Rights (ok I can only say...privacy rights as pertains to the government on the citizens, not the citizens on each other, and in particular on the government...you have to be careful with this privacy issue, and here she is putting this as number 1...because, ok does Speier hear thought, yes, ofcourse...does she get video in her eyes...ofcourse, yes she does and has for years!...does Speier watch people in their houses...yes...I'm sorry ladies and gents...Speier watches people in their houses...and that is definitely illegal. So it's hypocrisy to put privacy as a number one priority in my view. These people in the secret camera-thought net do not need more privacy, they need to be exposed, and that's why my number 3. is "complete freedom of all information", which ofcourse appears no where on the list of any candidate, not even "free info" in it's weaker form appears, in particular when you think about all they are into in terms of violating privacy)
2. Prescription Discounts for Seniors (yeah, ok...this is the big issue 2? wow, exciting. yes im being sarcastic.)
3. Delinquent Child Support Collection (it's kind of female over male based...and then, it's complicated, but I can see major reform in this area, mainly that perhaps a system where the money can only go to the child, and only for items the child needs...it's complex. In addition, democritizing the court system so we all can vote, and people are not subject to unusual verdicts by individual judge humans. Ultimately, it's nice that each parent should be responsible for all the food and clothing a child needs, but clearly taxpayers have some responsibilty in making sure no human is starving or in need of clothing, access to soap, etc. I think the farthest I would go is to garnish a person's wages that does not pay child support, but certainly allow each parent to live a minimum existence too. Here is one thing that I worry about, it's the traditional view that a female cannot work, and males must compensate the female. I think we are reaching a society where females are getting employed and earning income, perhaps not equally with males, but it's getting there. There was a most popular story that claimed that housewives [their word not mine] are performing the equivalent of a $130,000/year job. Ok I am sorry, but the median income is something like $70,000. Desk clerks get $30-$40,000/year, programmers get $40-$60,000/year at least in my experience. Day care probably gets something like 30-40,000/year, I would be surprised if working couples could afford more than that. So the reality is that a person, male or female that cares for their children probably only deserves 30 to 40,000/year, in particular when the other person gets home at 5 or 6pm and shares in the night care responsibilities, but even then, presuming the person would be paid for all child-care duties, doing 80 hour days, that would only amount to $80,000 at most, but in reality, we are talking about get alimony for a wealthier parent at divorce, and then a person really needs to look at that wealthier person's income and make a fair decision about how much they can afford to spend and many times that might be substantially less than 30,000/year...imagine they are only paid $40,000/year...how can they pay $30,000 for a day care employee? Then it simply is a tough low-income life for all involved including any children, and that is a fact of life, and that is why I think there needs to be some kind of bare bones bottom level assistence from the government, and why I support food stamps for example and other similar programs).
4. Clinical Trial Access for Cancer Patients (it's the insurance route for health care, not a government direct pay which is a second idea, again not a huge issue)
5. Uncovering Auto Repair Fraud (fine, expose it all I sez)
6. Women's Health (fine, but what about the rest of us?)
7. California Kid's License Plates (again, this is hardly a priority and I think while creative, is kind of a waste of taxpayer money and representative time. I can see USA license planets, but it's not a big deal, I can see anti-globalist people objecting and maybe for good reason...the FBI, the CIA, the executive branch, the courts...they are out of control...far from democratic, and then far from honest.)
8. Consumer Protection/Travel Restitution (again...not really major)
9. Family Law Mediation Program (dont know what it is exactly)
10. Domestic Violence Reporting (here is something interesting. Ok so this requires medical professionals to report suspected domestic violence to authorities...I have to wonder what the penalty is...again this is something that needs to be more of an advisory, not a law. They sit there and watched 9/11/01...I mean this kind of thinking is going to get them all jailed for years when the public gets to finally see thought and all the terrible history of the PupinUSA. First we need to decide...can we jail a person when the violence is claimed to be consensual by the victim? For me, I answer no, but it's a tough decision. I presume that these emergency room people are not reporting the violence because they don't want their (usually) husband to be jailed...or they forgive them. It's terrible, and I would love to jail those violent people, I am one of the only people on earth to be actively speaking out against violence, in video, in person, in audio, in song, in text, just about every day. But we are talking about people who choose to endure violence. There is a very good argument, that they don't consent, but that they are afraid to say that they object and want charges pressed against the (again usually) male, and that there is form of coercion happening to them, because they may get beat more...or even murdered when the assaulter is released (and in the USA, and most other nations of earth that could be hours, or a few days...even for a repeat violent offender). Again, I suggest a violent criminal public registery and all of these candidates will absolutely reject that idea, but there is a chance for some ground support and a nameless ballot measure to step up and identify those violent people for all to see. But back to the coercion, I simply think people should exercize their free speech options, by creating secure shelters for battered people, by volutarily or even paid-for people helping those people to understand how to press charges for assault, by an ad campaign against assault, clearly showing the laws and consequences of assault, and that assault is infact illegal, although many people chose not to prosecute, or give light-weight sentences for first degree assault, while johnson touching gets 3 life sentences.
+web page is rich with information
Secretary of State (battle of Debbies)
1) Bowen (+has web page, +for open gov)
2) Ortiz (-no individual web page,+for medical science,+does not appear to wear wed ring)
Controller
05/16/06 update: I want to add that clearly Kenneth Lay is an evil guy, albeit nonviolently evil, being as was revealed by Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit 911" as the single biggest contributor to George Bush jr. And that makes Lay indirectly partially responsible for funding the thousands of murders committed by Bush jr and like-minded people. And that is just what is revealed to the excluded...I mean can you imagine what the included must see and know? But then, as 9/11/01 tells us excluded...clearly even the included...I mean clearly...there are many included that are not 100% included... So I think Dunn maybe took down a relatively bad neocon to his credit. I can see potentially voting for Dunn. I think we need to watch out for the flying jailing and money-grabbing hand, that apprently randomly visits random people...when it's a a neocon many of us liberals don't feel much sympathy, but when it's a liberal like Tommy Chong, that's when we can see the injustice of it.
What does the "controller" do anyway...that is absurd, I vote to remove the occupation unless somebody can explain to me in 2 minutes or less why we need a controller.
So I think I will leave this at:
MY VOTE: Joe Dunn or Libertarian, and then John Chiang.
----prior notes:
ok, I've heard enough, I am voting for the libertarian on this one.
John Chiang
+has web page
-has neck tie in one photo
+no neck tie in other photo
-this "issues" is a fraud. There are no issues here.
Joe Dunn
ok so Joe Dunn helped to expose and take down Enron. You know, I think it's clear that the Enron leaders are lying scumbags, and did plenty of immoral and unethical things, but again, their crimes are just lies and fraud, nonviolent crimes, had all the video of their activities been public in real-time, people would have bought from their competitors, or even after the fact, in particular if they were ordered by the public, or even by one judge to pay back any money they stole or won unethically. The Enron story is kind of abstract because people are so ready to hop on the hate-the-corporation bandwagon that the truth is not clearly explained to the public...simply because it don't need to be (again doesn't). Expose Kenny Lay, the shareholders of Enron let him go, they pay back the fines, and Enron stays in business and the employees get their pensions, or the dishonest Lay and others forever damage the name of Enron, and the company goes bankrupt and is bought by some other company. I just don't see this as anything other than a property theft, lies, or fraud...and you know, with the camera thought network...I kind of feel that many people are lying, many people are in fraud, and this Enron thing was just one of those slow criminals (liars...of the camera-thought net for example) of the millions that was caught by the cops when they finally got there. I just worry when one of the millions is singled out for the rack kind of punishment. My vote is for total free info, expose those dishonest people, even if they are in the millions, even if they are the wealthiest and all in power...expose how they protect Thane Cesar, Frank Fiorini, the Michael Pupin network, etc., take the money back from those who steal, return it to those who were stolen from, but let's no jail people for lying or first time theft...and then for repeat thefts, let's only jail them according to logical 2^SENT*N sentences.
+no neck tie
-does have neck tie in main photo
-has on blazer
+has web page
-no "on the issues"
"Before becoming a Senator, Joe was a consumer attorney who played a leading role in California's lawsuit against the tobacco industry.", ok you know...I think the consumer attorney, like Ralph Nader is the classic example...I don't relaly agree with that or support it too much, because its this classic attitude that the public are babies and can't control themselves, that they can't think for themselves, that they need special protections by those who know better. I disagreed with the tobacco suit...although I can see perhaps the logic. First those people chose to smoke, that is clear to me. But the burden of health care expenses for the public, perhaps should be offset by those who directly contribute to it...I think it's a shakey argument, then gun manufacturer's and sellers might have to pay for all the gun wound health care (and perhaps even child care for those parents killed by guns). I probably side against anybody other than the public picking up the tab for those victims of tobacco addiction, gun and knife violence.
Treasurer (only one person on ballot)
1) Lockyer (I am sure I don't agree with a lot of what Lockyer does but it's only Treasurer...and...)
2) Libertarian or Green
***IMPORTANT*** (can jail people)
Attorney General
MY VOTE 1: Jerry Brown
+has a blog
-assist, what's this shit all about?
+might be former hippie...not sure...could be good for no more drug and vice arrests...but I am guessing here...is in Oakland.
Feinstein recommends...but not Boxer?
no smiles
+protect roe v wade, abortion right
+antibush statement on web page, eroding basic human rights, halleluja brudder.
+has a web page
"kicked-off"...maybe antisexual...or tolerent of first degree violence, watch out because even liberals endorse: antisexuality, psychological 4-point tortures without trials, secrecy and privacy except when it comes to us excluded then let the tap spilleth over!, the continued try to maintain the guiness book world record on number of drug users (ie liberals, and neocon political prisoners) in jail, religion (and not just toleration of religion, which most people ofcourse endorse, but actually beliving that shit), formal clothing, marriage.
-does have neck tie
pro enviro good, but hopefully not speaks enviro but secretly builds more estates and ranches with his vast wealth..and then a moon shuttle...or dream of the yellow orbiter? no he wont have it! (like using word "god" and "jesus"...what a success for Bush jr...who cares about law, order and reality...he did say "god" and "jesus" I guess it's forgivable for Bush to mass murder then)
MY VOTE 2 (in final election): Libertarian (then you know they aint going to be any drug or prost arrests)
MY VOTE 2 (in primary): Rocky Delgadillo
ok I did find a web page:
http://rocky2006.com/rocky2006/rocky_home.html
this sounds kind of like the political abstract crap without any real issues.
1) "it's not just crime and violence that threaten our families." what about those without families? I guess they are second priority. Nice to see crime and violence separated, and violence mentioned, but honestly, violence is the major issue for me...the rest of the stuff is nonviolent and therefore only a nuisance at best.
2) "big corporations", this is a theme for many people...you know...I can see...actually because I am excluded with millions of others I can only guess that there is a lot of corporate control over things...but those are just people...I think there is some injustice, but let's expose it and the people can vote and shop accordingly. I am against shockingly long sentences for corporate crimes like bribery, embezzlement, etc...I think the key is to expose them, return the money plus interest, etc. these are nonviolent crimes, and they deserve non-violent kinds of punishments, not excessive life-sentences currently being doled out.
3) "I know that I start this campaign as an underdog. I'm not an ex-governor or the son of a governor. I haven't run for President. My name's Delgadillo, not Brown.", that's fine, you know Bush senior is the son of a nazi, but still being an underdog is all the more reason to come forward and play ball with the excluded majority and promise or expose some seriously good radical changes...like democratize the government...let the people vote directly onthe laws...at least let their vote be recorded...damn!, full free info, no more drug and vice war, etc. a big gamble can be won with some very publically desirable promises. Maybe saying...I will open up the secret camera-thought net to all nonviolent people...I will allow the cameras on the street to be seen and archived for the public. I will order the FBI to release that damn gas station video of the Pentagon...you know...something people would say...look at Brown...he isn't saying anything like that...this guy is going to spill the beans on Thane Cesar, or 9/11, etc...no more sales tax!...legal nudity...etc. I thikn this my name is Delgadillo has to be a play of the race card, which is free info, but in theory we should vote for the best person based on their values, but in this time when so much is secret, it's tough to know those values, and many people feel more confortable with a person of their own or similar race (I don't...I am actually playing by this view that people of any race can be good and/or bad people, and then good or bad on a wide variety of many issues).
-picks apart Brown's quotes...I thikn if there is some really bad statement, I can see how this is informative...but I kind of have the feeling, being an outspoken person with a blog myself, than it's kind of like harvesting the salmon stream...while not swimming in it, because Delgadillo has no blog and not many statements on the web, and no photo on the web page, but I did find a number of photos on the web.
as an aside on the DA page: "City Attorney-Led Law Enforcement Team Nabs Sexual Predator After MySpace Chat With Minor"...I mean it's frightening...can you imagine you are talking to some person on the Internet and are hauled away and labeled as a pedophile and molestor trying to pick up a child on myspace...it's scary what the people in the government can get away with when it comes to antisexuality, and there is no opposition...nobody saying...welll whatever the person did...it's nonviolent, it's free speech, they never even touched the minor...I think we have to allow adults to talk with minors, even about sex...I honestly don't think soliciting genital touching from a minor should result in jail, not that I would ever do that, but it's thought to be protected by free speech, the first ammendment and unlike soliciting violence, asking for (presumably) consensual genital touching is nonviolent speech. Plus an adult asking a minor for a date, I don't see any crime there...but then I think children should have the right to think and decide for themselves...people can certainly advise them, but they should get to choose for themselves what they want to do. This kind of antisexual-child hysteria is making adult-child relationships unusual nowadays, and adults and children need to have good open relationships where they can talk about anything, it's a disservice to the adults and children both to be so hysterical about sexuality and children...if somebody hurts a child, or perhaps even tries to, then, yes ofcourse, that is a serious crime, as are all violent crimes.
Anyway I am not even going to bother with the republican or other candidates...even though I support more of a libertarian view, right now, the important thing is to remove the republicans from our government and voting for the democrat is the best chance to defeat the republican, until Frank Fiorini and Thane Cesar are exposed, until 9/11 is exposed...unless on the very small chance that a republican sayd they want to tell the truth about how Frank Fiorini killed JFK and Thane Cesar killed RFK in order to save the Republican party from this group of violent criminals from LBJ, to Nixon, to Reagan, and Bush.
Insurance Comissioner
ok this is a do-nothing job. I think I am just going to vote:
1) Libertarian
2) Cruz Bustament
+has that kind of wild sexy sister
-no web page besides gov page
3) John Kraft
* Affordable, Available and Reliable Insurance converage
* Not a political stepping stone, A Real Insurance Commissioner
so this is a stepping stone then is it? well i'll have nothing to do with it then...ok im joking. You know how sometimes people say the opposite thing of what is most true like...Nixon said..."these (hippy) thugs"...no Nixon was not the thugs...and there are many examples...none I can think of right now.
* A progressive Democrat, its the economy, family & community
+has web page
***IMPORTANT*** (can pass bogus laws, enact draft, initiate war, etc.)
US Senator
update: I absolutely refuse to vote for Feinstein because:
1) she voted for the invasion of Iraq (what other pre-emptive invasions will she approve in our name? In particular when it's clear that 9/11 was planned and executed by the neocons, the CIA, FBI, and US military, the Pentagon tiny hole, the molten metal under the WTC, the puffs of smoke seen in videos of the collapse (like in "loose Change"), the white smoke shown in videos coming from the bottom of the WTC before the collapse and the sound evidence of each explosion, the initial explosion in the basement of one of the WTC seconds after the plane impact that failed to bring down the WTC, the ppl in the WTC plane hole that show the fires were basically out, Mahmoud Ahmed wires Atta $100k then meets with George Tenet, Porter Goss, Bob Graham, and Jon Kyl, Bush claps 4 times upon seeing the WTC2 beamed video. Feinstein is no liberal, a vote for Feinstein is a vote for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women.
Clearly the support for an Iraq invasion is the most offensive, immoral, and illegal (it's accessory to first degree murder before the fact and they all know it) of Feinstein's decisions, but there are others.
2) She supported the recent addition of the word "god" in the us pledge and was angry that some people like Michael Newdow are calling for the reference to a god to be removed. It's time to drop the pledge and any oaths, we are a nation of free thought, not meaningless rote repeating which means nothing to most people.
I am telling people to write-in "Ted Huntington" (remember to bring a working pen to vote if not voting absentee), or vote for the libertarian candidate, or the green candidate, or "Colleen Fernald", or "Martin Luther Church", or no vote.
I think the main realistic thing a representative person can do is to put forward and collect signatures on a bill that will allow the vote of all citizens to be counted on government computers and made publically available, (and possibly be the final word on all decisions, that the public can have the ultimate veto over any part of government, but in any event that at least those votes should be counted and made publically available to all) on all existing laws, all existing bills before congress, all court decisions including supreme court, federal court, state court, and county court decisions, and all executive orders. This is I think the number one thing that can solve many of these problems, more than focusing on ending the on stopping violence, on freeing the nonviolent, on removing religion from government, on making total free information, on limited copyright, on stopping the possibility of jail for those charged with prositution or drugs...by democratizing our government, our military, courts, police, executive branch, laws...we will be taking the largest step possible towards more justice, because the public appears to show a much more logical, a much wiser set of values than the people elected as representatives of their vote.
You know I'm pulling heavily for any competition to Feinstein...a non-religionist, an anti-iraq invader, ...anti-drugwar?...cmon anybody...a simple free speecher...somebody...we ask that somebody please step forward....Martin Luther Church...no webpage, no info, no photo on the web...sounds kinds of religious....in the absense of any info, I can't vote for somebody. The same is true for Fernald...simply no web page, not one photo on the web...who knows what opinions the person has?
***IMPORTANT*** (can pass bogus laws, enact draft, initiate war, etc.)
US Representative (only one candidate)
1) Steve Young
a) +time to pull out of Iraq=now (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/elections/48th/48thcong_democrats.php)
*SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT* (can pass bogus state laws)
State Senator
1) Larry Caballero=YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!
Top Priorities:
* Support Public Education Reform (yes, hows about a world history course?, a history of science course?, a history of evolution course? A teach kissing class?...or teach pissing with this dumb-ass nation/lot!)
* Stop outsourcing of jobs overseas
(eh, in 100 years robots will be doing everything and humans will not have to lift a finger, so what does it matter?)
* Support a living wage and health benefits for workers
(hows about just a total free market, any wage, and then a government that gives free food, water, clothes to those who do not have enough money?...in any event I could be convinced of a minimum wage, but then they just jack up the price and print more doe).
Tom Harman=NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
* Enforce California's Illegal Immigration laws
(no, this is not a number one priority for me...make better laws is more like it...no more marriage bs, make them have hot bodies and brainy...not religious, etc.)
* Continue the fight against new taxes (hopefully not like the Bush jr neocons "lower our taxes"...now we have the biggest debt eva!
* Continue to protect the quality of life of Orange County residents
Holy molesto-city. "A plan to require alleged child molesters to wear electronic monitors when they're out on bail was defeated by the same committee. AB 335 would have helped police keep track of perverts who may be loitering near our kids' schools and parks."
maybe, but only after the first time assaulters have to, since, violent crime is worse in my view than simple genital touching. This type of stuff reads like a nazi manifesto...what nexts to do with the "molestor"...reminds me of the LA Sherrif who said "shoot the drug dealers"...hey wait a minute...you are supposed to be enforcing those violent laws...the drug dealer is presumed to be nonviolent, or at least simply dealing drugs is nonviolent.
"Nor has the assemblyman been replaced whose claim to fame is carrying legislation to reduce the punishment for possession of crack cocaine. That proposal to weaken our anti-drug laws actually passed the committee, but it was never brought up for a floor vote, so I didn't get an opportunity to vote against it."
zeig heil, this guy is totally from the nazi school. Always the crack cocaine...like some kind of ...now it's "meth"...oh the "meth"!!! But guns keep cranking out and knives, fists kill more than drugs but these zombies have their bibles, and the beam which replaces actual thought.
How did this guy get on the democrat ballot? It says he is a rebulican...that is scary...all the sudden it was like reading an old nazi newspaper. or one of those old manuals on how to know if somebody is truly a heretic or not, and then burning them at the stake anyway for their scientific brilliance, integrity and honesty.
ASSEMBLY (only one)
I didnt research Glover, but see above statement, I am voting for all dems unless otherwise specified.
Michael Glover
Member County Central Committee, 70th Assembly District
Bea Foster
a) +immediate withdraw from Iraq (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/elections/48th/48thcong_democrats.php)
Dean Inada
+peace coalition, aclu
+Support Sharon Toji's Priorites: Increase Democratic voter registration and participation
Sharon Toji
Bill Gable
+get dems to register
NON-PARTISAN (C'mon be real...theses people are human and as partial as every body else)
***IMPORTANT*** (can sentence people for ridiculously unfair amounts of time, can fine people excessively shocking amounts, can free violent people, shockingly so)
JUDICIAL
I don't know...all 3 are not outstanding but it's the nature of the system the people in the US have shockingly endured and refused to democratize or free infoize.
It's between, for me, Lyle and Nancy Padberg...
TP VOTE: 1) Lyle Robertson
"fair, tough, honest"...hey wait a minute..."F TH?"...
kind of bland...nothing really to comment on, does have web page.
Hopefully no relateion to Pat Robertson the advocater of first degree murder, and Jesus claimant.
Nancy Padberg
+has web page
"I developed Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect teams for two major teaching hospitals and assisted many victims of violent crimes in the use of the Victims of Violent Crimes program." (ok good to identify that there may be a difference between violent and nonviolent crimes...that is a big theme for next century when people of earth may master simple addition).
no neck tie on friend in photo
-supported by "young republicans"
supported by Ed Royce who is Republican
was part of Republican Party Central Committee (or comunnal as it was called back in the days under Stalin, I mean Evil Younger and the Reagan rot pack).
+Community College board...that is a plus.
Sheila Hanson
First priority is:
"Protect the citizens of Orange County by keeping our neighborhoods and schools safe from criminals, especially in cases that involve child molesters, gangs, drug dealers drunk drivers and terrorists threats."...what's about violent people? it's amazing molesters again are in the number 1 position, but wait...gangs have passed drug dealers...you hippie! how loose, I'm not voting for someone with such loose morals when it comes to drugs. Now, I do admire her tolerance for the most heinous of violence, and violent crimes. After the molesters...I sez the messagers! Then the strippers...the masturbaters...the pornographers...hell even the photographers...the models...anybody with a gram of sexiality...while we...yes we, will watch them all secretly baby...you and me...secretly with our secret camera thought network and they aint gunna see us never!
Does mention "violent criminals", so is aware of the phenomenon.
Look what these people did to Veches, that is vicious, he is a nonviolent person and never hurt anybody, but somehow all logic goes out the window....and apply that absence of logic to all other aspects of life...to Thane Cesar, to the 9/11 reichstag coverup, the Pupin lie network, ...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-judges10may10,1,6051394.story?coll=la-news-politics-california
"Hanson leads in fundraising, with $105,000 in loans and contributions collected by late March, compared with $25,000 by Padberg. Robertson has yet to file any significant expenditures with the county registrar of voters."
(Could get evolution history or even science history in schools)
Superintendent of Public Instruction
ok so I am voting:
1) Sarah Knopp
2) Grant McMicken
3) Jack O'Connell
Grant McMicken
Mathematics Teacher for 25 years
cool photo with huge Einstein statue
has web page
looks maybe little more cozy than others with brown blazer.
Diane Lenning
+safe schools
-repub assembly endorses
Jack O'Connell
many endorsements
does have web page
has neck tie
has high powered suit
2006 California Democratic Convention
sara knopp
not enough info
ok I found a web page
ok so here, I think is real proto-typical liberal, but of the loud-mouth variety, of which I am a member...but not prototypical, because I don't support all the mainstream beliefs.:
REDUCE CLASS SIZE IMMEDIATELY. t: ok
STOP THE TESTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY CRAZE. t: stop the jail, 4 point restraint, mind police craze while at it.
DESEGREGATE OUR SCHOOLS. t: ok good, clearly not racist
LANGUAGE RIGHTS. t: ok
FREE PRE-K FOR ALL. t: ok, good
LOWER COLLEGE TUITION. t: ok, good
ALL CHILDREN DESERVE QUALITY EDUCATION. ok
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS NEED A REAL RAISE. ok...I don't have all the data in front of me to see how salaries compare...make the case
MORE COLLEGE COUNSELING. t: no, no college counseling...that is all foo foo crap, its psychology, ... oh wait ... is that to prepare for which college...ok then that's fine
NO MILITARY RECRUITING ON THE CAMPUSES. t: it's tough...I think ... you know...if we do not allow religious, atheist, or other recruiters, then that is fine...I think perhaps each school should decide so-called "democratically", who is and who is not allowed on the campus...and for how long.
looks kind of young, pretty, is for peace. has white jacket on and clearly supports psychology...which, to me is disappointing to see in liberals...a nonviolent person can be picked up at their house, tied to a table with four point restraints for hours...a torture so cruel and unusual that people convicted of multiple murder or even simple assault cannot receive this torture, then without a trial? I guess it's ok...no trial needed, throw away habeus corpus...sombody said, did or thought something unusual (albeit nonviolent and legal). no trial, ...then no sentence! no f'in sentence...just...wheneva...no information released to even relatives, injections of drugs against objection, the lobotomies, the electroshock...it's callous to say the least, and then to parade for human rights, and peace...it's somewhat hypocritical, because what about the rights of those people in the psychiatric hospitals? In particular the nonviolent law abiding? Then finally, what about free info, and how they all hear and see thought? How evil is that? How dishonest. How unethical, how elitist and greedy, how simply stupid, how nazistic. Still, there are no other people that appear as liberal. I guess for many people the belief is...they are going to attack you by saying...she is insane...so why not take the offensive? The..."I'm a big believer in psychology!"...kind of stance. Dawkins takes this view too, and perhaps is somewhat effective at removing allegations of insanity attached to him and all smart people. I take a different theory/approach where I pull off the curtain, even though I endure the stigma of being labeled insane...I take on the stigma and the establishment in a head on head battle, and in the long term I think this is what is going to bring down the beast, not becoming a part of it and steering it against the conservatives, but exposing and rejecting unconsensual psychology fully.
Daniel Bunting
no web page...how smart is that? damn I demand excellence.
* Return California to top 10 in Education Testing /Dollars per pupil, t: ok
* ReExam HS Seniors Exit Exam Requiements, t: ok
* Improve Teacher Techniques to include HOW children learn , t: ok wait a minute...I don't know that ...is HOW some kind of program? I think it's ok..but it sounds like psychology to me...I am more for the basic real sciences
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Assessor
****VERY IMPORTANT**** (can jail people for many years, even on bogus or trivial charges)
District Attorney (Only one)
write in "Ted Huntington":
I promise to:
1) make a web page with all the statistics of numbers and kinds of charges, and convictions.
2) open up the system to public identify verified voting (similar to credit card recognition, but with your vote instead of money, and perhaps with more rigorous identity checking), and this voting will help determine what charges to press against whom, what sentences to pursue that are equal to the majority opinion.
3) If popular approval, focus on charging those with nonconsensual violent crimes
4) If popular approval, allow the public to see all evidence for each case.
Tony Rackauckas
I think again, this is going to have to be a "Ted Huntington" write in. Rack hasn't had me arrested so perhaps he is not so bad, but look what they did to that young guy Veches...100 years for toe sucking...isn't that a little harsh? What are they going to do next charge people who look at children? or are caught standing next to a child for more than 30 seconds? In particular, the hugging a child angle hasn't been exploited, coupled with some pornographic magazines...it could be persuasive enough for one of those 100 year sentences. If you think some body else can do better and will accept the job, maybe "Bob Dylan", or "Noam Chompsky", by all means write in that name or even just simply "we want some pussy!"...yes...we want some pussy...let them figure it out, because you know pussy ain't Rackauckas (unless yer talking aobut going after Thane Cesar, telling the truth about hearing thought...but then...a human would have to be some kind of super-human...it's simply not posible, I am going to have to rule it out), he will lock up people for 100 years for sucking toes...I think...watch to hell out for that bastard. To be honest, I think some tit might be nice...but holy shit not Sheila Hanson. Nowadays a person can chop off yer genitals just as soon as look at 'em....and then they would get you for lewd and that person would get off for self defense from assault with not a deadly weapon, but a hard penis that...can cause not a small amount of pain...but is not thought to be deadly as far as I know, and even if there was not one genital touched...they charged Veches with assault...assault=toe sucking?...where can I get that peyote? because I don't think there is something that mind bending available...but wait...it's not peyote or the ganga...it's jesus conformity ignance and religion...maybe years and years of antisexual training and physical stimulation denial perhaps...I'm no expert but clearly violence is not nearly as serious as genital touching...no wait...even toe sucking...even toe touching now...apparently. They'll get you for being in a chat room with somebody pretending to be 18, but is actually an underage cop. In particular showing porno to anybody under 18, even a person in police pretending to be 17. Send them porno and these pleasure police with powerful pupin technology will descend upon your apartment and sift through yer undies. That guy in DC was just chatting with a female under 18 (actually was an guy in police)...not even an actual crime...just a pretend crime...or supposed crime...and then...talking to a 16 year old about sex a major crime? I guess so in this age of mass murder covered and mass murderers protected by pupinized lies. It's unusual, because to me, I would rather have my genitals touched than violence done to me...but cest le vie, it's OC. To me, there is something unusual about having such a strong focus against pleasure...ignoring violence, ignoring theft...all in a quest to stop anybody from nonviolently and consensually experiencing physical pleasure, it's I think will be a relic only of this and the next two centuries....although it's not clear how pleasure will shape out in the next 1000 years...but clearly young people will get the legal right to pursue physical pleasure, maybe in 300 years.
***IMPORTANT*** (can jail people)
Sheriff-Coroner (should be 2 separate jobs)
5/14/06 ok I have come to a conclusion on this and here it is: for OC Sheriff-Coroner go ahead and write in "Ted Huntington". Here is what I promise:
1) Make a system of OC resident voting on the OC Police page, with Verisign, and/or some other identify verification system, so that people can suggest new policies, vote on existing policies, and in particular can vote to approve or disapprove of my suggestions.
2) Zero tolerance on first degree nonconsensual violence. If this gains a majority vote of the citizens, I will establish that all acts of first degree, nonconsensual violence, with clear physical evidence, will result in arrest and imprisonment for at least 24 hours.
3) If this wins the popular vote, to open up the street camera archives to the public, perhaps only the OC citizens, or perhaps to all US citizens, all nonviolent conviction people, etc. I have a feeling that this particular policy, may in fact, win popular support.
4) And end to all drug and vice arrests. Again only if this can gain a majority vote, which perhaps it cannot, but that will not stop me from making this suggestion to the public, and trying my best to garner votes in favor of this police policy. We can vote on whether to transition those narcotics and vice people into violent crime or some other part of the OC police, or do early retirement, or simply deemploy them...what ever the public decides.
5) Employees in police allowed to wear shorts and short sleave shirt uniforms, or long pants and long sleeve uniforms.
6) If this wins popular support, I promise to open up the 9/11 call archive perhaps in real-time, or 24 hours later, or 1 year later, and then perhaps only to OC citizens.
7) If popular, end car chases and simply pursue with stationary street cameras (perhaps helicopters or satellite cameras) and stop people at gas stations, unless human has done violent crime and/or is doing a violent act(s).
8) establish a neighborhood info page that describes what OC police are doing in each neighborhood, so that people can check in there and see why there might be many police cars or ambulances there.
9) if popular, separate the arresting and non-arresting staff positions. In other words, people hired would know in advance if they would potentially be facing violent people or not. This way, we can attract smart people to focus on nonviolent police work (for example processing camera images and microphone audio, handling phone calls, reporting police info to the public, assisting arresting officers from a distance remotely with cameras), and focus strictly on those more action-oriented people that want to focus on, or do not mind being involved in the actual capturing of potentially violent people.
So there are 9 promises, and I think those promises are much better and more progressive than any I have seen from other people, in addition, I promise to let the popular vote determine the police policies, and I am sure that the public has many good ideas for the OC police too, and this system allows those ideas to be heard, debated and voted on.
10) If popular approval, allow the public to see all evidence for each case.
-----end update
Ok I did extensive, albeit excluded, analysis on this, and I currently am deciding that I can't decide...they all shit. But perhaps one will be shown to be less evil...perhaps there is more info in the camera-thought net. They all, honestly, are not great in my opinion, but that is what we get for making police have to wear uniforms, have to both identify who to capture and then physically capture the person (if identifying people breaking the law could be done by one group...the non muscle bound, and then the actual arresting a different, obviously the people more into that aspect...police would be a more attractive job.
Carona
+have not gotten 1 ticket
+no assaults to me (although much of this can be credited to UC police probably...but then they allowed 2 bikes to be stolen from me, my car windshield smashed, a tire slashed on my bike, rejected the idea of cameras on bikeracks for all to see or even just them to "pubically" acknowledge seeing)
-had a bad feeling about earlier OC child abduction and murder, they see, hear thought, but couldn't stop this? seemed negligent at best, allowed for some bizarre public opinion shaping reason at worst.
-born again
Im not sure the sleeping object in the rectum by those young males is Corona's fault, but still the worry remains that such behavior would be tolerated and perhaps instilled by a parent in the OC police.
-big focus on homeland security and photo with Ridge who gave us the Patriot Act, although I don't know how people could vote for that thing...now a j-walker and marijuana user can treated like a "terrorist", which means not a citizen that enjoys all the proir laws guaranteed to citizens.
-not a lot of info provided
main issues Corona is focusing on:
1) SWEEPING CRACKDOWN ON CRIMINAL IMMIGRANTS, holy shit...this is the number one priority, look to hell out immigrants...they gotta can of crack-down on yee. But halleluja...they pause to say "criminal"...that does take the wind out the sails of so many fervent anti-immigrant people, which tend to be white...I think most people that believe in strict immigration are white, and think the US should be mainly white people, but there certainly are exceptions. Still, if people really cared...why would any shithead who can get married instanty become a citizen? why not show some serious selection based on intelligence, physical beauty (corona would be out of luck...ahaha just joking)...not just the ability to find some person to wed?
2) PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (you can see how easily the public must be satisfied by so-called child fanatacism...what about adults?...you might think children are viewed as god-like by this, but in actuallity they are viewed as property, perhaps too special to be allowed equal human rights (to vote, touch genitals, have self initiated sex, to own property, to work and earn money)...it's all about denying children their equal rights and ofcourse...in order to protect them...for their own good...they would support this if they knew better and could actually vote on it. Perhaps Corona is trying to compensate for that earlier child murder...again...there must have been hours before the murder where they could have intervened, where they must have had camera-thought net alerts..."abduction of child"...."screams of child"...."first degree assault of vagina with a penis", "attempted murder", "apparant homicide"...and the location...and I honestly think they must have known by then...although this is Irvine police, there was that guy in Albertson's with a sword who was killed with shoot to kill orders(?)...I mean shoot to wound would have been my vote (since no gun, and perhaps even with a gun...it's a tough issue, if the people in police have kevlar and bullet-proof helmets...most people don't complain, but there could be a time when a person is killed by this policy that had no weapon), although that Joe guy had killed some people...it's a minor thing, but those policies should be worked out.
3) HOMELAND SECURITY (again Bush did that reichstag 9/11, so this is all dubious and nazistic neoconage. It's clear that Moumoud of the Pakistan ISS wired Atta $100,000, and met with that Arizona neocon, Jon Kyl, Tenet, and Goss...and they probably had lunch and did lines with Atta. Bush spelled out "ATA" hours after the 9/11 collision...and that must have been to try and throw off those excluded that think like many liberals he will tell them the inside truth...but ofcourse...everything out of Bush's mouth is 99% evil, and ofcourse 9/11 is a lie, Atta was an employee of the CIA or FBI and most likely excluded, and simply on the plane...killed to be a patsy for the neocons....so you know...it's not good to see Corona, Hunt or any of these people in the government playing along with that.)
4) INNOVATIVE CRIME FIGHTING LEADERSHIP (abstract...just some programs, drunk teens, etc.)
-where is the stop the violence, open up the street cameras and 9/11 to the residents of OC? a web page where OC citizens can find out what is going on in the crime scene in their neighborhood?
-Corona makes friends "deputies" (I don't know..it's seems cronyistic...but it's minor)
-Corona is not very open with the media, doesn't return the calls...saw "no comment from Corona's office" in at least one article, probably that friends as deputies office, but maybe some other.
Kind of funny, this time no smile...kind of a "hey!" look.
Hunt
+"operate safe and secure jails"
-coming from military, might be very spartan, might not be brainy, but then Corona is born-again, so...
Hunt name looks good, but could be fan of the evil HL Hunt in Texas, will have to go by something other than name, and this remains my advice to all people.
+ "from politics to public safety where it belongs."
- "taking gang members, drug dealers, sex offenders and career criminals off the streets and out of our communities" (again, where are the violent people?)
Martin
-"target gangs, drugs and violent criminal offenders.", nice to mention violent offenders
+"target...violent...offenders"...wait...I guess it's true there could be violent noncriminal offenders...like violence in self defense, like against these laser assaulter basterds, I am not sure a self defender would then be an "offender" though.
-"Domestic Terrorism" and
-"Plans to seek additional Homeland Security money" (this sounds like conservative bs, 9/11 was Bush and the neocons, therefore...many of us or certainly I don't believe all the "terror" hype).
- I don't know about this: "the current Sheriff has taken no action to improve the situation. ", let's hope situation isn't referring to the resident ex-sitter, and improve not refering to the way the neocons "improved" the WTC and the USA.
- military, white male, crewcut hair...I don't know...isn't there a female non-white hippie available?
-" I will create an Illegal Immigration Enforcement Policy Commission", I just don't see illegal immigration as a serious problem, even though perhaps a majority of other people do. To me, the US is a nation of immigrants, variety is the spice of life, let the smart come in, make the violent go into the prison system and go back when done with their sentence. But then, let's open up the border and work to develop Mexico and move in there with the love party here in the USA.
-again this person's priorities are clear: "gang members, drug dealers, sex offenders and career criminals.", "gang members, drug dealers, sex offenders and career criminals."...and then...
"gang members, drug dealers, sex offenders and violent career criminals"..what the...hey somebody slipped a "violent" in there. then a variation "gang members, drug dealers, and illegal guns", "gang violence, narcotics and identity theft." Clearly gangs and drugs are driven into the bone marrow of Hunt...I have to wonder what happened....clearly a person that probably has always hated the stoner, maybe even the alcohol users...but somehow..I kind of think he's like many people...they preach the anti-drug message but all used them...or even when you look at George "Poppy" Bush senior, and the rise in poppies going into Heroine now coming out of the US controlled Afghanistan...it seems that the neocons may be the biggest investers in keeping drugs illegal and high priced (maybe unlike the Opium war...they found a more lucretive racket...make the drugs illegal...hey many puritans are for that...and then sell them by controlling the government law enforcement...and then get all the money from those overpriced illegal drugs...it can't lose as long as you can control the DEA, FBI and police...hey use them to arrest your competition, the only possible crack in this system is the remote possibility of the public voting to legalize, but that will not happen for decades.).
-"No inmate early releases.", I can see this for violent crime people only...but the drugs and vice...they should not be there to begin with.
"Inmates will be fed in their cells. " interesting idea...for me, I think people could have the choice if the cafeterias are unsafe. Some might argue that is is cruel to keep a person in the same cell for that extra hour, but it's not like they are going outside in the cafeteria...I can see showers being used one at a time, or a shower in each cell...but then...when it comes to non-violent people, the safety issue in the cafeteria is probably much less.
"I will eliminate pornographic magazines; reduce TV options to educational programs, and increase work, vocational, educational programs for sentenced inmates.". I see no reason to eliminate voluntary porno, and any work I vote to be volutary only.
+has a couple of videos on web page
Alcaraz
-"take back streets, ... from gangs" is really the only actual issue I can find for Alcaraz, and you know...my opinion on gangs is that the important thing is violent people, and this "gang" propaganda is a buzzword for many people, and you know, violent crime is more important, tolerance of nonviolent drug and prostitution users, but the gang thing...you know...republicans are a gang, democrats are a gang, christians are a gang...being in a gang is not illegal...it's the violence people do that is, and there are some people in police that think violence is ok, and that actually do or at least threaten or support first degree violence, and that is the problem I want addressed by people. Yes, the free info, and technology progress are good, but again it needs to be free info and technology available to the public, not just for the elites in government.
+does say "open minded"
+pro technological progress (again, let's hope the public gets to see those street camera videos, and hear the 9/11 calls some time...gets to know what is going on in their neighborhood...why there is a police person there for example).
Treasurer-Tax Collector
County Clerk
MY VOTE: Tom Daly
BALLOT MEASURES
As usual, really lack luster ballot measures, but these three appear to be comprehendable which is unusual.
CALIFORNIA STATE
81=reading improvement, my vote: YES. although I am mostly for lowering government spending to only the bare minimums, more focus on public education can only be good for evolution, for science, for criticism of religion.
82=public preschool, my vote: YES. I think in some way this is like government day care...and I suggested government day care as an idea, but this is even better...let 4 year olds get a science education and voluntary...then taxed on those bastards making $400,000/year or more...they deserve it in my opinion...what a posh life that must be....and here they do nothing against the drug war, against violence, for the public video of evolution, history of science, for legal prostitution...and they are the one who would clearly benefit the most from legal prost since they have the cash to get some beautiful sweet ass.
ORANGE COUNTY
A- prohibit eminent domain, my vote= YES. My thoughts just go to the constant abuses of the representatives in our government to big money businesses and people. Any exceptions, we can vote on.
in other news:
The neocons wants to roll out the military to the border, maybe 10,000 people. I can see, them rolling the military out into the streets, and rounding up liberals at gunpoint into the prisons...what would anybody do...and then either a total military state, with either phony elections or no elections because of emergency terrorism alert.
more on "globalization" as the buzzword among many liberals, and I think this is more specifically:
1) anti big companies/corporations, just simply a mistrust of large corporations, any group of people with power or control over large parts of earth or money, with a particular focus on the large media companies. It's not anti-media as far as I can see, but it is anti-media monopoly, there only being 3 major media companies (although clearly the Internet is ending much of the power of television, but wireless free video, probably a smart remote control, maybe thought or audio controlled Internet video search and play, needs to be added for the final steps, but definitely let me not forget full and complete freedom of all information, no arrest for any info owned, an end or major limits on copyright, the view that copyright only protects and contributes money to the wealthiest people. Perhaps a copyright limit for individual people already earning a consistent $100,000/year, or $500,000/year? because at a certain wealth level they can afford technology and influence that enables them to violate the copyrights of the poor with impunity. When you look the wealthiest person on earth got their money strictly from copyright, Bill Gates, in this case copyright on computer software. Copyright on computer software, because of the copyright law is perhaps the best possibility for getting income without any major expenses...and that should tell us something...maybe that is wrong....maybe getting money in that way is unfair...maybe after a certain amount of wealth the copy rights for a person or company should be limited or ended. So full free info will go along way for ending media monopoly...which appears to be the major focus of the anti-globalization people...again I see anti-violence, and freeing nonviolent people (in particular drugs and vice) from jail as being a larger issue, but am basically in the minority there).
so I am not sure that the anti-global movement is necessarily anti planetary cooperation between nations and people, ... I think there may be perhaps a earth as the universe kind of view where there is only one planet, no chance of ever going to other planets or stars, and so perhaps this movement will move into an anti-star systemization movement in the future.
Some person hinted that I do not love anybody and it's true that I have a lot of hate for those in the thought-camera net for lying, for excluding me for trivial reasons while including some of the meanest, most vicious and truly violent humans on earth, ... but I have a lot of love, perhaps ironically where many others do not. I have a lot of love for JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon that the truth behind their murders be told and shown to the public...clearly more than most other people have...they show very little love there. I have a lot of love for those in jail for drugs and prostitution...enough to talk about them in videos, music and in my typings...again not many other people out there shown any love for those people....then the people murdered on 9/11/01, many people want to forget them and put it behind us, but I want the truth told, and I think those people deserve to have the truth told about their murders, and their true murderers exposed and imprisoned...in a turn of events, my initial comments that the killers were killed in the planes and all that remained are the nonviolent funders and plotters....it now appears that the actual killers are still alive:
A PEOPLE: Actual violent criminal humans, charges: first degree homicide, multiple counts]
1) that person or people that flew any plane by remote control (could be 4 or more people directly flying the plane into either buildings, the ground, shooting down airplanes)
2) that person that controlled the missile or drone plane that hit the Pentagon (could be 1 human or more)
3) that person or people that initiated the actual demolition of WTC2 (this alone may be the biggest act of mass murder on US soil in the history of the USA)
4) that person or people that initiated the actual demolition of WTC1 (this may be the second biggest act of mass murder on US soil in the history of the USA)
B PEOPLE: Nonviolent criminal humans, planned and participated in violent homicide. Charge: Accessory to murder before the fact]
but beyond that there are those who plotted the mass murders (may be a group of only 20 people, or could be in the hundreds). These people, I think are definitely looking at jail time, although they may laugh very loudly at that statement. I still think a democratic trial is within the realm of possibility for the future.
those people that took part in the actual operation of the homicide, wired up the explosives, allowed the people in to buildings to wire the explosives. Basically, anybody that knowingly and willingly played an active part in the execution of the 9/11/01 mass murder.
C PEOPLE: Nonviolent criminal humans, participated in cover up of violence many count homicide. Charge: Accessory to murder after the fact...although...I doubt these people will actually do any jail time, they may suffer from social ostrification and lack of job possibilities, but even that is doubtful]
So I am showing more love for those victims of 9/11 than most other people do. Those who are victims of Tex's secret camera thought and laser network, ok it's not just Tex's, infact it's probably technically all of ours...our tax money probably funded much of it. I feel enough love for those poor people that I explain much of the technology at great risk to myself. thats how much I care for them, for truth, for justice, etc. much much more than most average people....so it's kind of a catch-22 sometimes...the very people I help are so ungrateful that they appear to be hardly worth the effort...it's not helpful, but I can't help the loving...it just seems to be the good thing to do, or it comes naturally.
05-11-2006
More on that Bush clapping 4 times just after the second WTC building is hit.
It still is upsetting to me, to see that, mainly because it's hard to focus on other projects knowing what those neocon people did, but also like many pieces of evidence being revealed, it adds to the big picture for excluded people like me...the picture of what was going on for the included on the morning of 9/11/01. Because Bush claps, and the Charach interview, where Charach makes a very subtle clap gesture when talking about the Hinkley shooting of Reagan, lends evidence to the idea that these included people clap on each side when there is violence...like what they all collectively see is a big show or play made just for them. But it says to me that the two sides must really be clearly defined in the secret camera-thought net, and that this sort-of north versus south, nonracists versus racists, kind of behind the scenes civil war may be still be happening. Why else would bush jr applaud the mass murder of thousands of people in NYC? He must have felt that he was attacking an enemy, to approve of the murder of those people or maybe simply relief and happiness that their years or more plan finally was accomplished...like scoring a long awaited goal...and clearly NY, like many northern states took the side of the abolishonists in the 1860s, and so being a racist in a family with a clear Nazi tradition, it perhaps seems like a victory over the north and for their evil philosophy of racism and elitism. Why else would he celebrate the murder of thousands of humans? Still, the truth is far from a clearly divided north and south as may have been true back in the days of civil war too, look at Guliani, Ptachy, Silverstein...all neocons in on the plan, then think of those in the WTC who voted for Bush jr, I think it's safe to presume that most if not all those in the WTC were the excluded (from seeing and hearing thought), and that includes those government employees that tried to rescue people...of perhaps they only received certain services, or very limited services of seeing, hearing thought and video in their head...maybe they got video on their head, but nothing about the 9/11 plotting...which...ofcourse, Bush jr must have been a part of so how could those included not know? Million watch Bush jr and his thoughts every day I imagine. So, all those people in the WTC, the 3000 dead (including all on the planes) must not have known about the massive and long awaited 9/11/01 plan. So my point is, imagine those people that voted for Bush jr....and here they voted for their own killer. But there is more I think excluded people can conclude from this clapping. Bush jr, clearly feels a moment of euphorea and excitement on seeing the second part of the 4-part plan successfully executed without any flaws, no resistence at all. He appears to be taken by this excitement, and boldly claps four times in approval...but also in arrogance...and confidence...perhaps a little too much confidence...as many of us experience in those moments of elation....and I think he knew he was on camera...it was one of those moments he must have felt indefeatable...and so confident that he could even hint openly that he was happy for the success of the second collision. He must have felt this kind of over confidence, that as I said, we are all familiar with, ... so confident that he stepped out of character, out of the pretend fascade for a few seconds...to express that naked fascism that I described earlier...that open saying yes, we used Fiorini to kill JFK and there is nothing you can do about it...kind of feeling. But I think, as is usually the case, this excitement and overconfidence usually becomes a liability or expense, and is rarely an asset. Because now, the excluded have this video and can spend some time analyzing this, adding it to the physical evidence, ... the other flaws and sloppy mistakes of the reichstag 9/11 plotters. Had Bush jr, been a cool headed, cold calculating discreet mass murderer, we would have one less piece of evidence that those bastards did this 9/11 mass murder, but he is an arrogant, sloppy bastard as many of them are (although, I think we excluded need to stand in awe at how silently and secretively they are as fascists and mass murderers....I mean talk about snow job...the public hasn't the tiniest idea of any detail about JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11, etc. it is clearly one smoothly polished evil operating human and technological machinery of evil and injustice). So, clearly this overconfidence of Bush jr, to actually step out of the lie and applaud the second element of the mass murder is another good piece of evidence. Plus it reveals the nature of beaming images onto people's heads...you see clearly that there is a new kind of phone call, instant message that was invented years ago, but denied public use. Hopefully the public can put it together, and it's not too much of a stretch to accept that there is wireless head to head communication technology...and it's all done with regular science technology, it's not ESP or anything mystical obviously. Then, as a final conclusion, Bush jr looks at his compatriots with glee...to share in the excitement of the success of the second tower collision (as a note, the first tower was a direct hit, the second tower was not...clearly something happened...the plan did not go perfectly...or perhaps the neocon plotters wanted to make it look unplanned, and two direct hits might make it look to perfect?...perhaps the liberals moved the plane over to stop a direct hit?) Bush's compatriots don't look as thrilled, perhaps as Bush jr is. After this, Bush jr falls back into character and particularly after he gets the staged whisper in the ear (many things must be staged, planned in advance, even his speech etc), Bush jr makes kissy lips at that point. One of the Bush jr compatriots makes a right hand free speech gesture. One other thing with the 9/11, there is the comment "they couldn't fly at all." about Hanni Hanjour, and maybe this person is hinting to the excluded that the actual pilots "couldn't fly at all"...in other words that yes, just like the television program that described a US government hijacking of a commercial airplane to fly into the WTC that was thwarted, this adds to the evidence that the pilots in the planes: 1) must have been excluded (as must have been the passengers including patsy "hijacker"/CIA/ISS passengers), 2) could not control the plane, the control board, or any phones. The phone calls, what actually happened to Flight 77, and Flight 175 are really the final mysteries and unanswered questions about 9/11. How could the phone calls be created? Did Flights 77 and 175 land or were they shot down?
What would happen if academic people were elected into government? I think we would have a much better representative democracy. Currently, we get only lawyers, judges and independently wealthy individual people. What if Einstein had been elected president of the usa? I am sure Einstein would have been a fine president, he was a nonconformist. Or Carl Sagan...Sagan would have been an awesome president, promoting science, bringing out the camera network, showing the logic, honesty and fairness of the science mind, even now, there are presidents of universities who could be president of the USA and I am sure would do a fine job, even teachers...what about somebody like Noam Chomsky...he would be a fine US President, we could be sure our military would not be doing first degree murder around the planet. I can't think of any other famous academic science people, but clearly, those people would be much better leaders than the lawyers, and televangelists that currently get elected. Maybe someday, when the majority of the US population is more educated we will get scientist presidents, or perhaps by then, we will have a true democracy run directly by public voting.
05-10-2006
Some quick thoughts:
rise in global epidemic of violence, religion and lies due to rise of neocons
There was a 'press release' from the DEA saying that there is a 'global epidemic of meth addiction', and you know my first thought was to a video I have seen before and saw again yesterday: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7631524045446340770&q=9%2F11+duration%3Amedium with the voice of poor Betty Ong, supposedly (again...it's clear that a missile or drone plane hit the pentagon, and that the 2 WTC towers were brought down in controlled demolition...so...most likely the planes were remotely controlled, one more 9/11 truth is that the person John O'Neil was more than likely excluded...it's hard to imagine that an excluded could be employed in the FBI...and then he was murdered by hiring him into the WTC just before the planned collapse). But back to the global meth addiction...here in this video some young males in the US military are sitting there shooting Iraqi humans into pieces, ... look at the infrared video...do you see that all the humans are bright white colored? Where can we civilians get such cameras? Those might be very useful in home security...but no, they are either for government use only, or start at $10,000...which is mysterious since web cams in the visual spectrum (how different could infrared spectrum be?) cost under $50. ... but here the 20 or something year old supervisor says to the young 18 years guy..."yeah...smoke him", no arrest, no trial, no robots capture the person, no anything...just "smoke him". And I realized that, with the neocon violence-loving nature, there must be, in reality a rising global epidemic in addiction to "smoking" of this kind. Obviously this kind of addiction to smoking is much worse than any kind of meth addiction...I mean there...they will probably live...nobody is being killed...they may even become unaddicted, or live successfully like many people do with an addiction, but with this "smoking addiction", clearly nobody is going to walk away from that kind of thing. They ought to be called ancientcons, because there is nothing new and futuristic about this old-style gun shoot-out, a modern approach would be with walking robots that capture, with trials, capturing violent people alive, trying them not in an old-school secret undemocratic military tribunal, but openly with everybody getting to vote and see all the video evidence. It was shocking again to see this video...here this young guy is turned into a murderer in front of our eyes...I mean those people shot into pieces did have guns and would no doubt kill the invading US people in a second...so in some way the murder is justified...although...barely...and it's really an approach of looking for a shoot-out, and that is what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney...these neocons watch all day...but we don't get to see...they actively support that stuff...and no doubt watch humans killed before their eyes all day...it's brutal and shocking to see, and I am glad that some of these images escaped to the public. But those are only the tiniest fraction of images that must be. But in addition to the global rise in violence, that ... I mean clearly...from 1992-2000 there was no war in Iraq and Afghan, no 3000 murdered from 9/11...it seems people, in particular democrats are ignoring this fact, that there is a clear rise in planetary homicide, in the homicide of US citizens, directly related to Bush jr being elected from 2000-2008. Why is this truth ignored? But beyond this global epidemic of violence, is the global rise in lies...with the 9/11 biggest lie of the century...the secret Pupin network...the number of people lying has risen to an all time high.
full democracy not anarchy
Some people argue that full democracy where people determine everything is anachy, and it is clearly not and let me explain why. Anarchy is no government, in full democracy there is a government. It's that simple. In full democracy, there are government employees, but they are hired strictly by popular vote, not appointed. Full democracy is the progressive and inevitable future of democratic "representative" government, it's not a wild and radical change to the existing representative democracy, it's a minimum and logical improving and refining of the existing government structure. The only thing being removed is any kind of "representative", the courts still exist, laws still exist, those people enforcing the laws still exist, the military still exists. For example, this seems inevitable, I see a day when I can vote where my tax money goes to. I don't want the tax money I contribute (be it only a few thousand dollars) to go to the drug war, to got to "vice", to go to the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions or subsequent occupation, I want my money directed to those who solve homicide, for road repair, etc. and I see that future happening. I don't think I should have to live under a law that does not hold a constant popular majority, and to me that seems reasonable.
time same here as in Andromeda?
Yes, I think that the time here is the exact same as the time in the Andromeda galaxy or anywhere else. By the time we got there, the time would be much later, but in my opinion, 12am, January 1, 2007 will be the same date and time there in the Andromeda galaxy and everywhere else in the unverse, in any galaxy you choose. That seems obvious to me, why would the truth be otherwise?
A person in a "GNN" (Guerilla News Network) says something like "what were their last thoughts?" and this is very nice...as clearly this is a big question that is asked by those elites that get to see and hear thought. They are driven by the natural curiousity that would inhabit all of us if we were included: What were the last thoughts of those people murdered...what was the last thing they saw? What went through their minds just before they were murdered? In particular for the 9/11 victims...no doubt those included watch those eye images and memories again and again.
Media, are less news reporters and more bulk ad sellers and distributors
It's a secret that they honestly will not report. Perhaps some of the information distributed by major media companies, like the AP, CNN, television, radio and newspapers is actual news, but a large amount of it is paid for bulk advertising, not necessarily of products, but of viewpoints or opinions, of philosophies....a perfect example is the AP story today "global meth epidemic", clearly a person at the DEA released a press release, but millions of people release press releases, I am releasing some here, and no doubt, anti-drug war groups release press releases all the time, but how did this press release get to the AP and news.yahoo.com? Well, it seems clear that some kind of money or influence had to change hands because there is a huge audience for the AP, we can't pretend for a second that a company with the service that reaches the eyes of that huge audience is absolutely worthless. So, clearly they are selling that advertising space to advertisers, in this case those who support the drug war. The real question is: is actual money exchanged? or is it simply the power of influence or fear of financial ruin at the hands of a corrupt government, for example, that makes an AP release "global meth epidemic" get distributed? Any way I look at it, it seems clear that the current major media are basically spammers, but they are not selling products, they are selling opinions...in a hope that the public will agree with those paid for opinions. The influence of the major media is mighty, and most people form their opinions from newspapers, and many times, the opinions are sold very slyly...in a way that makes it appear to be unbiased simple news reporting, because the news item they are reporting is simply false (like the Gulf of Tonkin, the 9/11, many false news items). Speaking of 9/11/01, this is the pinnacle of lies...it doesn't get much bigger than 9/11. 9/11 is a full scale major media lie with all members taking part, never before in the USA has such a major lie been purpetrated on the public, the Frank Fiorini, killer of JFK lie was peanuts compared to the 9/11 media complicity, and it shows, frighteningly to me, that the potential for similar large scale murder and lying is obviously a reality. I mean...these people, the neocons, that planned 9/11 thought very certainly that they would never ever get exposed, and to this day, that is the truth...but think of the arrogance, the stupidity, the reality of the system that would result in those people thinking with a large amount of certainty that they could pull off and get away with a thing as huge, a mass murder, on the scale of 9/11... and for them to be suceeding for the most part...although...they are now hated all over the earth, and I think this is because people are catching on...but still, 9/11/01 has by no means been exposed fully by the major media and it is doubtful that it will be any time soon. one person in a web video stated that Bush jr is the worst president the US has ever had, and I think that is a fair assessment. no US president has been single handedly responsible for the amount of murder that Bush jr has, or has been as dishonest (I mean think 9/11) as Bush jr has...I was thinking last night that...the simple invasion of two nations might not be enough to make Bush jr the worst president the US has ever had, but 9/11 clearly buts him over the top...or perhaps under the bottom. As a final statment, again I want to say how much like a monarchy the current conservative view is: just like a king handing down the grail to a son, is the Bush senior presidency to the Bush jr presidency...of 300 million humans...the conservatives voted for the son of a past president, and beyond that even Jeb, yet another brother in this dyansty is elected to the powerful position of Governor of a State, very close to being a president (or perhaps we should simply say "king"). It's clearly that pattern, that these conservatives are elected, not because they rise up from obscurity and defeat thousands of competitors to be most popular based on their talents and skills, but because they inherit the throne, simply because the person that was there before is so similar, or related to them. How much like a monarchy that is, and how far from a true democracy that is, and I appeal to the conservatives to stop making such bad decisions.
again just a quick, globalists the big liberal enemy? I don't get it, is there something there I am not understanding?
There was a person speaking here at UCI and some people protested the talk, and the person was just talking about globalization or something similar...and you know...globalization doesn't worry me at all, but it's the buzzword and appears clearly to be a major movement...if you listen to Alex Jones, where I have "the secret camera, thought hearing network", or "the violent", he has "the globalists", but aside from that, I agree with a large portion of what Jones says. As I said before, we need to look to the stop violence people all over the planet, we should not bury our head in the sand and take an isolationist viewpoint...we need to rally our allies all over the earth, we need to leverage our majority on the entire tiny earth...to expose the truth about 9/11, about Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, about the drug war, about the arrest of people for consensual adult prostitution, for full democracy...even in the UN at the planetary level... There are many people who agree with us around the planet, and we need to harness that power and collective strength to get our majority views made into law (and even to get our minority views heard).
When bacteria are so small, how can we possibly think that we have identified them all? I am still waiting for those sexual bacteria, I think they may exist, or perhaps they went extinct.
SCI: Perhaps I have said this before, but I think that it is possible that the reproductive system of cells is the most ancient, conserved system, since changes to the reproductive proteins and processes could result in the end of duplication, while changes to Ribosomal RNA, for example, currently being used as a guide for evolutionary chronology trees might not necessarily stop the duplication of a cell. Although I am a novice, and let the truth win, even if I am wrong. My secondary argument is that if so many radical changes could happen to cell duplication over the years, (some bacteria can reproduce by sexual merging, some do budding, mitosis is a highly complicated process), clearly radical changes could happen just as easily to RRNA over the millions of years of evolution. So, in this view, I would think that ciliates and dinoflagellates would probably be more ancient (or basal), those with closed mitosis, than those protists with open mitosis, or semi-closed mitosis (for example like brown algae). Ultimately probably the full genomes will reveal the evolutionary chronological position of all the species, but I think that we ultimately have to look at the reproductive method, and proteins as the most important indication of chronological placement. But perhaps I am wrong...and we need to allow all ideas to be circulated, thought about, talked about, evaluated, etc. and again let the most accurate ideas, hopefully rise up.
I want to quickly summarize, perhaps once again, my views on the universe:
Since there must be galaxies so far from earth that
not one photon from them reaches us and our tiny
detectors, not even as background radiation, it's
clear to me that the size of the universe is much
larger than 15 billion light years and the age of the
universe much older than 15 billion earth years. Saying the light from the farthest galaxies we see is the begining (or end) of the universe is on all fours with those who thought that the ocean ended on the flat earth. For
example, if we had a telescope the size of the earth
we would see more distant galaxies than we do now,
would we then claim that the universe just got bigger
and older? I think the red shift humans measure on
only the most distant galaxies is from the great
distance, and perhaps Raman scattering (Raman red
shifted light here on earth as did the Braggs).
Another piece of evidence came to light (not for the
9/11/01 being a neocon reichstag fire for a change,
but) in the idea that we clearly see a number of blue
shifted galaxies moving towards us, like M31, the
Andromeda Galaxy, so every other galaxy must see and
experience the same phenomenon: some galaxies blue
shifted, moving towards them. So, this means that the
red shift humans observe in only the most distant
galaxies can only be a phenomenon of vast distances,
and it is doubtful that there is any other force in
the universe besides gravity and the collective
effects of gravity. There are a number of reasons why
photons only from the most distant galaxies might be
slowed or spread apart farther into a lower or more
red frequency. One is that, at a certain distance, no
beam of photons can form a direct line from there to
here (unlike the beams of photons from M31), they will
bend around some other galaxy between here and there,
at some distance we will only be seeing bent light
beams, and perhaps in that bending the light beam is
stretched. There are other explanations, but I firmly
believe that the universe is infinite in size and age,
I highly doubt any kind of big bang, I doubt an
expanding universe. But love will continue and we
need to be open to all ideas.
Just as a reminder, I think that photons (particles of light) are matter, that photons are the basic component of all matter in the universe, that photons move in a straight line not a wave line. As evidence of this theory, I offer the basic idea that light (a photon), even in the visible spectrum could not possibly maintain it's wave amplitude when focused to a very hot point through a glass lens (or by reflection off a mirror).
I reject the idea of "time dilation" because a photon, as the basic unit of matter in all atoms, experiences no time dilation, and ultimately no particle (or assemblage of photons) can ever travel faster than the fundamental particles it is made of. I think that charged particles accelerated by other charged particles simply cannot be accelerated linearly, because like all matter, the higher the velocity reached, the more difficult maintaining a constant acceleration is.
I reject the ideas of black holes, worm holes, any kind of space-time, time dilating objects as being creations of math, and a math that views time and matter as "dilatable", and not physical realities in the universe. In this view, the universe is, perhaps sadly, much less exciting, and much more boring than wanted, although as I have said before, the excitement of the universe, in my opinion, is from the vast possibilities of unimaginable life on planets of other stars, in the many galaxies in the unvierse.
update, PM edition:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5752277067931547109&q=9%2F11+duration%3Amedium
Bush sees the image of the second collision beamed onto his brain to appear in front of his eyes, and he promptly claps four times and looks at his compatriots with a big smile, no doubt grateful for mission accomplished, and a clear second success of their evil plan of mass murder. My first thought was to the Ted Charach interview when Charach talks about the Hinkley shooting of Ronald Reagan (although there is some evidence that somebody else shot a metal disk into Reagan, Hinkley only hitting other people), when Charach does a clap...it occurred to me then that these people who watch and hear thoughts must clap when there is violence on either side. And that is the only time through the entire event that Bush jr claps. It's shocking, it's gross,...that these right wing religious think that this act of mass murder was something good to do. What a skewed view of life. And it is clear why that is a skewed view, because these neocon right wing religious have to continue to lie to the public about 9/11 every day....how the people that did it are evil...but that is them...they are saying that they are the evil people...because clearly they planned and executed 9/11. I mean, they have to lie to the public every day, because the vast majority of the public is not nearly as immoral and evil as they are, the vast public sees people waving for help from the top of a building and wants to rig up a helicopter to save those people...it's unusual and very criminal values, and the worst kind of criminal, the violent homicidal kind, that Bush and the neocons that pulled off 9/11 have. Where was the decent part of the airforce? Where were the democrats and liberals? The wealthy? Could they not stop the remote control photons? Could they not shoot down the plane to thwart the Bush neocon plan? I guess they felt that this might be the one way to bring down the Bushes and the neocons, to let them get away with it, and to pursue justice years after the neocons succeeded with their mass murder...?
05-08-2006
I was thinking when watching a David Ray Griffen video: what happens when the public and everybody finally does get to see, and know the truth about the 9/11 reichstag, Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar? There are at least two possibilities, 1) They see that the US military has taken over the government, democracy lost many years ago, and their vote counts for nothing...they don't even bother staging elections to fool the public OR 2) Their vote still does count and they vote to jail those who did homicide, and perhaps those who were accomplises before and/or after the fact. I suppose a number of people will take the views of many of those that even now know the truth about 9/11, FF and TC...that that type of murder is ok. I think the most probable outcome would be 2), because the clear mistaken belief is that murderers are being punished, that lying is wrong, etc.
I saw the Steven Colbert talk, and it's amazing to me that the neocons would have somebody as liberal as Colbert talk at their function...I thought that was an interesting choice...why wouldn't they just pick some true conservative to do conservative humor? There was the wow/whoa stalemate. I found it kind of amazing that Colbert ended with "True Honor, Good Night". TH and GN...again, I am constantly amazed at how popular and influential I am...it's unusual though because...why wouldn't I be on national television, or radio, or be wealthy?...it's an unusual feeling because, I am perhaps the single most watched and listened to human in the USA but only within some kind of elite network of secret cameras and microphones...the vast public has never heard of me. Then I wonder...is TH GN...Ted Huntington, neocons have scheduled for a death by gun (GN)? So perhaps Colbert has me figured as a target? Egad...that's frightening, in particular knowing that these people pulled off 9/11, FF and TC...what can a tiny hume like me do? Then, you know, there are many other people who are exposing the neocons, like Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, David Ray Griffen, all the 9/11 people...I guess the main difference is that I am one of the few people that has figured out the details on the Pupin technology and am openly exposing it, and then I am popular for recognizing the photon is matter (many think is a new GUT) theory. It's true that, I have spoken more explicitly to the public about the secret seeing and hearing thought technology than perhaps any other human alive. But many have strongly hinted as I document on tedhuntington.com/bim.htm. But anyway, "Colbert" is an interesting guy, what a brave person to talk at the Bush jr event, and then his voice didn't shake at all, woulnd't you be nervous? I know I would be, but at the same time, it's important to deliver whatever message to the public. Then just as a thought-comment, you know, I am a simple person...I just want the truth, people that do first degree homicide and assault to be jailed, I don't think it's unusual to want such basic things...it doesn't take a genius to support those simple ideas. And I think many people who also believe that is what causes much of the conflicts...we want violence stopped, and the violent, who have large numbers are not keen on being exposed and/or jailed...so this causes conflict. I don't think it's asking too much to want violence stopped and truth to be shown and known. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that full democracy and free info is the way of the future. TH and GN, Could be TH and eGiN...this lady who has been living with me, as an assistant, or TH GeNe Cesar, a battle of an exposer of a killer versus that actual killer. Who knows...perhaps Colbert is trying to justify his statements by saying...before you condemn me, remember that these people have discussed murdering more innocent people like the TP next (as a possible followup to the 9/11 and Iraq+Afghani mass murders)...although there was nothing really controversial in Colbert's speech, at least publically to my knowledge. You know I didn't watch this vid for a while, I don't like those kind of things...I don't like television...but this thing...it's too fake...you know...nobody can say what they really think, everything is watered down, it's a public function. I didn't really laugh...it's too upsetting to know that Bush and them did the 9/11, and many murders...how can anybody laugh?...I don't like to see what Bush and them say...who knows what they want people to believe? Who knows what violence might be found in their statements? Plus, like many people I encounter who are 100% corrupted...whether their statement is true or false, good or bad...I can't know...I can't see their thoughts and the videos played in front of their eyes...so basically, their comments are of no value to me. Only the comments of those that clearly show an allegience to truth are of any value to me. That is kind of another aspect I was thinking of...clearly millions of people are walking around with little video squares playing in front of their eyes...can they see each others video squares? That would be cool....like you see people walking around you, and you see little video squares in front of them walking along with them. But then, this is an issue of how did the privacy play out? By the way, I think we can clearly blame the fact that the 9/11/01 happened and that Bush jr was re-elected on the Pupin network (obviously not Pupin himself who is long dead, but the network that was created using the technology he was the first to understand). Back to the Colbert, you know...I think his style is really very liberals with only a sprinkling of neocon covering...I mean it's very transparently liberal. Perhaps they should watch people like Bill O'Reilly and them more to really see what the neocons believe, although perhaps that would not be comedy. It's tough to laugh for me in such circumstances. I can summarize it by saying...it's like...the conflicting feelings of...we all should admire and respect the president of the USA...I mean here is the person that the people of the USA chose as one of the best...but clearly he's involved in cold-blooded first degree mass murder, and many many lies...how could I respect such a person...I think the person should be exposed and perhaps even spend time in jail for accessory before the fact to many murders. Some 9/11 people were saying...charge them with treason...you know, my opinion on treason is that it's a weak free-info charge...you know...I, infact vote down jail-time for treason...information must be shared, although we can be selective about sharing some info with violent people, I suppose. The most serious crime you can punish most of these 9/11 plotters with is "accessory to muder before the fact", which in some states is punishable by death, although in my own opinion it should only apply to those where the homicide(s) did infact happen, I guess it could apply to those who plotted...but then, the sentence should not be much, less than a year. But for those where the homicide was a sucess, still I think we are only talking about under 10 years, because they didn't actually do the violence. For that person that controlled the 9/11 planes, obviously life in jail for first degree homicide, and also for the individual person or persons that detonated the WTC explosives. Now those are clearly first degree homicide(s). I can almost guarantee that those people are stupid beyond belief, it has to take a stupid person to sign up for that kind of duty. You know getting back to all the TH'ing, I am just focused on getting ULSF done and out to the pulbic and then working with the walking robot. We are really on the verge of walking robots, and the free flow of many videos. There is a lot to look forward to, the future is very exciting, and there are many clear positive developments in our future, even though we languish here in a very bad time and situation. This free flow of videos is really something to think about...Clearly, very soon, most people in the USA will have high speed Internet and instant video...and many of these videos on the Internet are telling the truth about 9/11/01, so ...that can't be good, and the same is true about the JFK killing, the RFK killing...my RFK video is number one of google when searching for "RFK"...it's amazing, and besides "The Second Gun" that is the video people need to see about RFK's life, in my opinion...perhaps the single most important aspect of the life of RFK was how he was murdered and how his killer was protected and not captured and jailed even 38 and counting years later. Then do a search for "MLK" and you will see a good vid by Barrie Zwicker, here is the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7677940272773278216&q=MLK
to find that there was a trial that revealed more details about the MLK murder. One headline yesterday said "What's next?", and I think many of us are wondering, at the Oscars John Stewart said "What's going to happen to us next?", and clearly, this PNAC group uses these reichstag events to drum up support, to win popular support for war and spending even more money...if you can imagine that...on the US military, and giving more power to the government. I mean, here we have an FBI that takes a citizen's video and will not return it ever...I mean what happened to the property laws? I guess those in the FBI are above those laws...now, a smart public would be forming ballot measures and bills to make the FBI release those and all videos, and to force a priority of stopping violent crime before nonviolent crime, and other such similar laws. So what is going to happen to us next? I was thinking that we might see a US city nuked by a "terrorist" bomb (you know the terrorists of this century...the neocons in the CIA, FBI, police and US military). Then, we would definitely see Bush's popularity rating rise to 90% like it did after 9/11...which is such a shocking anomaly to me... how can people support a person who clearly at best was negligent in stopping this violence? There is one theory bouncing around among the excluded that perhaps the US president really is powerless now and everything is run by the military, not even the wealthy control anything...I seriously doubt it...I think, clearly these neocons together with the neocons in the US military planned and did 9/11/01...shocking #1 that they actually thought they could get away with it, and shocking #2 that they are getting away with it! I mean..that is guts...to think that they could control every video, every media outlet, every citizen...that they would never be exposed, that the public would never believe they did it...but then look at Fiorini killing JFK, TC for RFK...those have been smashing successes...but I am arguing that 9/11/01 is a little different, because of the scale...there are many more deaths involved...but also the timing...we are on the tip of a very video-rich society. In the 1960s all there was was national television and before that newspapers which could easily be controlled...the Internet is a little bit less controllable...in particular, take Google for example, and yahoo...I don't doubt some of these neocons will want to try and take down google, for video.google.com, but, you know, it's clear that these search engines can't be brought down and others would rise up anyway...there would need to be some kind of massive Internet censorship and I don't think that is going to happen...so, i really think there is a strong chance that the 9/11/01 plotter neocons have bitten off more than they can chew on this 9/11/01 deal, although it's going to take some time. I think in 2008 baring any kind of new Pearl Harbor, a democrat will be elected, and holy shit will we all breathe easier....exceot the 9/11 neocon plotters, then it's their turn to sweat it out. I think we might possibly see the entire 9/11 thing unravel publically if a democrat is elected...it depends on the public, and this is nasty public...look how they spent millions to try and impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job...but Bush jr can lie about WMD, 9/11, can invade two nations and not a dollar is spent in protest...and those are murderous violent crimes...it's a tough tough group of people in this nation obviously, and that makes the chances of a 9/11/01 being unravelled publically much less, only somebody like Kucinich or Dean would probably allow that to happen, it's doubtful Hillary or Kerry would actively pursue exposing the truth about 9/11. I still am shocked by how 51% or something actually re-elected Bush jr...that will always stand out as a piece of history that amazes those in the future...how could people re-elect such a person? How could they be so stupid...it's like the way we look at how Hitler was elected...how could they elect such a person...didn't they know anything about Hitler's views? but beyond that, the Bush jr re-election is more obvious than even Hitler's because it might not have been clear what Hitler was up to, but by 2004 everybody knew that Bush jr started two wars, 9/11 happened 9 months into his watch...I guess a comparison is Nixon's re-election, how could the US public be that stupid? but you know Nixon was just continuing LBJ's policy, the Vietnam war/neocon constant war doctrine, where I think Bush jr has done much more, although Nixon was clearly involved in the murder of JFK, and obviously broke many basic laws, and was ofcourse a total thug. I have rambled on here more than planned but these are my basic thoughts lately and I want to get them out there for the excluded to draw info from. You know my focus now is away from politics and more towards science...I am working day and night on ULSF and it is really a good learning experience. Politics, the government in the USA is hopeless for a long time...there is not going to be anything good happening for decades here in the USA, our supreme court is 80% neocon now, even the democrats are conservatives and have done nothing for the still awaiting justice for JFK, MLK, RFK, the 9/11 victims, and many other murder victims, for full democracy, for those in jail for drugs....I mean we are a long way from any positive progress. I'm optomistic, and wait until you all get to hear about the future...it is really amazing to think about and figure out.
It's true though, that true honor comes from telling and showing the truth, not lying to and tricking the public, and true honor comes from doing what is right, which is stopping violence, protecting the victims of violence, and punishing the violent. It has to be a solid consolation, and I am sure it has to make neocons everywhere feel better that I am as poor as can be, I am rejected 100% by major mainstream media, only a few people read my web page, I can't get laid, and even if I could, at 37 I am not as hard as I used to be (although still plenty hard ladies), I am completely powerless...there is no way I could be minimized any farther...I am totally and completely ostracized, I don't hear or see thought...I don't see one particle from inside houses or heads...I am insulted everywhere I go...I don't get video in my eyes, I don't see video in other people's eyes...I am completely excluded from hearing and seeing thought...and live in absolute poverty...they have millions, can see and hear thought...I mean how could I remotely pose a challange or threat to neocons anywhere? Plus, my views are fair-minded...I think only the first degree homicide should be jailed...and only small time for those who planned violence as free info crimes only...my meager vote is not nearly as strong as those who would vote for the death penalty for assessory before the fact, for example.
In trying to figure out the 9/11/01 thing there are some mystery points:
Ofcourse what happened to the pentagon plane if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? I was wondering it Theodore Olsen's wife was excluded and maybe was murdered...and then Bush jr said "horrible accident"...maybe she had out-of-marriage sex and the neocons called her a whore or something...horrible accident...it might be a message to other sexy women? Then this mystery of ok...were Atta and them included or excluded in hearing thought? Maybe they was excluded...maybe they were Saudi or CIA employees who either the Saudi's or the CIA wanted to kill or simply that were expendible....it's the questions of:
1) were Atta and them actually on the planes (I conclude that yes...some of these so-called hijackers were on the planes...but I don't know for sure).
2) did Atta and them hijack the planes? (this is an interesting question for those of us that are excluded...remember the included already know everything, so for them, this is all irrelevent. But...since clearly the WTC was wired with explosives...that is very clear...would you risk this 9/11 planned project to something as improbable as a hijacking? I mean...what if they failed...there is a good chance they might...then compare this to the idea of remote control over the plane...the controls could be deactivated...the phone and radio disabled...[which I have to wonder...why would a person add that technology to a plane, to stop the possibility of communications from the pilot?]...then just steer it in remotely...there is no chance of failure...
So basically my current working version on 9/11/01 is:
Atta and them are excluded people paid by Saudi gov, CIA, and Pakistan gov [which let me take a second...you know Pakistan had a military coup...and unlike Kuwait...did the USA invade and restore the democratic president? no, even the UN did nothing...and this general has been in power ever since, so is it a surprise to see that Moumoud, the general in Pakistan is exposed wiring $100,000 to Atta?...you can see that it's really a planetary organization of violent criminals working together...is my feeling]. They are just told to board a plane, they have no idea they are going to be the patsies...I mean 20 patsies...this is a new record....but they probably could have funded thousands...everybody wants money, and there are millions of excluded whose ignorance can be easily taken advantage of. So then the planes are controlled by remote control, the two planes hit the towers, the pentagon is shot down, perhaps over the atlantic (not sure), and the pennsylvania plane is shot down too (not sure), then a missile is fired into the pentagon...I think this was from liberals, but could have been from neocons...it didn't really kill many military, mainly excluded construction workers. Then ofcourse, the WTC building are brought down with explosives, Steven E Jones says they are probably military explosives called Thermoset or something.
But there are problems...mainly...where did the phone calls come from? There are recordings although the actual audio has only been played in a closed court. It's tough to imagine how that was done. So to the credit of the neocons...that is a real mystery. ok look i don't spend alot of time putting together the first letter of each word...it's a nuisance habit of mine and I am sure millions of others....I just want the video truth..although ofcourse we can never ignore the included who do all the hinting.
05-05-2006
In actual Orange County California news yesterday, Orange County nazis riled up over a public access show that they watch in a secret thought hearing massive non-public, publically funded camera net. The public access show aired on Cox Cable channel 31 very late at 10:30pm, and explains Bush senior's very clear involvement in the JFK killing....blah blah blah...
It's just like Hankey says in JFK II, these nazis are scum, liars, filth, murderers, and they are in true form. Yesterday I found a little "noose" inside my condo, there was a piece of toilet paper on the front bumper of a car I parked next to, a white public paid for nazi male in a Newport Police car drove by and rolled up his electric window (although a non white female drove buy and turned her electric lights on...as I said...we are going to let the light of truth shine across this nation and the entire planet). So these nazis are in true form...and just because somebody is telling the truth about the Bushes. Bush Senior's dad was a supporter of Adolf Hitler, there is no question, Bush Senior was in the CIA, was a supervisor of anti-castro cubans, was deeply linked to the murder of JFK...yes the murder, thank you very much, the murder of a US president, and an innocent person too. Is that the kind of society we want? A society where the leaders actively promote first degree violence? That intimidate innocent people? That threaten violence against parents, young people and children? It's ironic that Bush, and these nazis the majority of people in the US elect and that are appointed in the government, are technically supposed to be enforcing the anti-violence laws...they are paid to enforce the homicide law, the assault laws, ... not actively and openly be violating them. It just shows you how far we have to go as a nation. We need to be electing law abiding people, and I mean the important laws, the violent laws. I love the JFK II video, how honest, how wonderful, how true...what a scum bunch they are, what a bunch of liars, what a bunch of nazis...there is a wonderful subtle part where one of the skull and bones CIA nazis has a son...and Hankey spent a lot of time soing an animation where the evil CIA Skull&Bones guy drops a shit that grows into the son...how well done, how true. They are nazi scum, they are big liars, they are murderers, it's clear as day to me, and here in Orange County, as many other places around the USA, they are in true nazi form. Who put the noose there? Who put the toilet paper on the bumper? Who was int he police car...what's their name? They know an aweful lot about us, where we are, what we think, but we don't have a polaroid photo of them, but a billion images of them must exist...somewhere...but not for the lowely public. We need to move the democrats into power, and beyond that...we need to get true honest, forward future thinking people. And then fully and completely expose all the violent crimes, and lies of the republicans (and no doubt quizling democrats too), whoever the murderers may be, whoever the liars may be, start showing all these videos, expose Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, the Bush 9/11 mass murder, ... expose them, round them up, and make this nation the way many people mistakenly believe it is, but it is not, we need to make this a nation of honesty, openess, free information, fully democratic, nonviolent, law abiding nation where dishonesty is exposed and punished, honesty rewarded, and murderers exposed and jailed.
update: an overweight white woman driving a golf cart drove up in front of me and a friend walking into work and said "cuse me, I'm sorry". Once, again, I look forward to a time when we walk around with robots and you all can see everything that happens in my life, and everywhere else, so I don't have to sit here and re-explain all of this for you by hand. But again, some evil people paid this woman, is my guess...one thing only the thought-camera network people know...the public hasn't been told that there is a vast money paying system...the wealthy just sit back and pay poor people to inflict rude politically-positioned comments into the excluded's lives, and these evil wealthy people are never seen by the excluded...they haven't been seen for 100 years and counting. It's all paid for to try and change the minds of those elites, which is a huge number...300 million perhaps, of people who routinely watch me and my thoughts without so much as showing me a polaroid of themselves or their thoughts. So once again, is this the society we want in the USA? A society of secret hearing thought people who abuse secret technology to inflict violence, nuisance and chaos onto the USA? Don't we need to entertain the idea of total free info? Of not fining or jailing those who simply own data or images of something? Maybe that seems unfair to artists, but you have to remember that, if they have any money at all, by now, they are violating millions of copyrights of us, the poor, they see and hear thoughts, and so, obviously you can't have it both ways, you either have to have total free info where everybody can violate copyrights, or you have to pay for the copyrights you violate...but without free info, you can't prove that they are routinely violating your copyrights and privacy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are moving into a total free info age, that info can't be stopped, and that info should not be stopped, ... thinking for a minute about the secret society that those that see and hear thought are involved in should show you that this is inevitable. That sort of message of "run over your nonviolent law-abiding enemy", which seems so common among the neocons...is that a message we want for the USA? Don't we want to support a message of stopping violence? of enforcing the violent laws? We spend millions telling people not to use drugs, don't you think we should spend a few dollars telling people not to do violence? To obey and support the homicide and assault laws?
There are only two basic 9/11 theories (reichstag or hijackers).
First let me say that I am amazed at the people in the so-called "9/11 skeptic" group. Everyone of the videos I have seen so far are excellent, and I can't believe how well spoken, how accurate and articulate all of these people appear to be. If a person needed to trim fat away from a video, you could remove most of the major media paid-for headlines, most of national television, but from these videos there is very little fat and non-important material to trim away. And the vast majority of skeptics all tell the same story, they all hypothesize the same theory, which is basically the "reichstag" theory (that Bush jr and the neocons, the project for a new american century, planned and orchestrated the 9/11/01 mass murder, using explosives planted in the WTC buildings weeks before 9/11/01)...there is very little variety...they all tell the same story. But beyond that, they all stick to the physical evidence. When you search through major media materials on 9/11/01 you find very little other than the officiial story of hijackers with boxcutters. But when you simple search the people's media, the Internet, I mean in particular the videos...all you can find ... I would say definitely 50% and probably more like 75% are videos the tell the "other" 9/11/01 story, the reichstag 9/11 story. Why is this? I think because there is a very large divide between the public on one side and the government and major media on the other. The public is honest, cool, funny, smart, the government and mass media are stupid, corrupt, dishonest, violent, lawless, up to their necks in corruption. And here is my next point, why is exposing the 9/11/01 mass murder, the Frank Fiorini JFK murder, the Thane Cesar RFK murder, up to us individual people who only have pennies, when the major media and the Democrat party have millions to investigate just those claims and accusations? Why do The SUNY Oneonta students, Dave vonKleist, John Hankey, Steven E Jones, David Ray Griffen...these individual people have to take on the risk, the ostracization, to tell the truth...why aren't the democrats and major media brave enough and honest enough to tell the public the truth? Why didn't Dukakis expose bush senior as hankey has in JFK II? It seems very clear that Bush was in the CIA in 1963, and is lying to the public about that, that it was George Bush Senior in the office of Herbert Hoover the day after JFK was killed to intimidate Hoover and make sure that the FBI would not be a problem, that Prescott was deeply involved in the Nazi bank "union bank", a bank punished by the US government for trading with the enemy. I mean, here we fought the Nazis in WW2, we didn't fund them, we stood up against their racist, secretive, violent war hungry doctrine, we didn't support it as Prescott Bush did.
Why didn't the people tell this story when Bush jr was running for governor in Texas? When Jeb Bush was running for Governor in Florida? Wasn't that the time, if ever there was, to tell about Union Bank, to tell about E Howard Hunt, ...? And the democratic party and media have millions of dollars to do just that, to tell the public the truth that the public needs to know. Do you know, I realized a sad fact, that people like hankey and vonKleist, honestly ARE the US media. We have a US media of 5 people. Becuase they are telling the public the truth about what the public desparately needs to be told, the major media is nothing but a big lie, like the major democrat party...totally asleep, completely powerless and not telling the public anything the public needs to hear...they can only incessantly "F" and "S", as if that is going to be enough...what a bunch of cowards and corrupted do-nothings. Why do individuals have to do what major media and democrats have millions to do? So, in conclusion, I am amazed at the 9/11 skeptic group...many people might think that it is like a UFO group with bizarre, outlandish theories, but what I find is that it is the tiny remnant of decency, honesty and wisdom that remains in the USA.
One other note, in the David Ray Griffen video, Griffen is asked why isn't there anybody telling the truth about 9/11...how could so many people keep a secret? And I can tell you, out of fear. Griffen said a similar thing, but said something very smart: Giffen said "look at the Manhatten project", which is the perfect example...look at the Manhatten project...at Columbia University, where thought was first seen and heard...how could hearing thought be kept secret for 100 years...without one person reaching the public? And the reason is clear that there is a massive like-minded network that controls the government and major media, although they do not control everybody, and people like me and Griffen are examples of that. But every major media is controlled and part of this thought-hearing network, they absolutely reject any idea of telling the public this....it's like the a-bomb....they simply rely on the tradition of absolute secrecy. But I just want to say what a perfect example, the manhatten project is...because it is also where thought was seen and heard, and that is such a major part of the success of the 9/11, Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar lies.
05-04-2006
Vicente Fox flip-flopped, and went back on his promise to pass the new popular drug law. I kind of thought this might happen, these thought-camera net religious conservatives never do anything remotely good, that's why it was so surprising and unusual to see one of them doing something humaine and logical...usually, as most thinking people know, the religious uneducated conservatives violently oppose science, logic, pleasure, law, order, justice, etc. Look how they support Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar...we can only guess what was behind the Collosio murder...when they can hear thought ... how could they not know when somebody is planning to murder a popular leader? But as relates to this drug law, here is yet another example of how democracy is delayed and denied. Even the more conservative senate approved this bill, but the monarch, king Fox, now does not support it, and so a hundred million people have to continue to wait for justice because one guy has such power. In the future, the popular opinion will be absolute, and there will be no individual monarch. The best representative democracy leader is the one that gives the majority what they want, while still expressing their own individual opinions....but realitically, what is the chance of a person like that being the main representative of the public? In reality, it's very low. Ofcourse, the president inflicts their own personal opinion, as is the case all over for decriminalizing marijuana, which has 72% support, an overwhelming majority in most polls, but yet, Bill Clinton, an admited marijuana user, Bush jr, a marijuana user that refused to admit it, and hundreds of other leaders reject democracy, and the popular opinion on decriminalizing drugs, supressing the public opinion for their own elitist individual views. The good part of this is that, everybody clearly can see the torturously dull and backward leadership of Fox, and again this confirms that there is not even a tiny particle of sensitivity or compassion for those suffering in prison in Fox, and this agrees with what most people would expect. So I look forward to Obrador winning, hopefully a change to a 2 year election or some restrictions on presidential power, for example, a majority vote by the public should be able overrule the supreme court decisions, any executive orders, any existing laws, etc. We need to look even past Obrador to a time of full democracy, full free info, no drug war, no prostitution arrests, no violence, no imprisoning the innocent and nonviolent, etc. We need to be looking to the future, but being progressive in the present.
05-03-2006
Personal amounts of drugs legal in Mexico. This is really fantastic, amazing, wonderful, pick your word, awesome, excellent. How wonderful to see the people of Mexico taking a more humaine view on recreational drug use and drug addiction. The first thing that enters my mind, is that this is such a smart approach, one that many people have not thought about before, at least openly, but then there is so little open debate about the drug war, and many other important government policies. The nature of truly democratic government, involves people openly and actively controlling the government democratically, shaping the government and laws to be a constantly well tended garden. The smartness of this idea is that, those individual people who simply are choosing to use drugs themselves are not punished. Ultimately, ofcourse, we need to end all prohibition of drugs, obviously, but this is a good step towards justice and human rights (which absolutely include the right to use drugs, to overeat, to be obese, etc. even if an apparently unhealthy choice, so long is nobody else is harmed). It is amazing to see the people of Mexico talking the moral lead in the Americas (although, mostly ignored by the US major media, other South American nations have similar legal drug use laws). I think this law speaks highly for the philosophy and public opinion in Mexico. I think the next step for Mexico, and the South American nations is to lower their numbers of homicides, and assaults (and I think this drug policy and the eventual end of all drug prohibition may go a long way to lowering their number of homicides, certainly lower than the bloody USA, but perhaps even lower than Canada or European nations). Beyond that, I would focus on promoting real science and technology, and then criticism of religion, in particular the european Jesus-based religions, but also traditional native religions (but perhaps other efforts are more important, freeing the nonviolent, full or even increasing democracy, full free info, limiting or abolishing copyrights or controls on information). This really is an exciting event for me and I am sure many of those who have spoken out to end the prohibition on drugs. Again, I want to focus on the main issue which is locking drug users in jails...this is clearly harsh, brutal, again pick your word. The issue is not, are drugs good or bad, and decriminalizing drugs, like decriminalizing guns is not advocating the use (or abuse) of those products, it is simply the free market (which surprisingly, we see the neocons objecting to...I thought republicans were for total free market? what's going on? no free market for recreational drugs and consensual adult sexual services?...are closed, and restricted markets, the current and future republican or even democrat theme?). So, yes, I think everybody understands that too much food is unhealthy, but we must allow people the right to their own body. This is really good news, and the amazing thing is that, currently, it is only reported in latimes.com, not nytimes, not cnn, not the ap, etc...the money controlled major media has surpressed this Mexican awakening even now when it is major news. It is kind of surprising to see Vicente Fox supporting this law, and it makes me find some redeamable value in Fox, although I think that this may be a sign of more liberal leadership being lifted up into power.
Non-sexual molestors escape punishment. The people that molest us (which is basically, by my understanding, to "bother a person by touching without consent and againt clear objection") with photon projectile, surprisingly to me, do not receive the same ultra-harsh sentences that sexual molestors get. It's interesting, that clearly, what these people are doing is molesting innocent people by making them itch, scratch, making their muscles move, all in an unwanted, annoying, nuisance fashion. Clearly, making a person itch, for example, making them itch their nose, is something most average people object to, and find annoying. This molestation is basically the crime of "touch without consent", and "touch against clear objection", and I would perhaps add "touching a person with a projectile that causes some annoying reaction, like making a person itch or scratch". Clearly, these people, who, presumably are part of government police and military are molesting the public with these lasers. And this is very similar to an adult that touches a child, or person of any age, in a way that is annoying or unwelcome. I suppose the only major difference is that these people in the government with the lasers are not touching genitals (for the most part), they are touching other parts of the body, nonsex-related parts. Still, the principle is that same: unwanted touching, by hand, or by projectile is a nuisance, albeit nonviolent, and nonpainful (although some of these projectile guns are used to cause pain not itching, and that is a violent crime, and is more serious). And I think there are answers, and those people do need to be punished in a democratic and logical way. Touching without consent is nonviolent as I said, and so it is not an incredibly serious offense in my mind, but it is a nuisance, it is unacceptible to the majority of society, and so there most likely will be punishments. The current status is that, adult people found responsible for touching genitals of children are given sentences of decades in jail, even for a first offense, the person in Orange County, Veches is a perfect example, his sentence was 100 years for a first offense, not even of genital touching, but of toe to mouth touching. Those who molest people (of all ages) with photon projectiles, in a similar, and what I consider to be even worse that toe sucking...since...it's not clear that the toe sucking was touch without consent, where the making people itch, I think most people can reasonable presume that most people object to being made to itch, where most might not object to having their toes sucked, but maybe they would...I don't know. For the record, I am now, clearly recording my opinion that I object to being made to itch in any way. So on the opposite end of the extreme are these criminal molestors in, what I can only guess are government employment, which we taxpayers are funding, that molest innocent people with secret photon projectiles from hidden secret laser guns around the planet, whether you believe that or not, it is actually happening. So should these people be jailed for 100 years for a first offense too? You know, I want to inject some logic into the debate, by saying, touchi without consent is not really a serious crime, but it can be highly annoying and unwanted, and does deserve to be punished. The real issue, in my mind, is how many offenses? How addicted to molesting is the person? If it is a one-time molest, they should be punished with a small amount of jail time, maybe a few hours, maybe a day, upon release, if they then again, molest, be that with a laser, by hand, genital or otherwise, they should get more time, because clearly, the initial punishment and social condemnation was not enough to stop them from molesting innocent people. Maybe a punishment of a few days at that point, people can make mistakes twice, and many times there are misunderstandings. Upon a third molestation, clearly there is some kind of longer-term problem, some kind of addiction, some kind of lack of ethic or morality. A third molestation, I would vote, and again, this could be making some innocent person itch their nose, an unwelcomed hug, etc. I would say, perhaps a week in jail. Progressively, and I have stated a basic rule of SENT*2^N as a basic guideline for repeat offenses. But what we would see, if we ever could, is probably that these people that molest us with photons are not getting punished in any way. And furthermore, these people are receiving payment to do these molestations and low-level projectile assaults. They are receiving payment from neocons, and others, welathy people who want to annoy people (which really is kind of a disease in my opinion...that they get off by annoying their enemies...by making their enemies have to scratch themselves constantly). The people that pay, also should be punished in my opinion. Even to offer money to a person to molest, and in particular to assault, even at the tiniest level should get punishment. I am not sure about those people getting jail-time, but there are many forms of punishment, they could be fined for example, banned from use or ownership of a gun, laser, knife, from seeing thought, from hearing thought, etc. In fact, I have a standing vote of "ban", and then one of "jail". "Ban" is a vote to ban the person who just made me itch, and this is a ban from ever using a laser, from ever owning a weapon, from ever seeing and or hearing thoughts of me, and all other people until future vote to the contrary. "Jail" I vote for any person that causes me physical pain, even at the tiniest level. "Jail" also includes "ban" in my vote, and this means that I vote for that person to be locked in a jail until otherwise specified. Although my vote is only 1 vote of 6 billion, and mayeb I will be outvoted, and my vote will not be the majority vote, or the number of votes will not be sufficient to cause action on the part of the majority, still I want to record my vote against the people that molest us, and all people that do violence and repeated, annoying touch without consent. In fact, yesterday I saw a female made to scratch her nose, and I voted (in thought ofcourse which is all that is necessary), to ban the person that made her itch. Collectively, we can potentially defeat these criminals, even though they stand unchallanged in the highest parts of our diseased and corrupted government (and rest of society, and earth, where ever they may be). So, I think we need to put sexual molestation into perspective as being part of the "touch without consent, and against clear objection" catagory, in the same exact group as those who molest us with photon projectiles (or so-called "lasers"). It is "Touch against clear objection", and then subspecies "sexual body part" and subspecies "non-sexual body part". And then, clearly, the penalties depend mainly on the number of offenses. A first time, is really not a big deal, nor is a second or third time, but fourth, fifth...then clearly there is some kind of addiction, lack of self control, etc. So, just to reiterate, on the traditional molestation, I think the sentences need to come down and be put into context, but on the non-traditional molestation the sentences need to be created and those people actually identified and punished. Right now, the assaults are minor ones with little pain, but clearly they must serve as a reminder to all those inside that much more serious laser assaults, and even laser murder is a possibility if anybody does something those in power don't like. So certainly these minor laser assaults can increase and become more serious laser assaults and laser murders if we the public don't stand up and force free information, and honest people into government. There are many people in the government police and military that are law abiding, that turn down the money to molest people with the lasers, who reject doing violence, and are basically law abiding humans, and I am talking about the major and important laws, those of violence, (and theft). And so, those people ought to be supported and the others cleaned out of those powerful positions.
ok so the ban on soda in elementary schools, let me just quickly vote that I am against this. i want to see the real data, and I mean independent studies from a variety of politically diverse sources, that soda (including diet soda) is really a major contributor to obesity. I find it hard to believe. Fat has more calories than carbohydrates (sugar), that is a well documented fact, and when you are talking about a diet soda, there are fewer calories than other drinks, and I think that needs to be looked at and openly debated. But, my main concern is that attack on children's rights. This is a mainstream movement, a movement to limit the basic rights of children. You know, sweets, desserts, etc. contribute to obesity, and I argue that perhaps the main source of obesity, which is rarely mentioned, is quantity of food eaten, and less what kind of food is eaten or drinken. So desserts contribute to obesity, but honestly, the schools are not gulags, and enjoyment of a sweet dessert is fine in my opinion. The real problems facing children are violence, theft, loss of rights, lack of science and non-religious education in my opinion. Then, this issue of obesity, is totally a bad direction in my opinion. I can see some info and ads with helpful suggestions, but not this active approach. For example, the irony here is that Bill Clinton, a major person in this recent effort, has been somewhat overweight from time to time, like many of us, I am overweight...many of us humans are overweight..., so how can he hold a different standard for other people, in particular children? This is typical also of the drug war, Bush jr and Bill Clinton both used marijuana (although Bush jr would not admit it publically, where Bill Clinton has the courage and integrity to), but they expect other to take a higher standard, and support inflicting harsh punishments on those who use marijuana just like they did. Again, I have to wonder what is next...people being jailed for obesity? Next, Rob Reiner will be jailed and forced to drop 30 pounds...you can see that is ridiculously harsh, unfair and brutal...pyw. That I object to this policy, law, whatever it is, shows that I am not partisan, others will go along with this because Bill Clinton has attached his name to it and is a driving force in it, but not me...I have my own set of ideals, and values, and I reject voting along party lines, I want the truth, fairness, justice, and I don't care where it comes from.
As a quick note, I am shocked by how often I see and hear the use of the word "freak"...applied...for example recently to the members of the sitcom "Dynasty"...which I found...unusual.."dull" is a more accurate descriptor in my opinion. But in any event,... the idea of "freak" is pure nazism in my opinion, and I don't make use of the word "freak" other than to describe how gross the philosophy behind it is. In my opinion, tall, short, fat, thin, black, white, smart, dumb, ... we all belong and deserve equal rights. Beyond that, nothing is that unusual, difference should be celebrated and marveled at, understood, enjoyed, tolerated, in my opinion.
psychiatric reform
As a final note for this commentary, I want to remind everybody that I have 4 new shows on public access airing this month. In particular, if you get Comcast in Los Angeles, my shows will be on this Sunday at 8pm and for the next 4 Sundays (4 shows all together), so by all means, check it out. This includes part of JFK II, and one of the best parts, in addition to "In Plane Site", "Photon Yes, Religion No" the entire "Drugs" section which I detail arguments against the prohibition of drugs and jailing of people that use drugs, in addition to part of "Science" with updated commentary about the photon is matter idea.
As many people can see, my spelling can be somewhat atrocious, but let me argue in my defense and in the defense of bad spellers everywhere: It's interesting on the spelling thing...to me spelling doesn't really
matter, in particular knowing that we should be using a phonetic
alphabet...learning the correct spelling is nice, but the idea behind the
language is more important. It's amazing to me that we are making
children learn all these exceptions, like silent letters, unintuitive
spellings...every child has to learn the exceptions, and its a waste of
precious time in my opinion. I hope we can all vote, and we do get total
democracy soon, and then vote for a popular phonetic alphabet. It's
interesting to think that some people might already simply being using the
phonetic alphabet, and that has to be causing some conflicts around the
planet. The beauty of the phonetic alphabet is that the same one alphabet
works for every language.
First, the current popular opinion, to my knowledge is that this universe
had a big bang and has been expanding ever since, and most importantly
relevant to this message, that the most distant galaxies we see are at the
origin of the universe, and the background "radiation" we receive is from
the beginning of the universe. I reject each of those claims. I reject
the idea of a big bang, or singular point of creation for the universe,
the theory that the universe is expanding, that the most distant galaxies
we see are from the beginning of the universe, and that the background
radiation is from the beginning of the universe. Here is my explanation:
Clearly there must be galaxies beyond those we see, galaxies for which,
not one photon of light reaches us, because they have either been
intercepted between here and there, or are going in a different (one of a
virtually infinite) direction. So any photons we do receive, even as
"background radiation", can only be from galaxies relatively close to us
(within 20 billion light years ... there is an actual sphere where the
probability of any photon reaching our detectors...size of detector
matters obviously...is basically impossible...that may be 20 billion light
years or more). So it is stirring in some way to know that the background
radiation we receive is probably from galaxies we really can't see well,
but are close enough that we can see the general shape of them. One final
point about this is that another excellent idea was generated recently,
and this is it: if we see galaxies blue shifted, clearly coming towards
us, on a local level, would not all galaxies experience the similar thing?
So, if that is true, then the claim can only be that red shifted light is
a phenomenon, only of vast distances, and to me it seems unlikely that the
more distant a galaxy the more chance it would not be going towards is.
But to be more clear, an expanding universe implies that there is some
other force or effect besides gravity that only applies over great
distances and I doubt that. For there to be an expanding universe, there
has to be more space being added somewhere, and I doubt that. Finally,
light has been red shifted here on earth, Raman did it as early as 1920,
and before him, the Braggs. So it's not difficult to red shift light, and
what I think is happening is something like the Raman effect, where
photons are being deflected or delayed...I am hoping to put together a
computer model simulation in the future at some time...but you know there
is very little reception for these ideas, shockingly to me.
It's kind of unpoopular, and I feel in some way, like a preacher preaching
some bizarre unrealistic doctrine, but yet...it's the theory that is most
logical to me.
ok, on the idea of other universes...you know...ofcourse I think other
universes are possible, but I am probably one of the few people to say
that in some way it's like the questions of gods...it seems likely that
we here on a tiny planet going around a star, with billions of other
stars...are not going to have any answers to those two theories anytime
soon. To me the real exciting issues are those in the present, and in the
near and distant future, those that are definitely obtainable. When we start looking at the probable future,
some really amazing things are learned. We learn that, for example,
planet Mars will probably be overpopulated by year 3000, that humans may
use genetics to end or vastly decrease aging. Future humans might grow to
a 20 year old body, and then stay there, maintaining homeostasis for
thousands of years. If that becomes true, and I find it very likely, then
population may increase much much faster, and the problem of enough air,
food, water etc. become much more serious than they are now. Ultimately,
we are converting matter into living objects, much like bacteria do. I
really am looking forward to the walking robots, which are just around the
corner, walking and cleaning robots is something you and I will get to
enjoy. Can you see the result of walking smart robots...? Basically,
it's a total welfare state...humans don't have to work, robots do all the
physical labor...it's shocking, but yet true. I could go on for hours,
but I will put it in ULSF for all to enjoy.
I reject the big bang, obviously as I already told you, as being a flat-earth theory of this century. And it's typical, humans are notorius for underestimating the size and age of the universe.
Although I don't rule out the possibility of space expanding into nonspace (whatever that might be), I certainly do doubt the idea. An alternative is simply infinite space, so there could not be anything else besides space...but again we come face to face with these issues of infinity which are impossible to understand, but yet may exist. For example, even in the view I support, without a big bang beginning, with only a constant always-existing universe...it's mind boggling, because...how could something not have a beginning? But for those who think there was a beginning...what about before then...wasn't there time? etc...ofcourse something must have existed before then...and so again...the mind boggling un-understandable infinity of space and time and our existence in the unverse is unavoidable.
I saw a video with Steven E. Jones, the BYU professor that questions the official 9/11/01 story and it really is a good video. Jones really does a good job of explaining various aspects of the problems with the 9/11/01 official story. I see that BYU is a university based on the teachings of Jesus, but yet Jones' talk was almost totally of a nonreligious nature, which I found very nice. In addition, Jones really gave a smart, relaxed, well thought out presentation...I am very impressed, he is really a good speaker and all of his assertions are logical and well founded. The first thing I thought about was, that, there really is just good and evil, or good and bad here on earth, it doesn't matter if you are a believer in Jesus, or Muhommed, or Vishnu, etc...there simply is good and bad according to a universal human basis. For example, most people agree that first degree murder is simply wrong, it's evil, it's bad, that is really such a clear argument, and for example that stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter if a person is a christian, muslem, agnostic, in some new-age religion, etc. murder and theft will always be wrong, no matter who. And so, I think Jones represents many christians that recognize that principle, that being a good christian, is to be honest, nonviolent, ethical, etc. In one video, a woman gives the "shh" signal...and you can see, clearly that many people are afraid, and are working to cover up the truth. The forces of evil work us over, are very powerful, effect people with alot of advanced technology, and surround us in this terrible time, but I think we can lift ourselves out of this, and that most people want to be honest and lawful (in particular the violence laws, for example, I think the drug laws are too harsh and the same is true for prostitution laws...mainly I think the homicide, assault and theft laws are the main ethical foundations in my opinion, what a person does to others is my main focus, what people do to themselves is their own choice, in my vote). Jones identifies the section in the New American Century groups document, or member that says "sometimes evil is necessary to make good", and Jones disagrees with this statement, saying that he believes in the advice of Paul, in the New Testiment, advocating never doing evil, and I agree...there is no need ever to do evil, and we should never involve ourselves in evil at any time. And I think that statement from one of the neocons clearly shows that they are publically justifying the mass murders of 9/11, publically justifying lying to the public and those people who are excluded from their exclusive elite camera technology networks...and simply, mass murder is absolutely evil, is absolutely wrong, is definitely illegal and for good reason, and lying to the public is immoral and highly unethical, and evil albeit nonviolently evil. You can see these neocons trying to justify their bloody murderous actions and numerous lies. It doesn't take much to recognize the 9/11/01 mass murders as being wrong, and basically that is the premise for all the anger and violence, only it is misdirected, because clearly these neocons did 9/11/01, there is a large amount of growing evidence, and already exists physical evidence, and beyond that, there is all the evidence, which is enormous, that has been kept from the public so far.
So anyway, I thought more about the tower collapse, and Jones is the first to show images of buildings that have collapsed due to earthquakes, and these building fell down on their side, which really looks interesting...to see a building on its side. I think one strong piece of evidence for planned demolition is that the buildings stood, they stood for more than an hour after the impact...they endured the impact and held together, the impact did not cause enough structural damage to cause a collapse initially. I think one of the best arguments is not that fire caused the collapse, that is clearly impossible, but that the stress of the physical damage eventually did, but even then, it's a tough argument because the tower withstood the initial impact and stood for a full hour. As more and more evidence accumulated in my mind, the thought went through my mind that, here we all see a planned demolition before our eyes, and the public is too uneducated to even recognize it. One argument is: the friction from the collapsing steel caused the high temperatures found after the collapse...the melted steel. Again I find that implausible, although difficult to simulate. Friction and force of falling objects could not be enough to separate those atoms of steel, bend, break or mangle the steel perhaps, again I am not a structural expert but I don't think melting to a red hot temperature, or liquifying the steel is a possibility. Just a very enlightening talk given by Steven Jones, see my video links for the link.
In looking and thinking more about this 9/11/01 mass murder, I thought... you know...why doesn't the media expose the 9/11/01 story? And I have to conclude that the answer is: fear. The major media fear of financial ruin and physical violence from those in power, Bush jr, and those who support him...clearly the SEC could bring them to financial ruin, individual people could be jailed for various charges...embezzlement, molestation, ...I don't know what else, but perhaps even more of a fear is the threat of being murdered or assaulted. Let's think about the possibilities. There have to be those in the major media who are clearly against the 9/11/01 neocon mass murder, I think that's obvious. There have to be those in high positions in media, telvision and newspapers that want to tell the truth about 9/11/01, that want to show the truth, that want to introduce, for example, some video of a missile hitting the pentagon that many of them must have, not only from their satellites, but from their many million cameras around the planet, if not simply from individual nonmedia people. They must want to do that, but something must be stopping them. And I identify that, not as money, not as bribery, just put simply as: fear, fear of Bush jr, fear of the military behind jr., and perhaps there is some kind of grotesque stale mate, or situation, where these fascist militant people that form a large part of the US military are clearly the owner and master of all people in the USA, the media, individual people (although...clearly many of us are speaking clearly and openly, so they are not all powerful, although they intimidate us constantly and frequently, expending large sums of money)...definitely those that can see and hear thought...like me...I can't so...I really don't know what is out there...but they see clearly and what they see must scare them so much that they absolutely refuse to do anthing other than play along with the 9/11/01 neocon story. "Neocon" is a very good description of this republican group behind Bush jr, and also Bush jr too, because they are very much like neonazis, or even actual nazis, but they don't wear swastikas...clearly they are different...some of them are jewish like kissinger and wolfowitz, and then "con" for conservative, but clearly, what these people do, and what they will be remembered for most besides mass murder of thousands of innocent people, is for the way they successfully conned the planet into believing all their lies. So, again just a thought of mine that, clearly what is stopping the media from telling the truth is fear. Perhaps in 2008 if a democrat is elected the 9/11 thing will be exposed fully and arrests made, although I have doubts, but clearly a democrat in the white house would make many us feel better, and breathe easier when talking about the truth about 9/11/01, just like the death star shaking movie "JFK" did in the early 1990s.
I think very soon, within a few years I will have a walking robot, and making such a thing has been relatively easy for me to do, which has me wondering....why are there no walking robots around or being shown....I mean somebody else must have done it besides Honda and Sony....where are they? Just for the record I want to state now that, there may be people in power that force me to stop working on the walking robot...people that are perhaps anti-science, anti-technology...and also people that want to control technology. You may think I am paranoid, but look at the infrared technology...it's only available to people in the government. Can you imagine that a person stumbles on some video of people seeing and hearing thought...or figures out how to see and hear thought by tuning into a specific frequency of photons in a grid of receivers?...I would think that the evil administrators of the secret evil thought network would swing into motion, like a bunch of LAPD and FBI going after an Enyart, to control the person...it's frightening, and unlike the movies, but very much like real life, ofcourse the forces of evil would win, because that seems to be the way of things in this miserable corrupt violent backward upside-down century. They have won up to now. So, it's something to think about, that individual smart people might be supressed by the 100 years obsolescence. I hope to be able to report all that happens once the robot is walking, so if you notice silence, or an absence of info, you can be sure, that something bad happened.
04-24-2006
Ed Davis died, I went back and looked at "The Second Gun" again for perhaps the 20th time, and it's clear just how corrupt and criminal Davis was. There are a number of video clips of Davis actively stopping the second gun theory and every effort to expose and convict the actual killer of RFK Thane Cesar. Then Davis proudly promoted Dewayne Wolfer to head of the forensic lab, Wolfer clearly destroyed ceiling panels, destroyed recovered bullets, test fired a different gun than Sirhan's gun (Charach points out the clear reason...probably because they could not get a match with Sirhan's rifling and the rifling on the one [of 4] bullet that went in RFK), then William Harper clearly and publically identified for all the actual images of the RFK bullet and the Sirhan bullets, and both Harper and a separate ballistic expert verify that the two bullets came from two different guns. It's as clear as day for any person that cares remotely for truth, that Thane Cesar killed RFK...all the evidence points to that conclusion, there is no evidence that points in any other direction. It's obvious. You know, as is the case for Frank Fiorini, had the people in the US government actually identified the killer and jailed them...it would be much tougher to prove how evil they all are (people like those on the Warren Commission, Ed Davis, Evil Younger, Joe Busch, etc.), but because they so actively participated in the cover up and protection of Thane Cesar, it's obvious that they are evil (although perhaps nonviolently so). And that was my thinking upon seeing "The Second Gun" again. That the good and bad people are so easily and clearly defined. It's like any simple movie where the bad people and good people are easy to figure out. The good people, pushing for the truth to be exposed and justice done are Ted Charach, Thomas Noguchi, Godfrey Isaacs, Scott Enyart, Donald Schulman, Gerard Alcan, Niki (the female reporter), Karl Eucker... the bad guys, those who are lying, and covering up the truth about Thane Cesar are just as clear too, Evil Younger, Ed Davis, DeWayne Wolfer, Joe Busch, Fitz, Cooper, ... they just lie at every turn. So good riddens I say about the death of Ed Davis, he was an accessory to murder after the fact in the killing of RFK, and I can only imagine thousands of other homicides, he obstructed justice at every turn, and promoted Wolfer to head of forensics, leaving honest people to only wonder how many other homicides Wolfer destroyed and tampered with evidence in. Then why did the people in LA not see how people like Ed Davis covered up the Thane Ceaser homicide and vote for less worse people? You know, the entire government police, FBI, and military needs to be opened and democratized. It would be nice if the people in police, one of the jobs on earth where honesty is very important, actually were honest, or even remotely honest...and I don't doubt there are some good people there, but Davis was not one of them...and all through the top of the LAPD none of them were, at least during the RFK killing. The media was and still is a total failure, but I have hope for the independent video makers on the Internet. Perhaps there will be a unification of the stories being told on the Internet and the propaganda of those in the major media, or perhaps the major media will slowly fade into the past as sources of actual truth become more democratically popular. So much of justice comes from the public...if they don't question the facts about Thane Cesar, about 9/11/01 and they continue to vote for murderers and liars...ofcourse life will be chaos on earth, but if they start to do the right and honest things, we can pull ourselves out of this mess, resolve the Fiorini/JFK killing, the facts about Thane Cesar, jail Cesar, expose the 9/11/01 mass reichstag murder, we can do all of that and more... but we have to vote against the killers like the Bush family, like the majority of republicans, ... not until we get the truth, and I mean the entire truth about Fiorini, Cesar and 9/11. And even hearing thought...I think we can get there...even after 100 years of lies and corruption. Then to find out that Davis was a California Republican State Senator. It's shocking, how could so many people either be so pro-homicide and lying, or hopefully so uninformed? Davis lost the California Governor to Evil Younger, also a terrible person that is shown in "The Second Gun" actively protecting Thane Cesar.
hkh: Paul Wellstone. To me, Wellstone was probably killed by Nazi conservative right-wing thugs, it's too coincidental that he was so outspoken against Bush jr, and that it was just before his re-election. It shows you how the wolves were allowed into power to run wild killing and jailing innocent people all over the place. It just so vivdly draws the picture of Nazi thugs in power running wild, with advanced thought hearing and camera technology, loosening screws, and causing thousands of homicides of innocent people. They lies about the 9/11/01 mass murders, ... why on earth would they stop at 3,000 humans (+20,000 if including Iraq+Afghan)? they keep secret killing and secret killing and are not going to stop until they are voted out of power, if ever.
Cynthia McKinney appears in many of the 9/11/01 videos, and it's clear that this person is one of the few democrats really doing something for the people, telling the truth, expressing a belief that Bush jr knew about 9/11/01 before it happened, talking about the killing of JFK, MLK, and RFK...to me, now here is what a democrat should be like. And McKinney is the focus of a large amount of money and time on the part of the conservative criminals who want everybody to play along with 9/11, the invasion of Afghan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Oswald story, etc. they pay for all the news stories about McKinney, they have teams of people trying to trip her up, and I know the feeling. It's amazing, and here, McKinney lives in Georgia, although home to Infidel Guy, still, Georgia is typically a red state with a majority of republicans. So to me, it's clear that in more liberal states the congress people could be saying much more than McKinney does. Yeah, I like a lot of what McKinney says...she seems like a pretty smart person. I don't know the details about her so-called assault, but without the video, I am suspicious, and I seriously doubt there was any bruise, any red mark or pain on the person...it was probably like a "get your arm off me" kind of gesture, which people should never do with the people in uniform, because they may become violent. Ofcourse those people all know her, and actively watch her thoughts as they do many of us. Still, McKinney has to know that a lot of evil people are intent on frustrating her, and getting her in trouble, so she must know that she has to avoid any kind of violence, even when it's a million versus 1, which is usually the way things seems to me. I think the liberals have to focus on stopping violence, because then the conservatives will be out of business, because violence is their major business. McKinney is a real hero to many of us who want the truth told about Fiorini, Thane Cesar, 9/11/01, etc. I look forward to seeing what McKinney does and says in the future.
The de-employment of the CIA woman, to me is shocking. It's surreal that the heads of the CIA (which is a basically a criminal organization, both George Tenet and Porter Goss are linked to the Pakistan person that wired Atta $100,000, and ofcourse Allan Dulles was basically a nazi with Prescott Bush and deeply connected to the JFK killing and I can only guess how many other first degree homicides) talk about the exposing of secret outsourced prisons to torture people as being a bad thing. Having those secret prisons is illegal and a far greater crime than sharing government information with the public, but that point is not discussed. And here is an irony that is not mentioned...how could they simulateously deny the existence of such prisons, and fire somebody who leaked that such places exist? To me, it says, that yes, the woman told the truth, that those outsources prisons do exist, and the washington post story told the truth about the people in the US, actively supporting torture, but moving it to other nations to avoid legal problems. All of that is highly illegal and unethical, leaking is nothing compared to that. And then, ofcourse, I cannot say enough, that leaking in my opinion is more like "unclogging"...that people can openly support secrecy is shocking to me. They openly support and demand secrecy, and dishonesty. I am for laws that open up the US government, we need a transparent government that has no secrets. There should be no secrets and there is no need for any secrets in the US government. In a democracy, the more people that know something, the better and safer the earth is. This woman, Mary O. McCarthy is ahero for the public, law and order, and truth in my opinion. The CIA needs to be integrated into the FBI, and their illegal (in particular violent) and any secrect activities exposed and ended.
04-23-2006
I think the next big step in eliminating sexuality, in particular sexuality outside of marriage is going to be police routine searches in our houses, perhaps at checkpoints for pornography. I guess before that happened, the rest of legal pornography would have to be made illegal, and maybe that won't happen, but look how prostitution is technically illegal even thought porno videos appear to be legal...maybe the fascist police spartan thought nazis will start to use the prostitution laws to shut down any pornography where people are paid (which is basically all of pornography). I can see where the antisexuality is going though...they want to stop us, search our school lockers for porn, search our computers for porn, stop us at checkpoints and search our pockets and cars for porn, perhaps at first only lesbian and gay porn, which if it's lesbian porn, then I am screwed. What other things can the police state military complex add onto the list of crap to search us for...drugs, porn, weapons, vulgar slogans on clothing, ... this is the kind of stuff they get into, sacreligious material (laugh...but in NY they tried to outlaw anti-religious speech, but the right-wing conservatives could not get enough support...much of life is not a right or left wing thing, but look where much of this brutal idiotic backwards legislation originates from...it's almost always conservative idiots, but I accept that liberal idiots originate bs too). What else...who knows...but it's ridiculous....the porn hunts..then aha! they found somebody with questionable pornography...it's ridiculous...it's an f'in picture. In addition, you have to realize that these people f'in see and hear thought, see and hear inside our houses and heads...and have for years...but they are going to bust us for a few crumbs of photos we scrounged from a public Internet search engine? That's the other thing about 9/11/01, when you realize that Bush and them all could see and hear thoughts, see inside houses and heads...you know, ofcourse they had to know about 9/11 before it happened. I have been watching many 9/11 videos on video.google.com and they all make the picture very clear...listed in order of strongest pieces of evidence:
1) definitely that no 757 hit the pentagon. The images are clear proof and should convince the majority of people. The images would stand up in any court, with any jury, and the originator of the pentagon 757 story should be exposed and punished, and all FBI video ordered to be made public.
2) that norad stood down in a way that has never happened before.
3) that all 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives (later maybe the criminals involved will try to argue, and maybe already they argue that they prevented the WTC from collapsing in a more destructive way...but obviously, the WTC towers would have held at least until the people were evacuated...I think more likely, the fires were going out and they had to act quickly...the firepeople inside were reporting that they could easily put out the fires), a video shows a white cloud of smoke coming up from one of the WTC, this is smoking gun evidence against at least the lease holder of the WTC, and no doubt much of the executive branch and military.
the list of pieces of evidence...all about Marvin Bush and securacom, the bush jr surrounded himself with innocent children for safety, the bogus 9/11 commission, the pakistan guy who wired $100,000 to atta, and then met with the uber evil CIA heads: George Tenet and Porter Goss....the list goes on into the thousands. It's overwhelming evidence that bush and company planned 9/11/01 and that this was a reichstag fire, there is no question in my mind, and I'm an excluded!
04-21-2006
Searching for "9/11 duration:long" at video.google.com produces some good free vids. Stuff you will never see on television except public access maybe. But it got me thinking, that...you know since we are at the stage where we can openly describe what really happened on 9/11, how it was like a reichstag fire used to build up the US military, and we can only finger Frank Fiorini, and describe how Thane Cesar killed RFK, and how thought can be heard...like in the 1937 book "The Thought-Hearing Machine", the video jfk and jfk2...that we are really at a middle-ground in terms of the fascism on earth...it's almost like there is a huge wave of truth about to open up on the earth...and the massive cancer of evil to be exposed and cured. I think it waill take a long time, but clearly, those books and videos exist and stand in contrast to those who promote the lies, and those people have not been jailed, or killed.
You know I was given a nasty dream, and ofcrouse I promptly voted to ban that person or persons who sent those images from ever sending images to my brain again, and also voted against that person from sending images or sounds to the brain of any other person, and focused on ... who is this person? What are they like...and "gomer pile" was beamed to my brain...thankfully...and that's probably who these people are...they are in the military, in the government...no doubt they are simply cogs who perform for the wealthy (that must be a powerful feeling...seeing some human echo their idiotic beamings), but what is clear...you know what would help so much, is simply free info...and end to jailing or fines for owning any image even if a copyright violation, even if an invasion of privacy, etc... and we are headed there, but too slowly. It's amazing to me that here we pay these people's salaries...we are funding our own torture...our own bad dreams...our own itches...our own constant bad suggestions being beamed onto our heads...we are paying for all this! We buy every laser, every bomber, every uniform, every piece of bread those in the US government military (do they get free food?). And here they only abuse us and secretly so. That is why I think the best answer is to open up the info, and let's start with the government, no more national secrecy....there is no reason why people employed in the government should have any more right to any information than any person in the public should have. They are no more or less special than any nongovernment person. It's just annoying to see what massive abuses are going on because our government is so terrible...our military is bloated beyond belief, is shockingly secretive, is routinely inflicting 100 year old secret technology on the innocent public. Here many of us have college degrees, and don't have to wear a uniform...these people in the military are like spartans...not people interested in stopping violence, and doing the right thing...they view life as a blood-sport match without laws against violence, without free information and full democracy where the public vote actually does count. We are really on the tail end of monarchy and theocracy...we are transitioning to full democracy but it's slow...there is still the belief that the government/king should have more power than the people who fund it....that the government has a divine right, not that they are simply employees of the supervisors, the public....the view that the people in the government should be cogs who must inact our will and cannot disobey the majority vote....basically again that we are the masters of our government, not the slaves (as RFK said)...we are the boss they are the employees, not the other way around...and that is true for the military and police too. I see opening both police and military to full free info, no secrecy whatsoever, and then removing the requirement to wear a uniform or have special badges or markings...we can have an information based system that instantly verifies who each person is, and then, people in government should not be breaking any law to begin with. I could go on forever, but clearly...here we have a bunch of lawless criminals beaming bad dreams on us (this was a bloody...like night of the living dead bloody zombies chasing me), making us itch, giving us tumors, all in secret...we don't get to know their names, see what they look like....I mean you figure it out...do we want to live like this forever? no ofcourse not! So c'mon what are the answers to this? I am saying free information might just be a start...it might be the only thing necessary...but probably we will need to do more than just that. Like the guy says in a few 9/11 videos...my message is just this...america.."wake up"...and the rest of the earth too. I want to remind everybody that we definitely can vote to exclude and ban people from sending images to our heads...it may do nothing...but don't let that stop you...I think it does have an effect. All you need to do is even vote in thought...that is enough...just simply think...I vote to ban that person...they know who. These people are easy to identify in the camera thought net...they are the worst humans on earth...everybody knows them...they are nasty bullies, lawless criminals...have numerous assaults with lasers...everybody knows them within the net and no doubt their vote is the same as the rising excluded vote. Yet ione more addition, it's a two part problem...the wealthy idiot evil that fund the low income cogs to do the actual evil. My focus is on punishing the people that do the actual violence and nuisance with jail, etc...and the evil wealthy (although physically nonviolent) commanders to be lowered in terms of popularity, and potentially jail too...we can figure it out as time contintues and more info is realeased, and certainly by the time every body can see everything.
04-20-2006
There are some things, you are just going to have to see the video to find out about. I can't report everything here in text, eventually all of us excluded will get to see...see thoughts, hear thoughts...see the secret history of earth that millions of elitists get to now enjoy.
we need a ratemylawyer, and then mostly that just compares price.
we could have a system for lawyers like ebay bids, somebody needs a prenuptial agreement, or contract, etc. and lawyers could bid. We need much more free info, so people can see who are the liberals, who are the conservatives, the evolutionists, the church goers, etc.
The asexual and antisexual ascend in power and wealth and the sexual descend. And that is frightening to me.
cox didnt show jfk deux 4/11, just as a note, Cox decided curiously not to show JFK 2, but appeared to have less problems airing 9/11 in plane site. I have 4 new shows on Cox, part 2 of JFK2 and In Plane Site, in addition to more "at the goldfish" acoustic jam, and the complete chapter on "drugs" from photon yes, religion no, in addition to part of "science".
In nyc, a person in police who did 20 murders, finally was charged. I think this goes to show how terrible the corruption is in NYC. Other cities are bad too, but look what happened to John Lennon, that will already serve as a reminder of how corrupt the stop violencing is in NYC, but then this guy who murdered people, and was in police. Clearly, with all those that see and hear thought...many must have seen and known what this guy was doing, but he was never even let go from police...that is frightening. They watched and watched and watched and did nothing to stop this guy from murdering. I can't believe he was eventually captured and may be punished.
The news is a stomach turning set of news items...I can't summarize them all...but how for example the guy killed the sex offenders from the public list...I have to wonder if this guy was a violent offender. People will look back at this century and reveal how antisexuality was much more dominant than antiviolence. Look how there is a public registry of sex offenders but not violent offenders...apparently it's more important to people to not be sexually offended, as opposed to violently offended. To me, if having to chose between being assaulted versus groped, I would chose groped everytime...assault is much worse in my mind...much more painful...where being groped is not an assault if there is no pain. In particular being fondled, for example. I would even go so far as to say that I would chose anal rape over having a nonsexually fractured bone, say an ulna or something. The anal rape, there might be a little pain, a little damage, I might feel some rectal discomfort for a few days, maybe a week, but I would live and recover...a fractured ulna would take months of painful healing, would be much more painful than an anal rape to begin with. But, in the minds of most people...the rape is much much worse than a broken bone. Beyond that, simply touching a genital is given much more time than a violent assault...it's shocking to me...the violent assault is painful, may leave a bruise, but the nonviolent genital touching gets far more prison time, but yet there is no pain at all...it just shows how dominent antisexuality is in this century, and how tolerant people are of violent behavior.
NYTimes had a photo of a guy pointing a hand gun up, and the hand had a latex glove on. As excluded people you have to get the background behind the image. For about a month or two I have had what I can only describe as a painful hemmerhoid, which has made deficating very painful...it feels like I get anally (and painfully!) raped every time I shit, so I have a strong suspician that this was somehow given to me by antisexual violent criminal people that administer the laser thought net, but only the included know for sure. Anyway, so I have gotten into the habit of using petroleum jelly with a latex glove before I shit to protect the swollen area. This has helped reduce the pain tremendously and also has made the healing faster, to the point where basically after 2 months the hemmer or swelling is basically healed. So this NY Times photo, which perhaps cost a few hundred thousand? maybe only tens of thousands of dollars to put on the front page of the nytimes.com...it shows so clearly how there is a large group of wealthy violent criminals, maybe they don't do violence themselves, but they fund it and command it, they advocate violence, they advertise violence...and when I say advertise violence, I am not talking about a small ad...clearly this is an expensive ad for homicide, or gun assault. It's shocking to some people that the owners of the NYTimes would support such a terribly lawless, violent, destructive message...but this is no doubt typical among the wealthy of this time on earth. They appear (although...mostly privately away from public view) to be a very uneducated, violent, elitist, group of people. Maybe this hemmerhoid thing is actually some kind of colo-rectal cancer, that is what my grandmother died from, but it appears to be healing. But the front page of nytimes.com, now that is cash, and then directed by people for first degree violence. This is one thing I tell people about electing people like Bush jr, and even Kerry and many others...look carefully at their dedication to stopping violence...does it exist? Are they advocates of first degree violence? If they are...in other words, they feel that the assault and homicide laws can be broken in many circumstances, and they feel that these laws have little or no importance, or should only be applied when useful....that is something clearly to beware of. We need leaders, first we need a true democracy, but while we languish in a representative democracy (representatives are like mini-monarchs), lets at least try to elect those who show a clear dedication to enforcing the violent laws constantly, and uniformly.
Sierra Trading Post, I was going to buy some really low priced shirts, until I saw that the owner was a big supporter of the Jesus cult. I am glad for the honesty, secrecy is terrible, I am for more info and for total free info. I don't want to contribute to the Jesus cult in any way, if I don't have to. That Jesus cult, even if a mainstream group, and a group composed of perhaps even 1 billion humans, still appears to me like the moonies, or any other cult around one human. Then I got an email with the title 'free ground shipping!' and ofcourse the letters spell "fgs!" Many christians, and godders too, basically many religious are antisexual and appeal to antisexuality, appeal to violence, appeal to psychological theories, appeal to mythical fears...like hell, ghosts, etc... that is their bread and butter, even if sex with consent is hardly anything to worry about, and certainly not a crime even in public, and violence is technically a crime, even if not enforced, and many of the theories of psychology are very abstract and can apply to anybody, in particular those who claim people rise from the dead and sit on clouds casting lightning bolts, etc...I have reduced much of psychology to "delusion" or "inaccurate" which is a more accurate description of people's perceived problems...or "can't feed self", etc...none of that "psychosis", "neurosis", "schitzophrenia", "manic" bs. Then finally, the mythical fears...you know...its idiocy, humans have been lying for years, they lie about santa, they lie about tooth fairies, etc...certainly there is evil, but then isn't it the violent and the liars?
I saw in the latimes.com that Rudy Vrba died, around age 80. I was just thinking of Vrba, maybe people beamed his image on my head. In his book Vrba describes grenading a building of sleeping SS with other allies and then shooting down those running out with a machine gun. And when I first read that I thought..."how brutal that is", but then, this is a guy who saw many friends and innocent people casually executed in the millions...and ofcourse, the murder of these ss was justified, they would certainly have killed Vrba in an instant, as they most likely had killed many others, although no doubt there may have been an ss who had not killed anybody in the building. At a stage of fascism and nazism, etc. as there was in WW2, that is the kind of life there is...people have fucked up too severely...they can't get back to a society that has the appearance of law and order because they let those laws fall apart. And this is happening now too...when it's ok for people to murder innocent people, like JFK, RFK, and the killers go free...and the secret is kept for 100 years...it shakes many people's faith in the most important laws like homocide and assault...clearly Frank Fiorini was not arrested, and Thane Cesar is not going to be arrested...people can see clearly that our system is not functioning. In any event, Vrba had so many interesting stories, and had a very interesting style of telling his memories from Auschwitz (and other experiences). Unfortunately, Vrba did not reply to an email of mine, and I kind of feel that was kind of rude, in particular for all the hours he no doubt logged of watching me and my thoughts. Vrba wore a cow skin, and there is a part where he appears very homophobic, or antigay, which is typical in this century, but still I have to explain how this homophobia only feeds the nazistic feeling of jailing homosexuals, and tolerating violence (after all, a nonviolent male can only be gay even if assault is technically illegal although not enforced).
9/11 trial
Why is the defense not arguing bush reichstag fire evidence?
-pentagon hole images
-gas station security cam supoena
-white smoke before wtc collapse video, freely shown on video.google.com
-bush stops fbi from investigating bin laden, person quits, and is killed in wtc
I saw Margaret Geller talk at UCI and see the secret thought-gram videos for all my comments. I was glad she used the word "photon", but she also piled on heaps of other nasty language like "fink" instead of "think", and I like the public record to reflect the views of people in this time. The public should know where people stand, what people believe in, etc. I am for free information, in particular in this era where people routinely watch us in our houses, and our heads. I asked Geller a question like: "Carl sagan said something like, the number of galaxies we see are only the tiniest fraction of galaxies that are. And that made me think, could there be galaxies so distant that not one particle of light is going in our direction, that is that not one photon, from those galaxies could be recieved in our detectors? "...before I could finish, she started answering and I had to say "and I want to add that...doesn't that imply that the universe may be much older than 15 billion years and much larger than 15 or 20 billion light years in size?" (I forgot to add the part about not one photon going in our direction, not even as background radiation...then I could give evidence against 3 theories - big bang, expanding universe, and background raditaion in one sentence....but alas I was pressured and only had a few seconds). And Geller answered, to my surprise, that yes the universe is much bigger than the universe we see (I later could see that "see" could be taken to mean only with the naked eye and not a telescope...but it can be taken to mean "see" even with all available technology). Later a nice gent in the aud asked: "Are there any astronomers that doubt the big bang?" and Geller spelled it out..."I don't give any of those people any credit" and "none of those people are in astronomy", and I would add...none of those people are going to ever be published in any "scientific" magazines (or major books) either. Isn't that a wonderfully open minded profession? Where your career can only exist if you don't publically critisize the prevaililng belief? What tolerance...what acceptance...and rigorous and open debate of prevailing theories. To me, the big bang is the "flat earth" theory of this time. People laughed and punished those "round earthers" back then, but were ultimately proven to be a mistaken group, albeit having the majority. Then Geller went on to explain that dark energy was "pervasive"...sharing a tiny bit from "secret thought net lore"...those vids those elites in the camera-thought net get access to...where Sagan clearly showed some antisexuality (Carl Sagan was not perfect...he only advocated decriminalizing drugs towards the end of his life...while doing much to expose hearing thougt...he didn't go as far as I have, .... but then I have many faults too). So I don't doubt Sagan exhibited antisexual superiority towards people like me, viewing us as "perverts". To me, sexuality is to be celebrated, and I think at other times, Sagan had some insight into this, for example when he said (to us lowly public, those of the excluded) in "Cosmos", "Plato had an unease with the universe as revealed by our senses. ". Something made me feel that Sagan was saying that the antiscience tradition was similar to the antisexual tradition, which much of modern religion embraced.
A female at the talk had a shirt with the slogan "hugs not drugs" which I think is fine, I am for hugs...and think people should try not to get addicted to any drug (although for some, addiction [like addiction to air, food, etc] is clearly not a serious problem and then ofcourse only a problem for them which they have a right to do to themselves and I have no right to stop them from doing to themselves). I think there will be a huge industry built around hugs, kisses, for free and for money when people finally appreciate their anatomies, but I want a shirt with the slogan "jugs not jails" because that is really the big deal about drugs...is the fanatical jailing of nonviolent people simply for using a drug...harmless people....and if they happen to be violent (which is rare), then by all means jail them for violence which has been technically illegal for years.
Before the talk I thought more about the expanding universe theory and have one more piece of evidence against the expanding universe beyond the fact that humans have red shifted light here on earth, the so-called "Raman effect" (to me the red shift of the most distant galaxies is due only to distance, not velocity).
Here is this idea:
Here locally, we see blue shifted galaxies so why should that local experience be any different for life on a distant galaxy? For example m31 is moving to us, blue shifted, why should local experience for other galaxies be any different? So then, is red shift a phenomenon only between very distant galaxies? Then is it a force, beyond gravity and everyday local space? More likely, red shift for very distant galaxies, is from raman effect, or some other effect related only to distance and not velocity.
Geller explained a little of the history of dark matter, which was helpful, basically that people measured more mass in galaxies than could be exlpained by the visible light. I basically doubt the existence of dark matter, but then to hear that dark matter is not baryonic (protons, neutrons) was unbelievable until I realized that people think it's simply in other particles (basically it's all photon in my view, every particle is either a photon or a group of photons). So, either the measurement of mass of the galaxies is wrong, which I don't know...it hasn't been shown mathmatically...then you know I've never seen one galaxy modeled on a computer shown to the public and in a galaxy there are billions of stars...each star should be included in the model and should correspond to each star in the observed galaxy for accurateness. There are many stars that cannot be observed from here...but yet, they have a definitive mass, without even seeing all the stars? It was interesting that geller explained that the people thought that galactic centers would have all the mass, but find that most of the mass of a spiral galaxy is in the outside plane, which I find hard to believe, and again, the velocity of those outside stars may not relate to their mass....just as a light object can have a high velocity while a more massive object a small velocity...i am just brain storming...if I could see their thoughts I am sure I could resolve whether the inside or outside of a galaxy has more matter...then what about the third dimension...again they can't see stars behind the center or the first layer of stars. No mention of elliptical galaxies, again I think its clear to me that elliptical galaxies are probably made by advanced life...and are the hopeful evolution of every group of life only as advanced as we...only occupying one meager planet of one star. so with the dark matter, I have a lot of doubt, and this idea of their being more matter than is seen has not been proven openly to the public and myself to my satisfaction. In some way, I think things like dark matter and dark energy (which I definitely doubt) are like new wave buzzwords that people in astronomy attach onto to not make them look out of date or old fashioned...they want to look like they are involved in the latest stringy dingy dark matter theory, even if the theory is doubtful. Other geller comments "rape" instead of "ray", "boo" (blue) dots, (actual positive comments, but only a few=) "bright pard" (part), "reichrowave" (microwave), "weird", "strange", "gropes" (groups), "pershent" (per cent), "telesco" (telescope), "to the death" (depth), "condesations" (conversations) "right smack" (I guess I missed any antiviolence info). Nice to hear, "a trillion photons will hit the top of your head. These photons travel (for billions of years) and end their journey by hitting your head...what a waste." Although...the photons don't end there babe, they keep going and going and going. By the way smeckers hanes was there. It's not a waste at all, who knows the plan for the photons, who here shall declare it, etc. whatever it is, nothing exciting is going to happen in the next 100 years with this dull stalin thought group of godders. The vibe I got on geller was pro-photon, which was a plus, but was heavily antisexual, and heavily for secrecy, but perhaps the secret thought-gram images will prove otherwise. Can you believe that these people were calling them "thought-grams"...like "marconi-grams"...I mean that is how old this shit is. the marconi gram was the precursor to the wireless telegram. remember telegrams?
people like Geller and other professors and university presidents get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, I make far less, but still I contribute free videos on google to teach evolution and science, to speak out against violence, against cesar and fiorini...they could do a lot more for the public with their immense salaries than they are doing. Not one movie of the history of science or evolution for the big screen, not one for the free web videos, not one for television...nothing...maybe a book or two...and then they charge the public for that info.
04/21/06 update:
I want to add that I credit Geller with making a map of all the galaxies in the universe, that is an actual contribution to science (many things like dark matter, I wonder if they will pan out to be actual contributions). I was under the impression that this map included (if not all) the galaxies (of which there are perhaps billions visible), but perhaps the majority of the largest galaxies...but the image geller showed was only of 10,000 galaxies. There needs to be a public map, with each galaxy in 3d triordinates, or 4d quadordinates (if time is also attached to their physical position...which I think time is the same everywhere in the universe...so then t would be the same for every galaxy in theory, but in reality updating those variables could not be simulataneous). And that map should be public, as I said, open to the public in my opinion and highly explained and shown to the public, not a secretive thing known only to a few astronomer elites. On the topic of Sagan again, I want to add one thing, Sagan clearly made many contribution, and should have won a Nobel prize for "public education of science", but I think we need to be able to critisize people too. I know I'm not above criticism and through criticism (and not low brow name calling, but well thought out philosophical positions) we can improve and learn. So, I just want to say, and perhaps I have before, but there is a part in Cosmos where Sagan says "but if we capitulate to superstition (yes, ok), greed (ok....again fine), or sexuality...(wait...what? sexuality? capitulate to sexuality is not good? )" That is where I cannot agree...capitulate to our sexuality? to our sexual desires? That is going to be somehow bad? I can see on the outside that sex without consent...being really the only bad thing about sex, but that is a tiny aspect of sexuality, the vast majority of sexuality is consensual. If we capitulate to our violent nature...now isn't that more logical? Our sexual nature may do some harm (again only through our violent nature of unconsentual sex), but consensual sex, even public sex, is hardly a serious threat in my opinion. I'm not trying to be nasty, just for the record, Sagan did kindly return my letter, unlike most people (this property of people is something we really should look for in people...are they too arrogant to respond to us? If yes, maybe they have too much or contribute too little), and in Sagan's letter he used the word "wiped" in the sentence, "the government wiped out funds for SETI". I didn't get it at first...because I had no idea thought was heard back in 1913, even despite Sagan's excellent, and very noteworthy hinting in Cosmos. But "ped" is a nazi tool, let's recognize this, Nixon refered to(perhaps) Ted Kennedy in famous watergate speech "never be petty"... It's a Nazi tool, like much of psychology is, like much of religion is, like violence is, like threats of violence are, like lying is, ... it falls under "antisexuality"...liberals and intellectuals should be working on defending sexuality, not piling on the mainstream opposition to sexuality, pornography, etc. That was one other point, that Geller explained that both methods of using gravitational lensing and ...the second method I didn't get...I think it may have been observations of the rotation of spiral galaxies...the mass of a galaxy can be predicted by the rotation speed...I guess...although I have doubts that rotational velocity is related to overall mass...but maybe...in any event both methods both confirmed the same mass to within a few percent. The basic idea with the dark matter is that there is more matter in galaxies than can be seen by the light emitted from the galaxies...again I want to raise the issue of the mass that cannot be seen because it is obstructed from view behind other matter as a potential source of extra matter. I doubt "dark matter", another source is the matter of the photons themselves. But there was one other thing where...when I saw this map on television around 1994 I thought...wow...there are these empty spaces in between galactic clusters...but after viewing Geller's image of 10,000 galaxies, I feel less excited and more like, this is simply the distribution of matter on a larger scale...ofcourse there are going to be places where matter clusters and places where matter does not cluster...we can see where the galactic clusters are...there is no mystery that is now revealed as to where all the galaxies are...as far as I can see...ofcourse we should have a nice 3d map of all the galaxies and public showing to all....there still are some interesting aspects though: 1) that this is the shape matter is taking on the largest scale...it's not like a galaxy, not like a star system, not like a molecule, or atom...it's like just an apparently random distribution. 2) If advanced life is highly organized, as they may be...certainly elliptical galaxies are a high probability of being shaped by advanced life...then could this imply that much of advanced life is collected together? Perhaps it has to do with the need of advanced life for a constant supply of new matter as consumed matter leaves them in the form of photons, for which most advanced life cannot stop or would not be worth the expense to recycle.
Ted Charach somehow did not renew his domain name rfksecondgunexpose.com, and I have told him for a long time to get secondgun.com, as it's more simple. But I am making an appeal to anybody out there...in particular Columbia House and BMG...please buy the rights to "The Second Gun", maybe even somebody in the Kennedy family...buy the rights and distribute "The Second Gun" with the rest of the movies from the past, so libraries can buy it, and the public can view it along side other 1973 films (like "American Graffiti", "The Exorcist", "Fantastic Planet", "The Sting", "Enter The Dragon", "Charlotte’s Web", "Soylent Green"). The public needs to see this movie and Charach deserves some help in this area. We need to get this movie into DVD format and avilable to mass distrubtion, or even perhaps to be downloaded and written to DVD over the web as things seem to be going. Perhaps at google, maybe google may want to work with Charach to get this on video.google.com for a low price.
Recently, when Charlie Sheen talked to Alex jones about his doubts in the 9/11/01 official story, sheen commented that people only attack his character and not the issue, and I think this argument applies well to me too. People may critisize my character and past mistakes, but let's make sure the truth gets to the public, the truth about 9/11, the truth about Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, hearing thought, Pupin, video in people's eyes, photon is matter, big bang is probably false, etc...the important things are the issues, not people's individual lives and activities...I mean we can talk about those things too, but let's not discredit the message when we discredit the messenger. Carl Sagan had a nice statement saying "we have no idea from what source truth may come from", and that is very true, we should recognize truth no matter from what source, and even from the most unpleasant of sources.
Yes, it's true that I am going to wed. I still feel marriage is a terrible tradition and I am opposed to marriage, but the realities of this backward society leave me few choices. We are going to have trinkets in the form of $10 rings, no tuxedo, no religious human, no "best man". The existing systems are so unfair and terrible. We need to open up free info, free debate, full democracy in every part of earth, the moon, mars, and every where life goes to.
You know, I would love to go on for hours with you the excluded (and even many included), but I don't have the time, and I can't remember everything I want to say.
04-06-2006
Some words of encouragement to the excluded:
"It happened to the nazis, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the confederates, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the monarchs, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the aparteid supporters, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the anti-women's rights people, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the inquisition, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the witch hunts, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to the alcohol prohibitionists, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
"It happened to those who enacted the oral sex laws, it can happen to the camera-thought people."
etc.
On the 9/11/01 scene, here the people in the secretive stalinesque US government are going to actually play a recording of flight UA93 for a jury. Look at the court...they can only have a sketch artist draw pictures for the public....yeah I trust that. They obviously have nothing to hide. That is one reason why I vote for video cameras in the courts, and on everybody in the government. But, so they have this audio tape supposedly, that ups the ante on UA93 actually having hijackers, and crash landing in the tiny dirt pile without one transistor of crashed airplane or cell from any bodies left, in addition to a photo that shows what looks like a cloud of smoke from an explosive supposedly over the scene. But think of what length the government would have to go to in order to fake such a recording...although for all I know no recording exists and the entire jury is in the thought-net...with the thought-net shockingly large scale lies are possible...look at Fiorini and Cesar as prime examples...shit, the 100 year old (in 1913) secret of hearing thought itself!... But if such a recording exists, can you imagine if the people in the government produced it with software or by some other method? ... that would be almost impossible as far as I know...but then it took me a while to figure out that thought could be heard and 300 million people have been secretly hearing thought for years. If the tape is played for the public, I think that the tape will lend evidence to there actually being people that hijacked planes, but still there was a missile into the Pentagon, clearly, and the two WTC towers were pulled down in a controlled demolition that was the 2 largest mass murders since WW2, and the 2 biggest mass murders in one day on US soil to my knowledge. So then I would support more the story that people did hijack those planes, but that the christian conservatives in power, who are lawless, in particular when it comes to the stop violence laws of homicide and assault, allowed it to happen, and unleashed their dream come true of making a military police state controlled by ultra wealthy Jesus cult elites in the thought hearing net, funding the military complex far beyond any other nation, and all by using the excuse of stopping terrorism. And isn't terrorism the perfect threat? It's not like Japan and pearl harbor...terrorism is everywhere...why they can invade any nation....in the quest for killing "terrorists".
04-05-2006
Awesome to see the people that grew the bladder, that is certainly an achievment.
I didn't realize that I can easily move credit limit from one citi card to another, that was a revelation. I have 3 citi credit cards. When I need to borrow money, many of you may not know that you can do a balance tranfer, by having them send you a check made out to you. You cash the check and use it for whatever (and it's not viewed as a cash advance). I use these to borrow a thousand or more on a 0% for 12 months balance transfer deal, then I can borrow $1000 or even more at 0% interest for 12 months and all I have to do is made the minimum payment. Ultimately, I pay off the balance before 12 months, so basically I got a $1000+ loan for 1 year at no interest. This works up to your credit limit. The key, ofcourse, is paying off the loan (credit card balance) before the year is done, and never missing any payment. This is how I am paying my taxes this year.
I hope people figure out who is zapping them. "Who could it be?"...it can only be those in government police and military, who else could not be punished? Who else can live a lawless life? Who else has absolute control over the people? Then I have to ask people...look at the jobs of police and military. They are jobs not many people want. In the military people cannot legally quit at any time, both have to wear a uniform. Aren't you glad you don't have to wear a uniform in your job? Most of those people have no college education. So then...shockingly, those people who do have college degrees and do not have to wallow in a military or police job, vote to give these people ultra-privileges?! Allow them to wiretap, plant hidden cameras, break into houses, have exclusive rights to watching the street cameras, to the 911 calls, and physical evidence?! And look at the history, how they have abused those extra rights and privileges. Look at the Enyart film, the Pentagon 9/11/01 films, the Oklahoma City 12 videos...all kept secret from the public. These are the people whose salaries we pay. And here they laser us, assault us, make us itch, move our muscles. The clean-up job on the government police, fbi, cia and military is bigger than the Valdez, and the public is just emptying their oil into the mess. We need new laws that make every aspect of government police and military totally transparent, and those people must have equal rights...in other words, if they can wire tap, so can ordinary citizens. But mainly, we need to force all 911 calls to be public, to force no evidence to ever be withheld from the public, to force them to receive only a copy of any privately owned video, images, or sound recordings, and similar such laws. A camera in every building, a camera on every employee at all times when they are on the job, forbidding them to lie, forbidding them to operate in secrecy, forbidding any part of their budget to be a secret, forbidding any building from being offlimits to the public.
In this society for centuries, being intelligent works against you. The people most hired are those with a lackluster personality...no web page, no opinions, nothing that sticks out as being unusual. The most people being hired are the dullest...people where no info can be found on...people that married and have 2 children, that never divorced, that go to church and belong to the Jesus cult, in the thought-cam net, etc. Also, everything has to look good on paper, the reality makes no difference. If a person has a pHD that is taken to mean they are qualified, even if they are still very stupid, and don't for example believe evolution, think Jesus rose from the dead, think light is massless, the universe is finite, etc. If they have numerous publications...even if the publications are too abstract to have any value, and are paid for to publish, or published thru some other corrupt method.
life in the OC for me is like Neidermeyer to Flounder, but Neidermeyer is everybody. Everywhere I go, there are people who echo that Neidermeyer neonazi spartan philosophy..."you fat pervert fag...you make me sick....you god damn pedophile atheist psycho...is that a pupin picture on your web page?", etc... not incredibly pleasant or enlighted "folk". But then, that is probably not unique to OC, it's everywhere the secret-thought hearing net is probably. The USA is a "bund" nation nowadays, truth matters nothing...everything is conformity to popular opinion which is driven by conservative christian money beamed onto the heads of humans. The descendents of the Bund, the nazis in the USA, are in power...the descendents of Prescott Bush, publically a nazi, of Swartzenegger, whose dad was gestapo and no doubt celebrated the mass murder of jewish people, political opponents and the poor.
04-04-2006
How many of you like to be insulted? How many like to be zapped? Made to itch with a hidden laser?
I think the vast majority of people would agree with me, that no, we don't want to be insulted, to be put-down, to be zapped, to be assaulted, to be made to itch with a hidden laser. Why do we put up with it? Why don't we punish those people? Why don't we ever discipline those that repeatedly insult or assault? I think many times, they are people with more power. They are connected into the secrect camera-thought net, and that protects them. Many of them are in police and military...we are paying their salaries...and then they zap us for it! And for many of those...in the camera-thought net...they won't be punished, because their bosses are also in the net and all the way up to the company owners...who let them get away with all kinds of rudeness and assaults. There is a feeling among those in the secret camera-thought net that laws only apply to those excluded. Can you imagine if the assault law, for example, was actually enforced on those that are included in the thought-hearing net? That would be the day. Their ranks would be decimated. And here we see clearly part of the problem. While none of us, the vast vast majority oppose being assaulted and made to itch with lasers, we currently can't control or stop those people, because we can't stop people we can't see. We certainly can vote through thought to give them no write or even read permission to thought and our bodies, we can vote in thought to ban all those people from ever using a gun or laser, but it doesn't really have any effect, because democracy is not the prevailing system in effect on earth today, the majority vote does not win. Even if the vast majority of the excluded (and all people) voted to punish those that zap people, they would never spend a day in jail because their boss is just as violent, and no doubt a zapper too. We see that those who assault are also those in highest power, and in great number. For example, look at a typical person who zaps somebody, a majority votes to jail them for an hour, to ban them from using a laser, but they are in the US police, and they are not going to be jailed, they are not going to be fired, nothing is going to happen...it doesn't matter what a majority may vote for. How do we get these people from the highly secretive, highly protected, no education needed job of police, all the way to the other side of being fired from police (or military), and locked in a jail? I mean that is a long distance to go. And so what we see are that many people committing assaults (albeit secretively, without their identity being known publically yet), are in government military and police...and we really, as democratic citizens have a major cancer on our hands in the form of people with numerous first degree assaults in secret government police and military. What is the answer? What's the cure? Clearly, even to scratch the surface we could insist on total transparency of all government military and police, cameras in every office or ever building available to the public. Every piece of data absolutely available to the public. A law against any form of secrecy and absolutely enforced. This could be encouraged by limiting or removing copyright laws, privacy laws. We are headed down a road, and casually going down this road, where beyond even hidden microcameras, now there are big bulky visible cameras on the streets...but still...the public does not get to see. As I sit here, some piece of shit is making me itch my nose...how much longer will the public submit to this abuse? Does that person get zapped to make his nose itch? You know even if they do...they are spartans...what do they care? They live a life of violence, they know nothing about a life of nonviolence, of science, of logic, or lawfulness. But let's try as excluded, as the majority who oppose assault and violations of our body, to make those first steps into identifying these people and publically exposing them and their thought-hearing camera watching networks. They stand unchallanged and in absolute unquestioned power and authority, truth poses no challange at all to those currently in power...they are all powerful all knowing...they see our thoughts...they watch us in our houses...how can we possibly defeat them? or even see them? without changing the laws, we may never get to see them, those who have assaulted millions of people thousands of times, and never received even the tiniest punishment, and no doubt even encouragement to continue to violate the most basic of assault laws.
04-03-2006
FYI: I did my taxes with taxact.com and it only cost $10 for both federal and state (california).
There are some really good videos on video.google.com:
This one is awesome:
Redux: (samples a variety of 9/11 videos)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815&q=redux&pl=true
This one has the show about the plane hitting the World Trade Center that is amazing. It shows that many people (no doubt in the secret thought-hearing network) knew months before 9/11. And this also has the video that, I think is good proof that WTC 1 was pulled. You can clearly see white smoke from the bottom, and see the camera shake...I mean you can't bring down a building without the seismic effect being measured, which was...Any satellite image would easily have shown the smoke...but where are they?
The classic 9/11/01 free videos are:
Loose Change second edition:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true
Why the name "Loose Change?", maybe because the 9/11 thing was funded with loose change these republicans are so wealthy. Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Burmas, are 3 SUNY Oneonta college students that made "Loose Change". What an incredible and brave effort they have put forward.
In Plane Site
Dave vonKleist
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2794250058695002691&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&pl=true
This is a classic, very nicely done. This is the first DVD (with Loose Change) that I saw that started raising questions in my mind about the official story. vonKleist hits is home with a number of points about the media and the US.
There are a large number of videos by Alex Jones
Alex Jones really deserves some awards and recognition. Jones has to be the number one distributer of free videos. It's amazing all that I have learned from Alex Jones. For example, I had no idea that Arnold Swartzenegger's dad was in the Gestapo, and signed up in Austria in a time when it was illegal to join, and that his mom remarried to a person who was also in the gestapo, that Swartnegger said that he loved ex-Nazi Kurt Waldheim. It's shocking to me that here in the USA nazism is so popular. Not that Swartzenegger is a supporter of Nazism, but he took it in with his mother's milk...I can't believe it didn't have an effect on him. His dad must have known about the wholesale slaughter of Jewish humans. Then people readily elect people like Swartzenegger and Bush jr (whose Grandfather was a strong supporter of Hitler)...I mean isn't there the slightest bit of worry about handing over high positions in the US and California government to people with relatives who have such solid links to nazism? Then, people who clearly have done so poorly in school. Bush and Kerry's grades were poor, Swartzenegger has no college degree that I know of. That was really revealing...and it was a free video.
Jones is an interesting person. I have to wonder what he was like as a child. Somebody should talk to his parents and did up some video of when he was a kid. That has to be funny. He's just a smart guy. Jones is like a walking encyclopedia and is just funny to watch as he takes it to the evil empire without flinching and making all kinds of funny facial and gestural expressions. Some of those females on Jones' video are sexy...the female that says "I say bullshit!", damn... there is nothing sexier than a brainy honest loud mouth babe. But ok, there are a few things that I think are no too smart. For one, the constant invoking of "the globalists". It seems clear that Jones in one of the "included" and so maybe he sees and knows more about what people do in their houses and heads than I, but for me I don't fear globalization...I can see a fear of 3 media companies controlling all the media, but the Internet is probably going to end that...and then total free info, which I openly and fully support. Beyond that, Jones has missed the idea of total democracy. He is big into "the constitution", and I think, the constitution needs to be updated and made more democratic...let's expand the bill of rights to include right to use drugs, etc. That's an old piece of paper 200 years in the past when they didn't have computers, the combustion engine...we've learned many things since then. We need a full and constant democracy, and I don't doubt some people advocated a similar thing even back then. We shouldn't be scrutinizing some piece of paper like it was a bible...we need to make a system of public constant voting on all issues...vote down unpopular laws, inact new popular ones...the representative won't. Then Jones is clearly Christian, and a godder, although perhaps one of the good godders. Jones doesn't really talk about sex-related things...like legalizing prostitution. I would say Jones, who claims to be conservative (I had mistakenly refered to him as liberal), is very careful to define a largely popular platform which includes christianity, godism, constitution, nationalism, isolationism, individual liberties, anti-drug war, anti-government authority or power, antiglobalism). The antiglobalism is, surprisingly to me, forms a solid theme in a number of videos, for example, Barry Zwicker (who also has some good 9/11 videos) or somebody else claims "globalists" are behind many evil schemes. It's ironic to see Alex Jones, be so vividly clear, and funny telling Gergin to "say hi to Moloch!"...that is funny, but less so when put in a christian-only context....in other words...christians might find it funny because the cult of Jesus is thought to be sane and a solid basis for living one's life....and that a sumerian religion can simply be reduced to satanism or devil-worshipping, as can judeism, islam, hindi, buddhism, etc...where I view all religion as idiocy. Then there is kind of an anti-science, anti-technology aspect to Jones. He was arrested in a DMV, as was I (it must be a popular place to be arrested...although he got to go to jail...they took me to a psychiatric hospital and injected me with droperidol against my verbal objection and kept me there for 3 days). But to protest a finger print scanner...I don't really see that as a big deal, and the constant ranting about cashless society...I mean...that seems to me to be inevitable. I am basically against secrecy, globalization and cashless society are not big fears to me. The talk about people having to get implanted microchips, I think is very very doubtful. It's the basic idea of right to body I keep trying to explain to people...I seriously doubt implanted chips is going to happen...besides with retina scan, DNA, facial recognition...there is no need for implanted chips. We are getting ready for walking robots, and I support technology, I am looking forward to everybody getting to see and hear thought. I would probably substitute "the globalists" in my videos with "the secret camera-thought net", and be viewed as just as wrong. I enjoy Alex Jones talk about the drug war...we definitely agree there. But then there is no objection about violence, although since Jones stands up so clearly against the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11...going above and beyond, perhaps any other reporter human, clearly it shows a dedication to exposing those who have done homicide and a clear opposition to their illegal violent activity. So the spilling all the truth about these various rituals, secret clubs (like skull and bones), the 9/11 details all speaks to Alex Jones' wisdom, but I see low points as being the constant blaming "globalists/new world order", the antitechnology/fear of technilogical progress. But as I said, many of these videos has a lot of good info, and are very entertaining. Who else would talk about the "Bund" (in fonetik: BUND), the US nazis? Now I have a new name to call those in the secret thought hearing net, or just the casual racist or thought policing psychologer. To his credit, Jones appears to be anti-racism too, that goes a long way towards wisdom in my opinion. Then being in Texas. Clearly a special person, very interesting. I am looking forward to more videos from Alex Jones. From Jones I learned about the FBI having 12 videos of the Oklahoma City bombing. That is an outrage, that the FBI will not let the public see those videos. In some ways, claiming to be a christian conservative in Texas (and clearly there is some amount of Dan Rather, a fellow Texan supporting by Jones) and criticizing Bush jr, has to be good for democrats and liberals, but then the truth in this century can only help liberals and intellectuals. You have to love that Jones went to "Bohemian Grove" with a video camera. I had never even heard of such a thing. Since Jones talks about every conspiracy in existence, except hearing thought and UFO (thankfully on that one), I think it's safe to presume that Jones is included and can hear thoughts. But it's not out of the question that Jones is excluded from the hearing thought network.
This has the Swartzenegger dad image, and the info about Rove having a grandfather that was a governor in Germany, and the Boon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&pl=true
Here's a good one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2673620906993528547&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&pl=true
Look at Jones talking into the camera on cspan, damn, the guy is good at talking.
Part 3 rocks too. This has the Gergen interview. All about the swastika. an interesting guy who did research on Prescott Bush:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900774479973635352&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&pl=true
ok somewhere the video that shows Penn and Teller selling out and lying about 9/11. That is always a terrible thing, to see people turn to the evil side, the lie, albeit nonviolent evil, I thought they were atheists, but it's clear they threw away any sense of spine, rolled over and begged like dogs for that evil 9/11 lie money. Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=Hufschmid+duration%3Along&pl=true around 10 minutes into it. Yeah, and Penn advocates violence against those who are trying to expose the 9/11 lie. Penn and Teller are like circus people in suits and ties who grease up their hair and basically follow money whereever it comes from, like street grifters...it's low brow and the fascist pro-violent aspect of them is frightening. Popular Mechanics is on board for the lie. It's one of the amazing things, like that person who quit the FBI because they were protecting the Bin Laden family and then was killed in the WTC collapse. Or the person at Underwriters laboratory that told the truth about the WTC collapse and was fired. I mean, multiply that by 100,000 and that is what is happening. Good honest people are being supressed and sent to the bottom, while the liars, and killers rise to the top. That SNL video on the media is really smart, they even mention the "voices in my head will go away". Look at that bastard Guilliani: I didn't know they removed all the WTC evidence in such a hurry before anybody could look at the way the metal was blown up with charges. What human pushed that button to bring down the WTC building 1 and 2? That was probably a homicide of hundreds of people. That guy should get 500 life sentences...50,000 years in jail.
I want to put together a tenative timeline on 9/11/01. But, you know, I am excluded so there will be a large amount of guessing.
I was thinking that, the night of 9/11/01 Bush jr, Cheney, and all those involved must have had a toast and celebration for their success. There must have been some amoount of doubt that they would not be able to pull off the 2 WTC plane collisions, and then some relief after they suceeded. How could they not celebrate (or at least feel relieved) after accomplishing their plan? The same is probably true for Nixon and everybody after the JFK killing.
I think it was awesome that Howard Dean claimed that Bush jr knew about 9/11, it shows the difference between Dean and people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who never made such a claim, but then they also voted to invade Iraq and all those first degree murders. Then the Republican people said it bordered on "hate speech", like that guy who was a haulocaust denier in Germany, can you imagine if people were jailed for telling the truth...even if outlandish and shocking....or even simply a wild inaccurate guess? It's shocking that people could be jailed for something they say, think or write.
03-30-2006
Jill Carroll was freed and that is good news. I wonder what happened behind the scenes. She seems like a friendly person and is pretty. She sounds like a gabby kind of person, probably most reporters are. Maybe she will pose nude for a large amount of money. She has turned the world on with her smile and vivacious chat.
This arab person was sentenced to 30 years for a plot to kill Bush jr, but as far as I can see the only piece of evidence was a video confession from a Saudi Arabian jail. The interesting thing with these video prison confessions is the question: why does the person now reject the confession? I mean if there was no coercion, why wouldn't they continue the same confession? Then that the 2 doctors on each side disagreed about whether the person was tortured...so clearly one doctor is lying, no matter who it is, that is immoral, and there is something wrong going on there. But then, as the judge said himself after dispensing a 30 years prison sentence, nobody was actually harmed by this guy, and then that he is a US citizen. I think there is an arab racism that is growing in the USA that see arab people as less than full citizens, to accept such a harsh sentence for a person that didn't hurt any body. Violence is the worst crime on earth, in my opinion, and that is why I spend so much time speaking out vocally against violence, and in favor of getting our act together in identifying people that have done violence. I even vote for some potential prison time for those that threaten violence (although under a year, and with clear video evidence). Again, I wonder what was going on behind the scenes. I vote against the laws that distinguish a crime against a government employee as being different from a crime against any person. But, I think also, there is a fear by many people that somebody screaming "kill the ump", might get 30 years in jail for a plot to kill a person employed as umpire in a sports game. I guess, the public and powers that be can easily be trusted to recognize a big difference. But always, with these plots to assassinate people, I enjoy mentioning the story about the JFK killing plotters and coveruppers...because holy shit...if that ever comes out...according to our laws, and precedence they are looking at a long time in jail if those old coots don't die first (but even so there are more fresh violent crimes they all have a hand in, and not just ordering the murder of innocent people in other nations as much of the public openly approves of).
I didn't comment on that seal hunt, and I think, if seals need to be killed, than people should do it humainly, by capturing with tranquilizer dart and beheading quickly, or whatever is the most painless death. Then the euthenizers or whatever can hand over the dead seal to those who want the meat.
LA to pay BIG family 1.1 million. The person that killed Notorius BIG is still free...it's like Jam Jay, and Bonnie Bakely...it's just scary for me, a person that fears violence...I mean I can't understand the public...they are so bizarre... Don't murders scare them? Why don't they make changes to focus on indentifying and capturing those killers. And no particular bravery is needed, just some simple street cameras the public can access too...whoever killed Notorius was in a car...or Notorius was in a car on a street...a camera would have solved all that and the Nicole/Goldman killings too...solved it in a few seconds. Besides those cameras are already there but being abused and the images hidden by an elite unilluminated idiot cult. But you know, what is the deal with the LA police...that is scary enough to make me fear living in LA county...I mean that is corruption, incompetence...look at the RFK killing, the many many beatings, the recent cold blooding shooting...my own experience, everything tells me=bad news. Then the claim was that the killer of Notorius BIG was connected through a crooked LAPD cop...well no wonder they all see and hear thoughts....they know it all....but gee...they won't arrest a fellow police person....or perhaps somebody connected to them. It's frightening and needs to be cleaned up, but only street cameras are going to even approach any kind of clean up.
I was surprised to here a California representative, a female, I can't remember the name of speaking yesterday on cspan, saying "whore" instead of "or", and some other people have too. I can't believe that view. It's pure antisexual. It's amazing to me, it's geared against women only, as if a female couldn't "score" .... why is sex only a female's fault? Then look at a female that is married and has sex once a week with the same person versus a female the has sex with a different person once a week...the vagina gets the same amount of use, and now that we can see and hear thoughts...there is no mystery as to who has STDs so most people can enjoy disease-free pregnancy-free sex. It's complex but I kind of currently see things 3 ways: those I want to be friends with, those I want to have sex with , and those I want to reproduce with...it's really 3 different catagories. Ted Turner, who I respect for making Cosmos and his views that are critical of religion said we don't need to hear about "perverts" and violence, but I take the view that we do need to...the more info the better...we are approaching a free info age, and in particular about violence, it's terrible to see, but we need to see to know who is doing the violence, and to know who is around us, what their histories are. Plus the debate of "pervert" is something that I can't really resolve. Clearly we are all sexual (or at least the vast majority), and expressing sexuality and interest in sex is normal and healthy. I accept that some people go too far in their sexual addiction...in touching without consent, sexual, or penile assault...but I think some people being called pervert, for example those that enjoy pornography...are actually healthy sexual people...nothing wrong with them. And if anything those who would call them perverts are sexually challenged. But back to the whore thing...you know...it's many times (and on this occassion) the collectively powerful married people, and they hate to see people not following their way of life, unable to tolerate people of other life styles, and hostile to those people. For me, I criticize marriage, but I don't often refer to the married as antisexual, trinket-worshippers, or in love "on paper", but in thought and principle, something very different...I am courteous to those people, ofcourse unless they insult me in some way, obviously, then I express my opinions from the opposite perspective, opinions they perhaps have never heard. But that kind of calling people "whore" is rude, crude, antisexual, intolerant, and I am surprised that those people maintain the level of popularity and success that they do. To me that kind of thing (saying whore) is like a homophobic, racial, or psychiatric slur, which ofcourse is protected by free speech, and nobody should be locked in a room, jail, hospital, etc for saying such things...and in particular in a explanatory or historical sense, but those who use such language as a put-down, as was this example, should not be promoted or rewarded. It's tough to know, if sound comes out of anybody's mouth, was beamed into my ears, their muscles were made to move involuntarily with lasers, ... only long term statements and works can really be used to judge people accurately I think.
Clinton supports mandatory AIDS testing in Africa
I don't vote for mandatory testing for AIDS, but I do support just about everything else...people using samples from trash, using free information, volutary testing, low cost quick tests for people that may have sex...like a fast pre-condom test for HIV, Herpes, Syphillis, Ghonorrhia for just $.10/each. But you know I thought more about this and I can see a volutary testing service that provides the public infomation about people...for example, it might be nice for people to go through the process and be tested, and if found to not have HIV to be listed as such, with the time of the test...and if there was HIV they can chose not to be listed. Again, though, I think the most effective, and more ethical answer to HIV is total free info. Then, nobody could be prosecuted for sharing whatever info they have, accurate or no, to the public. And my guess is that much of this info, is already being accumulated, and is very accurate. Because people can trace for example...ok this person has herpes...they had sex with this person...while no videos confirm that the sexual partner has the herp, and we have no data from actual tests...still it can be concluded that the probability of herpes is very high in this person (now if only all people could share in that info and understood the importance of free information).
read and write permissions...to the human's mind
In a computer, computer files and folders have read and write permissions. Some files can only be read, they can't be written to, and I think the same thing must already apply to the minds of people.
When somebody beams negative images or sounds onto our brains, we should vote to make them get read-only permission to people's minds (or even just our own mind specifically...but still...who would want a nasty person like that with write permission to anybody's mind?). The security of a person's mind is even more important than the security of a computer file. When a person writes or deletes somebody else's files on a computer, that is a serious security failure and the person needs to be stopped, indentified, caught and restitution made. Mainly they need to be stopped...the unwanted process deleting files needs to be stopped and blocked, so I think this needs to be done for those people that are abusing their priviledge of sending images and sounds directly to people's brains. And I encourage people to vote in thought to give those people "read-only" permission to people's minds. Collectively, and democratically we can improve the system and punish the terribly evil people abusing the technology from the early 1910s.
The 9/11 thing, I think may come apart some time...I think there are not many options for the public, but one is certainly electing democrats and libertarians. In a true democracy we could vote people in and out at any time, vote up an investigation, an impeachment, many options would be open to us. The second edition of "Loose Change" is on video.google.com http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=9%2F11+avery&pl=true
so check that out if you have some time. There is more good info about those two planes that completely disappeared...like that the coronor in Pennsylvania did not perform one autopsy and not one drop of blood was recovered. I was thinking more about the collapse of the 2 towers...first building 7, some people are still reporting as collapsed...clearly Silverstein made it clear that they pulled building 7...there should be no confusion about that. But for the 2 towers, definitely that no sky scraper has ever collapsed from a plane hitting it, the Empire State building didn't, and the two trade towers didn't collapse immediately after the plane crashes...which means that there was still some structural stability there. Then, you know...perhaps the plane took out some steel girders out of the frame, but the building collapsed straight down...as if all the girders where cut...wouldn't we have seen the weakened girders collapse, and the building pull to the side of the crash? Because the girders on the far side must have been in tact. I could go on for hours, but clearly the major problem with the official 9/11 story is the photo of the Pentagon hole which is far too small to fit a 757 in...and how can anybody explain that? I hope the public is smart and recognizes that there is something wrong with the official 9/11 story, and I think that the 9/11 event is perhaps on a parallel with the Nazi Reishtag fire...as a planned catastrophe to set the stage for war.
With the Apple versus Apple thing, let's call the whole patent, copyright, trademark and privacy thing off.
How about the latest stem cell findings, thanks and support are in order for Hasenfuss, Shinohara and PrimeGen (unfortunately they are all competing for a patent, perhaps the camera net can shed some light on who was first, but really...we have to give up the idea of intellectual property restrictions. You know I realized that I care more about the physical property I own than the intellectual/informational property I own. My feeling are: I like when people buy their own food, for example, use their own car, but when it comes to videos and songs...I don't care...it seems so trivial to me...). But in any event, the good thing is the tenative result that sperm producing cells in mouse testes can form a variety of other cells, much the way stem cells from an embyro can. I guess these cells are gamonts or gametophytes (produce gametes). It opens the door too, to people being able to use their own sperm producing cells which has their own DNA to regrow damaged spines, and limbs, potentially. It is interesting to me to think about how really the starting point for humans (and all mammals) are the two haploid gamete cells, the ovum and sperm...those two cells are an essential part of the chain of life for us, and the path of cells that go from zygote to gametes is, in my novice opinion, the most ancient evolutionary path, because that is the only path that is needed to continue life, our somatic cells are like an extra baggage that die off with us...obviously it's through those ovum and sperm cells that our lives (in part) have continued on for the billions of years up to now. So this is an exciting development and I am really looking forward to seeing what happens. Let's hope this is not like that bastard in South Korea with his faked results...oh that gets me...oh well...that's free info, but I hate lying...don't we all?
You know with this group in power, I think of that Phil Collins song, but with my own specialized lyrics:
They say it was Oswald when we know it was the Sturge,
Telling us it was Sirhan when we know that it's the Ceaz
Living with them's justa putting us thru it all the time
Saying it was a plane when we know it was a missile
Saying their are WMD's but not one atom is fissile
la la la...etc. you get the idea
why does it always seem to be?
Them looking at us, but them we can't see
Still that song doesn't really compare to my latest: "They makes a lots a money from the copyright"
I want to commend Hugo Chavez on the support for open source software, that is really visionary. It's true that people are spending millions on licenses that could go to stopping starvation, for example. Linux is a fine alternative to Windows, I use Linux almost exclusively, except that the digital video capture is not as good as windows, and I have to change over to Linux video editing software...I really think with open office, that Linux is basically here as a complete substitute, and free too, to Windows.
03-27-2006
The earth passed the spring or "vernal" equinox last Monday, and humans don't really celebrate this geometrical regularity, but to me it's nice. Winter is fine, but I like long lit days, warm temperatures, and not much rain. I like it all, but it's nice that Spring is here. Spring is a time when many species look for sex, where many people plant seeds. There was a ensemble of birds singing, to such an extent that I stopped to take notice. It was then that I noticed one very loquacious bird...it was really a phenomenon, the bird was churning out wonderful sound and wonderful sound, a very diverse set of sounds, and I had my video camera (it's all there is so far of my future walking robot) and got this song loving bird on film. I searched on the web and this bird is a mockingbird, which I had never seen before...I've never seen a mocking bird, but then I have only recently opened my eyes to see and learn about the many many species around me. I didn't even realize there is a difference between a bird call and a bird song. A bird call is a short sound used to alert a group of danger, to keep in contact with a group (the so-called "flock", which is amazing to me that birds of the same species live and fly together, it must be genetic, but no doubt learned too), or to warn some species. But songs are longer and are used to attract mates, and I am not sure what else, but one thing I read had that most birds sing mainly in the spring to try and attract a mate for nest building (I kind of wonder how many mates birds have, and if they keep the same partner, and for how many years). It's interesting. The sound making skills of the mockingbird are phenomenal, and I have to say in my experience the best of any bird species. Humans, I think do not realize how much like humans the other species are, seeing and hearing their thoughts would help people to understand that better. Another example is how a mockingbird learns more sounds and songs as it ages and gains experience. The Mockingbird is really an amazing bird, very interesting, I just hope I'm not arrested for filming it...because you know, this is a prison planet. ok g'day.
Speaking of the 9/11 lie there is a book: "The Big Lie", which made the author, Thierry Meyssan, "persona non grata" according to the US State Department...amazing...an author of a book is not allowed to visit the USA, because of what they wrote, that's disgusting. But according to wikipedia, the author writes that Osama Bin Laden is still working for the CIA, which I had never heard before, but that would explain why he was never caught. But it fits with the story, they need to have a scape goat, but who? Ofcourse I am in the excluded, the included know every little detail by now. But, if the person is going to tell the truth about the Pentagon missile, why not tell the truth about everything...those in the included know all of it...so why lie about any of it? Like the great French author Andre Maurois who wrote "The Thought-Hearing Machine", which Harper published, ... you can see that the goal is to inform and enlighted the public with secrets...so most of the info hints to the actual truth. Mainly, to me, clearly there is no way, as I have said before, that a plane hit the Pentagon...when you see the tiny 2 story hole...there is no way....it was most likely a missile or reichstag explosive device of some kind.
A head's up for the record on "snopes.com", the cite which claims to debunk "urban legends" check out the lying going on at:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
They actually defend that Pentagon plane story, excuse me, but that is obviously openly bare assed evil, albeit nonviolent evil.
03-27-2006
There are many comments I have:
The NY Times reported today that it is in fact true that Bush jr suggested painting a plane with UN colors and flying over Iraq in hopes of starting a war. To me, this shows again the dishonesty and dishonest nature of Bush jr, the scheming and routine interest in lying to the public. The first thing that enters the mind of most people is...this is just like the claims made about the 9/11/01 mass murder: that a number of witnesses said the second tower plane had no windows and was a blue-gray plane. I think this statement adds weight to the theory that the two twin tower planes were US military planes ... if Bush jr could influence the US military (or perhaps the other way around) to paint a plane in UN colors...that kind of tactic may be something that is routinely used. Perhaps the twin tower planes were painted like commercial air planes. Clearly, a missile hit the Pentagon and so, to me, that is clear evidence that something is wrong with the official 9/11/01 story. So here Bush jr is clearly suggesting lying, and dishonest activity...but will there be an impeachment like there was for Clinton? no, because the conservatives can get away with murder, even mass murder without the tiniest punishment by the public. I was thinking that history will probably reveal that Bush jr, in terms of number of humans murdered, compared to his father, a planner in the JFK killing, is like the difference between a single-shot rifle and an automatic weapon. Bush jr has killed far more people than his dad ever did by now. I guess Bush jr is the more modern updated version of mass murderer, and Bush senior is the old pee-shooter model of mass murder. Bush jr has far surpassed his father just strictly in number of innocent people murdered, in particular with 9/11, but that doesn't even include those killed in the Afghan and Iraq invasions.
background microwave photons
There was a news story about how the background microwave photons have differences in strength in various directions and how that proves that the universe had an non-uniform shape after the big bang, but what I think this shows is that there are probably more galaxies in the direction where more background microwave photons are received. Again, I doubt the big bang, and I think there are many galaxies too distant in the infinite universe for even one photon to reach us. But there are some that are close enough for a few photons to be going in our direction and reach us, but not enough for us to see the galaxy.
Alex Jones has some interesting stuff on his web page, much of it is informative and honest. I saw a good free video...and Jones is perhaps the most active video maker of the liberals which is really an enormous achievement. I saw a video of him talking in his kind of interesting voice about the drug war and I think that many of the conclusions are interesting. Jones kinds of reminds me of John Judge, because they both talk about the "bipartisan farse", or the idea that the two candidates are both on the same side and chosen not by the people but by some elite group. I don't know about that theory...I would not be surprised if voting in the USA was rigged...I mean...here an elite group of millions sees and hears thoughts...and has since 1910...was the hell else could be going on? If the included want to change the vote of the excluded, no excluded can stop them. Can you imagine if a presidential candidate is in the excluded, and gets a majority vote from the excluded public....but then those in the included can easily change everything because of the power of hearing thought, or seeing inside people's houses, of controlling the major media. The secret of 1910 seeing thought has proven clearly to me, that the major media, and I mean all of it, can be part of a major lie for a century if not longer. But my feeling is that, that theory and similar kind of abstract big picture talk is very interesting, but I kind of doubt some of the stuff there...for example...even in monarchy, communism, anarchy, any kind of government system there is always a large amount of democracy...because even in a monarchy, there are pressures from the public. monarchy, representative democracy, communism, all are forms of very limited democracy...the popular opinion is rejected by an elite minority to a large extent, but not completely. Alex Jones is similar to Michael Moore and myself, and many others that are basically liberals...trying to reveal the truth about 9/11, and other injustice. I thought the one comment by Jones on the Oprah author guy...(paraphrasing) "this two-bit pulp fiction author dominates the news for 2 weeks...?" I had to laugh...that is so true and funny. Our media and the public that follows that paid for stories like that one are so stupid...I mean to think that a person lying in a paperback book is a major story. So, I am supportive of Alex Jones, and am glad he is out there speaking out on video, and no doubt his videos must be very interesting an informative, if I had more money I would enjoy seeing some of them, I may do the old: buy it, watch it then sell it. But I am very busy too. I like my approach a little better, I basically try to hammer home the basics about violence (not many other liberals identify violence as the most serious problem...perhaps it is presumed, but I like to keep it right out in the front), about freeing the nonviolent (clearly Jones at prisonplanet.com has made this a major focus of his, but how many others have?), about free information (here there is a large amount of disagreement among liberals...it's the classic debate about Orwell versus free info...I am for cameras on the streets...but the important aspect that I think needs to happen is that the public gets to see. The Orwell cameras already exist, the major problem I see is connecting the public into it. Many and perhaps most liberals, perhaps being excluded and unaware of all the cameras and that thought can be heard, etc...still believe in the myth of privacy, which like copyright breaks down in a society of total free information...as does secrecy fortunately. I think I am the only human to put forward the concept of a total free info society and what that might be like, and it's shocking to be alone in this because so many people that hear thought have been familiar with that kind of feeling for many years. I see nothing wrong with a total free info society and that is the inevitable reality of our future. But it is difficult, for example...I many times vote against the government getting more access to info, because the sides need to be even...I do fear the people in the government having access to more info than the public. And the perfect example is the Freedom of Infomation "Act" which is infact the "Freedom of Information LAW", always requires people to go to court to get info from the people in the US government. Why is that? This recent 911 phone calls is a perfect example, once again the NY Times had to go to court to enforce the free info law...at some point, can't the people be sued for continuous failure to comply with the free info law? ), then ofcourse I speak out against the drug war as simply as I can...where many people are lost on that issue of "are drugs good or bad...", I think we can presume many drugs may be bad, like alcohol just for the sake of the argument, to get to the more important idea of..."do we lock people in jail that use drugs?", which to me is the major problem, and my main complaint. Clearly we should not be locking people in jail that use drugs because it is their own body, their own choice to make, like overeating, like alcohol or tobacco addiction, it's unhealthy, but it's their choice, as long as nobody else is hurt. For example, violence...now there is something that people need to be locked in a jail for, to be removed from society as a danger for some time, because violence is a crime against other people obviously. So Alex Jones agrees with that view, but many mainstream liberals don't see it yet.), then I am for legal prostitution which not many liberals are vocal supporters of yet (nobody wants to admit they are sexual, and supporting sexuality is viewed as "sleazy" by the puritan majority...unless it's support for bisexual freedoms, or has to do with privacy rights). Beyond that, I am a vocal supporter for science and evolution, which many liberals appear to be asleep on. It is interesting that Alex Jones has one main issue of "globalization", Jones has a great fear of globalization, where I don't fear globalization as much. I have the view that we are going to other planets, building moon cities...I try to get people to think beyond just this tiny planet. The issue in 1000 years may be "Star Systemization" as the various star colonies work together to consolate industries. I can see though, the contemporary fear of 3 media companies spoon feeding lies to the billions of uninformed public. It's scary to me, for example, that millions of people follow the stories of prime time television...and to know that those people all watch the millions of people in their houses...and how interesting all of our stories must be. Then ofcourse I am for exposing the hearing and seeing thought, Pupin, Columbia, 1910,1913,1914, sending images to brains. I think clearly Jones must be included, like Michael Moore, and many many others...so once they are included...they can't talk about hearing thought, they can only hint, but because I have not been included I can talk openly about hearing thought, about Pupin, about the massive lies, how it is done, and so that is one other difference between me and many other liberals. One point about many democrats that is different from me is that I am for truth, and I can't get on the bandwagon if the cause is bogus or trivial...for example, like the Chaney shooting...as far as I can see, it's just an accident, it maybe shows he's an older person that is losing dexterity, but I don't think there is anything else there...just that hunting is a bad thing...maybe should be banned totally...there just isn't any thing else to say or to harp on. And that is true to some degree for the leaks...the democrats have gone through hurdles to try and punish those who leaked...to me I support leaking...I don't view that as a major deal anyway. But there is a feeling that all democrats must hop on board the latest gripe, and many of these gripes are completely misdirected...I mean here this guy directs or allows the mass murder of 3000 humans on 9/11, orders the murder of thousands in Afghan and Iraq...and the only complaint they can come up with is that somebody was a leaker?! Many people argue...well...I know it's trivial, but it can be used to bring down the person for the crimes we can't talk about...but I vote for talking about those crimes obviously...but that view has not won as of yet.
To me, I can't believe the antisexuality of the society I was born into...I wish these issues had been solved long before I was born, that religions had been abandoned long before I was born, that people were comfortable with our genitals, long before I was born, but unfortunately, it's our lot in life to argue for the most basic of basics against massive disapproval. For example, look at the biology and physical reality of sexuality. Humans are in their prime from, say, 20-30, in that short 10 years they are going to look their most sexy, they are going to easily be able to be erect (for males)...but do we celebrate that period of life? No! The public condemns sex in every form. To me, we all secretly love to see 20-30 year old people, their beautiful bodies, them enjoying their bodies, having sex, etc. Not many of us want to see 40 year old, 50 year old, etc...people having sex or nude (although halleluja, let's make it legal). But, my life from 20-30 was a life of total involuntary celibacy, I couldn't even pay for a modest genital lick. And now it's basically gone (I can still get hard, but no where near as long and for as much time as when I was age 12-30, unless I take viagara), and what does it matter...it's not like sex is legal or promoted. It's still the monk-like puritan society of when I was 20-30. It's just a terrible reality of this terrrible society.
With the illegal immigration...that harboring an illegal immigrant could be a felony is fucking shocking. I want to see the names of the people who are supporting that idea. That is part of the problem. No nonviolent crime should be a felony, I think that is obvious. What person would think that harboring an illegal immigrant 3 times should result in life imprisonment? as is required by the 3 strikes law. I mean that is stupid, and brutal. When are people going to be able to prioritize?
That is a scary story about Gary Webb, it looks like he was just murdered and the killer never jailed.
03-23-2006
The eukaryote nucleus probably was a prokaryote in my opinion because the nucleus divides by binary division. In addition to that, in parabasalia and dinoflagellates, thought to be ancient nuclei, the chromosome attaches to the nuclear membrane exactly the way the prokaryote chromosome does. This allows new cytoplasm growth to separate the DNA into two sides of the nucleus (or cell in the case of prokaryotes). The interesting result of this is that for many years there may have been an organelle-nucleus that tagged along inside with a prokaryote, duplicating and then when the prokaryote divided, the organelle-nuclei might end up only in one cell, the other cell only getting the cytoplasmic DNA. So one cell might have 2 or more organelle-nuclei, and the other would have none. It's interesting to think that probably, the nuclei of every cell in our body were once bacteria (many think it was an archaea [archaebacteria]), and probably the same is true for the surrounding cytoplasm which was probably a host prokaryote. Because the nucleolus divides by itself, perhaps it too was a prokaryote. There are some good experiments that relate to this nucleus as prokaryote theory: (in particular I would probably focus on the proteobacteria, being the phylum with pili and thought to be the first eukaryote host cell...no doubt there are others)
EX: inject one prokaryote into a second and find a combination that will allow the engulfed prokaryote not only to survive but to duplicate. Is it true about the organelle-nuclei being found in some later generation cells, and not in others? Ofcourse it has to be true.
EX: Can an entire prokaryote be englufed through a pilus?
EX: Is there any evidence of full prokaryote fusion? I find it hard to believe that not one example of full prokaryote (even just cytoplasmic) fusion has ever been found. I think sex possibly evolved in prokaryotes, that sexual prokaryotes may even still exist, and that the first eukaryote may have inherited the ability of cellular fusion, because some metamonads are already doing sexual fusion and they are the most basal eukaryotes alive.
A couple other interesting ideas is that budding may have evolved in eukaryotes because in budding an entire copy of the cell can be made (which would include making the nucleus), as opposed to binary division where only more cytoplasm is made and some cell organelles might not be synthesized. Possibly there are even eukaryotic nuclei that reproduce not by binary fission, as most do, but by budding! Isn't that interesting? By budding, perhaps a flagella can be retained that might otherwise have been lost...who knows...I don't study protists for my career, but I want to add my thoughts. I kind of doubt there are any protists that have nuclei that reproduce by budding, but I think that could have been possible, and perhaps just that budding was not the corridor chosen by the the first nucleus. One final kind of very far out theory is that perhaps planctomycetes, as far as I know, the only budding prokaryote species, may be descended from that first dual-DNA (a cytoplasmic DNA + organelle-nucleus DNA) eukaryote, but lost the organelle-DNA, we shouldn't rule it out, but it is probably unlikely. It would explain the phenomenon of budding being in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes...I mean did it evolve twice? If yes, that is really amazing, but if no...then how could eukaryotes that have nuclei that divide by binary fission later evolve budding? The last piece of info I found about this was that in some eukaryote budding species (and perhaps all) there are spindles of mitosis which to me indicates that budding evolved after binary division had evolved to mitosis with spindles and cytoskeleton, which is theorized to evolve from the flagellum of the prokaryote that was the first eukaryote nucleus.
An interesting, somewhat far out idea on the origin of genders, but what the hey, I am more interested in brain storming and let the best ideas rise up: When a cell divides by binary division, for example, if there is a flagella on the prokaryote cell...unless a new flagellum is synthesized (which may very well be the case for many species), only one half of the cell is going to get the flagellum. The other half will just be a circle without a flagellum...and so in some way after a cell division of a flagellated organism, in theory, one cell would have a flagellum and the other would not (again I am showing that I am a novice, but it still may have meaning for the experts). And perhaps this two sided nature of cell division is what resulted in two different genders. One side of the cell could be filled with certain proteins which turn on/off various operons resulting in a different structure than the other half after separation. In any event it is interesting the nature of the divide and merge...in some way it's like two halves being separated and then the two halves being rejoined again, only to repeat the cycle potentially forever.
I figured out an update on the sentencing scheme. First I think that sentencing scheme is good the more I think about it: the SENT*2^N (SENT=1/2 day for assault, 1 assault=1 day, 2 assaults=2 days, 3 assaults=4 days, 4 assaults=8 days, etc.), and perhaps more accurately SUM(SENT*2^N), so all the variety of crimes a person may have can be added up and totaled. If a person had four thefts with a SENT=1 hour, and this was a second first degree assault with SENT=1 day, then the sentence advised would be 1 hour*2^4=16 hours + 1*2^2=4 days for a total of 4 days and 16 hours. The majority of the time (4 days) coming from the more serious violent crime, but the prior thefts added nearly an extra day, just under a fourth of the sentence for the violent crimes.
EX: run a simulation with various random factors (people tend to be more violent, or less violent, with various weightings...harsher penalty for violent crime than nonviolent, etc...) for a population of 10 humans (then 100, 1000, 10000 etc.) and try various methods...what are the results? which results in the fairest system? It's in the interest of logic in enforcing the (let's always hope fully democratic) laws, and effectively convincing people to obey them. It's interesting, and it satisfies my interest in there being a logical system (if only advisory) of punishment for those, in particular violent humans. But also logical and fairness in punishing those nonviolent people with an eye on teaching them, informing them, winning them over to the law abiding side, not through an excessively harsh system of punishment but through a logical system of fair and best method punishment.
Again, I see this applying to violent crime, and property theft...not drugs or prositution. So, ok the problem with a person who has a homicide gets out after 40 years and then has an assault...they should not get 40 years and a day. For that, I think the answer is to lower the SENT for past offenses for some crimes, such as homicide. So a SENTR, RSENT, or REPEATSENT. Then REPEATSENT for homicide can be = 1 year, so a person who was convicted of a homicide, spent 40 years in jail, was released, and then had a first degree assault, would get 1 year and 1 day...clearly more than a first time assaulter, because of the larger risk (or seriousness or severity) of the previous violent crime.
I am putting together 4 more public access shows and these are going to be awesome. The one that is funniest is probably the part 2 of "JFK II" which describes in nice detail how Bush Senior is linked to the killing of JFK. Each time I see this thing I pick up more info, for example, Hankey implies that Oswald was in Mexico to try and get a passport because he knew he was going to try to kill JFK and that would provide an escape route, which I hadn't thought of...but then I don't often think like a killer so I don't think of that shit. Then part 2 of "9/11 In Plane Site". I accept that there are some far out theories about, for example, JFK and no doubt, 9/11 too, but what Dave vonKleist does here seems to me to be very conservative and factual...it really seems just like the tip of the iceburg of a very sinister truth about 9/11. You know I just saw a video on CNN where Charlie Sheen questions the official 9/11 story and that is amazingly brave, I can't think of any other famous people who would do something that couragous. Usually I have nothing but scorn and contempt for celebrities, but this time I have to remain silent for a few seconds before going back to my usual scorn and contempt. But I noticed that latimes.com doesn't show the story, and they have a big Mickey Mouse image...there are times when even the NYTimes.com goes ...I don't know..corrupted...or bogus...but then sure enough they snap back with some insightful smart material within days or weeks only to return to schlock days later. It cycles, probably with public opinion, or with monetary (mostly from corporations, religious and political organizations) counters to public opinion, probably more accurately. To me, the Pentagon missile hole is the single best piece of evidence that the official story is a high-level lie. Sheen was saying "just show it"...and I have to wonder when some of this video is going to reach the national audience. I'm not sure major media companies are going to feel comfortable showing much under Bush jr, but then, many times, their back may be against a wall, and they use the threat of showing these videos as leverage against and keep Bush jr and the violent spawn that terrorize the earth in check. Eventually, all these videos will reach the public. Many times, the video doesn't even reveal any major secrets...like the hearing of thought, or the sending of images and sounds to brains...although ofcourse that stuff will reach the public...it's been 100 years and it is inevitable that it will be shown. Many things are busting out to the public...for me it's like waiting around for the party and only a few people like Hankey and vonKleist are there waiting for everybody else to arrive, for what proves to be a very nice public party of truth being finally known. It is interesting to estimate how all the info about hearing and sending thought is going to reach to the public, I'm pessimistic, I think it is probably going to take a long time [maybe as many as 50 years], but as I said it's inevitable, and certainly anything can happen.
In doing these FYRN, and showing JFKII, 911IPS, do you think people come up and say "how wonderful what you are doing...", or "thanks for telling the truth about that evil crap"...very rarely, although perhaps many people feel that, sadly, and perhaps as a result of head beaming, many people show nothing but contempt and scorn for what people like me do, as I said viewing us as insane, troublemakers, arrogant, village idiots, etc. instead of the honest, brave, hard working, normal, helpful people we are.
You know I have to pay about $6000 each year in federal taxes and about $1600 in state taxes each year (and that is low probably for most people). I was thinking, I spent about $100/week for: all my food, all other supplies (soap, shampoo, tp, toothpaste, floss), utilities (gas+electric), gas for my car, car insurance, clothes. That is a rough estimate, perhaps I spend more, maybe $165/week, about $23/day. That $7,600 in taxes would pay for 330 days (at $23/day) of all my food, supplies, utilities, car insurance, soap, detergent, water, clothing... basically 11 months of all my major expenses. Or that $7,600 could go into 15 $500 laptop or desktop computers, my house would have 3 computers in every room and 2 in my car. I just know, that most of our tax money is going into waste, bloated unnecessary crap, and then ... the most shockingly disgusting of all...into the Afghan and Iraq occupations, the drug war, the spraying and large scale burning of marijuana, poppy and coca fields...the jailing of those people caught using drugs, which may be 10 or 20 years of feeding and clothing them...people that are no harm to society at all, and the same is true for people jailed and parolled for prostitution. First I would end the drug war and allow those in jail to go back to their lives, next prostitution (or maybe that first), but from there...I would focus on bringing down the size of the US military...there is very little chance of the US being attacked any time soon, we should refocus that money on leveraging our presence on the moon, mars and in earth and star orbit, from there I would consolodate and legalize the psychiatric system, making those people have finite sentences, trials, moving those convicted of violence into prison, those who have not violated any law, and have lived nonviolent lives back to freedom, removing involutary treatment and compensating by making nonviolent prisons more livable (as a note I read about the Oregon system where people can buy video game systems with good behavior etc and I think those are smart ideas that have not really been explored...in particular for nonviolent people with nonviolent crimes)...I would drop any "counciling" programs, but I would support "anti-starvation" programs perhaps food stamps, perhaps public individual secure attended and supplied showers, maybe public rooms, basic health care (perhaps as insurance like car insurance, but only covering the basics [perhaps basic examination, dental checkups and cavities only, broken bones...no psychiatric crap], and perhaps only for those <$100,000, and not mandatory...or in any event totally government paid), ofcourse the basic maintenance of the highways and streets, including public cameras, to maintain the public voting computers (I want to improve the democratic aspect of the US government, by allowing the public opinion to be measured and publically available on all laws and court decisions, and ultimately for that majority vote to have the final say/veto on all executive, legislative and judicial decisions), for government data storage. I would definitely remove any funding of religion. I would use perhaps a few million to make a history of the universe, evolution, science, the future free for the public. I think many commissions can be ended, one clear example is the FCC, if the public votes for total free info (ending copyright), since total free information doesn't need any administration. I would consoldate/integrate ATF and CIA into FBI, and possibly change the FBI title to USA Police. I would support the FBI having authority to prosecute for homicide and assault, and arrest Thane Cesar among other people that have done first degree homicide (and not for civil rights violations). I want to move alot of that extra money from ending the drug war into identifying and stopping violence and property theft. But even so, I think by lowering our military spending to the next closest nation (a savings of billions of dollars), we could then lower taxes...and consoldate taxes into one income tax, remove sales and other taxes...lower taxes, perhaps by as much as one half. We are never going to get that kind of logic and fairness by constantly electing very religious people...we need smart science people to implement this kind of logic and fairness.
This sfgate article is very interesting: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL. After seeing the "JFK II" DVD, I was looking for information about Henry Ford supporting Naziism ...and what a disappointment. It appears that Henry Ford had antijewish opinions see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/henry_ford. I don't think we can blame a corporation of people for the bad opinions of the founder, but it still is worrisome. It appears clear that Henry Ford was antijewish, and that the Rockefellers directly contributed to US and Nazi eugenic programs of killing humans, Andrew Carnegie ... this article describes as funding a group that had millions of index cards on all the people [now this is done digitally on computers...but most of the public doesn't get access] trying to figure out what family lines should be exterminated...that is shocking coming from a person who had nothing upon immigration to the US. The entire article makes me want to reach for the vomit bag, but is very interesting and informative. Then Averil Herriman, clearly was a supporter of the Nazis as was Prescott Bush...it is shocking how people that were so close to the Nazis could wield such power in the US, and how the US, this article claims, and there is a good argument to be made, may have even started or certainly contributed to the momentum of eugenics that motivated the Haulocaust and shocking disregard for human life in the 1940s Nazi Germany. How could a clearly smart person like Henry Ford (who also strongly advocated world peace) be caught with such a terrible racist view? The answer I give is simple and plain: Christianity. Or basically religion. How else could such wealthy successful people subscribe to such an immoral brutal and idiotic philosophy? It's the inherent racism (in particular anti jewish racism) that was born with Christianity, and has remained with Christianity ever since. It's the bias that there can only be 1 religion, and the competing religions must be stopped, but also the nature of how without any real thought many Christian people blame Jewish people for the execution of Jesus, ... I have to ask..but not the Roman people that actually supposedly killed Jesus (and millions of other people)? Then how can you blame a race of people for the actions of one or a few members of that race? That is ridiculously stupid and unfair. There was a similar issue raised recently when a person was released and then did another violent crime, and my statement it: we have to stay with the principle of innocent until a violent crime has been committed. I don't think it's fair to punish the 5 of 10 people that have finished prison time for assault and have learned not to assault again, because of the other 5 that didn't learn, and assaulted again. I was thinking that even now there is some form of eugenics happening because people that speak out against religion, the drug war, about Fiorini, Thane Cesar, hearing thought, Pupin, etc...all risk being locked in psychiatric hospitals, but also rick ostrification...and that lowers the possibility of them reproducing. Also, they risk their career, and most of those honest people live in the bottom income level...they are viewed as arrogant nuisances....village idiots...instead of brave honest truth tellers, and being poor lowers a persons chance of reproducing. Wealthy people can easily win friends, poor people have less to offer to attract a mate. Finally, those who reject marriage are selected out by the system of marriage, and the same is true for those who reject religion.
03-20-2006
A guy was senteced for 20 years for taking bribes in government, the defense attorney argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment, and it is. I have to stand in awe of the person that is judge in so many of these cases. The public woul dnever give out such sentences, friends of this guy got 10 years...did they lie and take bribes...even if yes, just pay back the money, and work towards a system where people would find out much much earlier, and that system, lo and behold...is total free info without fines or arrests for owning any image or data. In other shocking US court system news, the 20-something year old female in Florida that had sex with a 12 year old male didn't get charged again, in a different county...I mean...can't there be one state trial for all charges? That's ridiculous, I guess I can understand it...but in any event. Looking again at the female, this female is beautiful, she looks like a barbie doll...you know, if only I could have had hands on sexual instruction with her when I was 12, that would have been a dream come true for me...I wouldn't need one millisecond of counciling...this is ridiculous...let people consensually kiss, suck and fuck...it's puritanical and parents and the people in the government are overextending their right to control their children's decisions and lives. At some point, and I think very early, in fact, from birth, a human should have certain and no doubt all human rights given to all humans. The nature of their inability to, for example, live on their own, to eat by themself obviously make them dependent on other humans, but that should not remove their inherent rights which all humans are given at birth, and those include the right to not be assaulted, to have consensual touching and sex, to own property, to vote, to be consensually employed. The argument against them having these rights, is that they cannot make decisions for themselves, or that they cannot make good enough decisions for themselves, but I argue that they can make decisions for themselves, they know what they like or don't like from a very early age. I have already explained this many times, so I am not going to go on, but these court decisions are distressing because it's so unfair and brutal to lock these nonviolent people in jail for 20 years, or...hopefully appeals will change the sentences, but it is so clear and obvious to me that what is really needed is a full democracy, a fully democratic system for our courts, where the public votes on all issues that they care about. It's coming with the billions of low cost cameras and high speed networks that are evolving, but not soon enough for me. How can an average person not be outraged when a person chanrged with a nonviolent crime gets 20 years in jail, but a murderer or assaulter only gets a few months in jail? Doesn't their anger ever translate into something good happening? Will they forever just allow other people to violate popular opinion and basic logic?
electronic money. You know there are many advantages to dropping paper money all together. First is conterfitting is removed, but perhaps even more importantly, all money can then be accounted for in circulation...our taxes can be automatically done, there is no way to hide money (or less ways). I think all electronic money will happen some time in the future, it's inevitable.
You know we need to change the system in the USA, because it's not fair that a tiny minority would have so much power. For example, the public is clearly for ending the Iraq occupation and bringing home the people employed in the US military, but a small minority represented by Bush jr, are imposing their minority decision onto 300 million people. Maybe some time that would work to our advantage, say for example, if there was a really smart US president that says, "look I know that legalizing marijuana is not popular, but I am going to do it anyway because I have a vision for the future...you will thank me later.", etc...and stops violence, pumps out the science and evolution message, integrates the psychiatric system into a legal system (and consensual), ends the war on drug use and prostitution, adds a method of letting people vote on the laws even if it doesn't count, etc...even if not the popular choice, we a tiny intellectual and futuristic group would clearly benefit, and ofcourse society would benefit too, but is that fair? You know, much as I would like to see a liberal leader exert monarchical, or elite minority change on a nation with a backward majority, I still recognize that it isn't fair, the best system is majority rule. But then looking back in history the only time there ever was an extreme liberal miniority leadership may have been under the creators of the USA, if even then. Perhaps FDR came close, but FDR was conservative enough to be part of the majority as JFK was just barely at 51% upon being elected. So again, this Bush jr, monarchical elite decision to continue to fund the unpopular Iraq multitrillion dollar and violent lawless project is just one more example of why we need to democratize our system of government more. The people to blame for the mess we are in now, are those who voted for Bush jr, and in particular those who voted to re-elect Bush jr. Now all the sudden they change their mind and want to pull out of Iraq? I mean, why don't they get a value system and stick to it? I can't believe the guy does 9/11, invades 2 nations, and people re-elect him, I mean it's beyond belief. That kind of stupidity is beyond shocking. It's almost as if people cannot remember beyond 8 years...look how terrible Reagan was, he helped to have John Lennon killed, he bloated the deficit, he increased the jail time for drug use, and Nixon, who was involved with Fiorini who killed JFK, who ordered the secret bombing of a nation, and I can only guess what else, but for some reason people forget the brutality and homicidal nature of the current group of republicans. The republicans were all the worst kind of murderers, secret voyeurs, liars, brutal uneducated thugs, who have never done anything good for the USA. Carter talked about legalizing drugs, FDR ended prohibition on alcohol, Elenor Roosevelt called for decriminalizing prostitution, Clinton paid off the US debt, my only complaint is that I wish the democrats would do more, would do the opposite kind of extremism (but ofcourse lawfully and nonviolently, thank you) that the republicans have done...expose Fiorini, jail Thane Cesar, end the drug war, decriminalize prostitution, stop violence, pump out videos on evolution and history of science, pump up the moon cities, democratize the government, open up free information.
Speaking of free information, I think we should take a good hard look at those who passed the copyright extension law, that piece of shit, in 1976:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#Term_of_protection
It's just burning inside me, to know what evil people voted for this 1976 law...ofcourse Gerry Ford was the person who approved it, not Jimmie Carter. phewww...for a second I thought Carter approved that evil shit. Although, Bill Clinton did with Congress pass the Sono Bono 20 year extension while watching people's memories and inside people's houses all the while, taking part, with Congress, and millions of others, in a violation of anything that ever remotely resembled a copyright.
The bill was passed as S. 22 of the 94th Congress by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate on February 19, 1976. S. 22 was passed by a vote of 316-7 in the House of Representatives on September 22, 1976. I think that 97-0 in the senate passed that and such a majority of the house shows exactly what many smart people know...our form of representative government is a bunch of shit. The people need to rule and that's the only thing that will make the tiniest amount of justice in the USA. They are all hypocrites, out for money and themselves, not for the people. And it's the nature of the system...why would the public need a person to tell them what they want? Why couldn't they vote directly themselves? Still, I want to know who voted on that evil crap. The one amazing this about this law, is that, if the camera network ever does go public, that some people will owe people like me a large amount of money, certainly for direct copies of my copyrighted work...even recording of anything I create, and the same is true for many of us. In particular, I think those violaters of copyright in the camera-thought net who benefitted from copyright, and also actively opposed freedom of information ought to be made to pay. It's only fair and just, and I think most average people will agree with that.
Just another terrible and a clear mark on the record of Gerry Ford. Gerry Ford was an evil guy, look how he was up to his neck in the evil Warren Commission that basically was created to cover up a murder and a murderer. So much of the evil in the USA can be traced to those few elites...Nixon, the Bushes, LBJ, Gerald Ford, Reagan, Pat Robertson, the ultra conservatives...it's almost synonymous with violent criminal, liar, antisexual jailer of the innocent. They formed a group of people with unbelievable access to the minds and houses of all the people on earth...they casually watched thoughts and inside people's houses, while the public wallowed in ignorance and virtual informational slavory. They were and are a group of people with at least one value that is clear, and that is the willingness to do violence, they are different from many other conservatives who are puritans, antisexuals, and religious, but that are basically lawful and opposed to violence. That group did not win in the USA...the vicious violent Nazistic criminal group of conservatives basically won much of the late 1900s and now is winning in the early 2000s.
What a bunch of evil hypocrites, you were fully watching and hearing thought for many decades. Before it was 28 years and could be extended by 28 more years, but in my mind, copyright has to end, yes, it makes for potential abuses, but look at the reality...the camera thought network has ended any concept of copyright, and in addition, the cost to litigate a copyright violation makes the law only effective for the wealthy, beyond that...so many things are intertwined, nothing is really original, but even for simply digital copying...there is the value of the person that originated the data...people will pay to talk to them, to commission more data, for ads, etc...for live performance. The number one argument for me, is that info can't be stopped, the camera net has proven that, secondly would be the argument about only wealthy people being able to win court cases. I just know from being at the bottom in terms of wealth and idea creation and having every thought of mine copied by the millions and splashed across the planet...and I don't mind...or I would mind less if all info was free and nobody was getting money for copyright. One fine idea is that copying data is not property theft, as most people probably accept...because the original matter is not stolen, only the pattern is copied to a new medium which is owned by the copier. That should be another hint as to why info should be free, because it is not property theft. We are entering an era of total free info, the camera network that grew from the early 1900s put an end to the idea of secrecy and privacy, or certainly helped the inevitable reality of a full free info society.
Then let us not forget the 1998 copyright extension:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act which extended the copyright 20 more years...as if 50 years after the death of the "originator" was not shockingly too much already. The example of Steamboat Willie is the classic example...the original person got nothing, but the multibillion dollar conglomerate information theif Disney Corporation gets a few more million.
and those evil bastards. It's shocking to me, they sat on the Zapruter film, ... I mean when will the people in the USA wake up? in terms of stopping violence, but then mainly on the reality of how we need total free info, because the elites and wealthy are totally abusing their privelidge and the secret thought hearing technology...free info is the only possible chance of remotely even trying to even the sides.
I think we can summarize the situation on copyright like this:
You can't have it both ways, either you can have the copyright, but you have to give up your camera-thought network, or you can have your camera-thought network but you have to give up copyright. And you know, they are'nt going to give up their precious camera-thought network, so they have to give up copyright.
03-20-2006
Agnostics, Atheists, Buddists, Christians, Godders, Hindi, Islamists, Judeists, Zoroasterans, can all live in peace united as nonviolentists
I am moving on with the argument of legal prositution, because it's clear and obvious that if a person can consensually take money for cleaning a toilet, they should be able to take money to consensually touch a genital. That much is clear and obvious, so it appears obviously to me that the issue is the sexual nature of such activity. Because the activity relates to genitals which are sex-related organs, a clear prejudice is shown based on that one idea, that of the employment being sex related. It's that the person is taking money to touch a sexual object, any other object is fine and legal. I think most people can see that and agree that it's an unnatural antisexual feeling that keeps touching genitals (or for example masterbating a human) for money illegal, but that allows people to take money for cleaning toilets. The only difference is that the one employment relates to sexuality. So, I think that this is clearly an unnatural prejudice, similar to the laws enacted to stop oral and anal sex, which eventually were voted down. Basically, I have reached the conclusion that it is society's, and perhaps more so our represented official's, antisexual bias that keeps prostitution illegal, and everything else is just an excuse, and an excuse that applies to all asexual employments and the oral and anal sex laws (for example that there is not consent, that children may be enslaved, that the bible forbids it, etc.). I don't know, I hope to make these issues more clear as time continues, because they are so clear and obvious to me. I would add that, many times people only vote laws that affect them, but I would ask that they think about those other people that might be helped even if a law does not apply to you. For example, many people will not be involved with prostitution, and will live monogomous lives with one partner and happily so, but people should accept that there are other people that chose to have, for example oral or anal sex with many other people, and they should have the right to do that, even if we ourselves are not going to excersize that right for ourselves.
03-17-2006
I was watching the congress on cable and I am impressed by the smart words of many liberals in congress. Some of these people showed charts about the deficit, and explained in very clear words about the situation. Seeing the people in congress is more entertaining that I thought it would be, although much of it is too beauracratic and speech making.
I think people will call the 1900s and much of the 2000s the "century of lies" or "century of secrets". Hopefully the 2000s will be the "century of truths", oh how wonderful that would be.
With the new movie "V for Vendetta". I think it is interesting that this kind of movie was made. Perhaps it is similar to my story "We are All Sane" or "When the Secret Camera networks Were exposed". I think most people are probably opposed to violence, and rightly so. Violence is ofcourse, the worst thing on earth and much of my focus is on stopping violence. In particular the idea of bombings is terrible and I doubt could ever be effective in stopping violence. I think a movie like this should receive some credit for not just echoing the party line like most movies do, in addition to being more interesting than many movie, for example, the movie about the guy who defends himself in court. Again both and most movies I think will suffer the "everything takes place on earth" effect that I hate...This movie ULSF, and in particular "Future" is going to make people shit in their pants...it's so good...it's that good. I just wonder if I am going to be the person that is the first to cash in on this future story, which is simply a look into the far future of life on earth, and it's stunning and simple...some things are inevitable...but as stunning and amazingly interesting as it is, it has not reached the public yet, and so that is a big cash (maybe only intellectual cash) payoff, and I am feeling that I am going to be the first person to get that story out to people on the web and public access television. So back to this V movie. You know, my stories are smarter, because I can tell more...plus I bring in the element of psychology and psychiatric hospitals which plays on real life in a way that shocks people...to think that they are actually participating in the injustice...it tingles our spine and stirs our brains. But as I say you have to respect a film, like "Fahrentheit 911" (which also does not advocate violence, in fact just the opposite, an ending and exposing of violence. And no doubt Michael Moore is outspoken about being against violence as are most liberals) that goes so starkly against the party line. Still, I wonder how much conservative money went into tainting the message by connecting liberals with violence, which is really untrue, because most intellectuals, for example, are opposed to violence. I haven't seen the movie, in all fairness, and it sounds interesting, but I am going to pass this time, but no doubt it will stand out with Matrix and other interesting movies of this century. I can see a parallel, with for example, the Jewish people in the Pollish Ghetto trying to fight back against the Nazis, and I think most people can justify fighting back against those who you are relatively sure are going to kill you. So there are classic examples through history of people that justifiably use violence against some government, but then, the violence is justified because it is clearly in self defense. So, I view this movie, as ok, but it's kind of amateurish like many movies...without having seen it, and I probably won't ... I only saw Star Wars and Robots and even then I cursed the wasted time, but those movies are both interesting and full of "eye and ear candy". And I say amateurish, because, you know, the reality is that there is a rising full democracy that may someday confront or conflict with the traditional established representative democracies. I don't get to see in the camera nets, but even I can understand how a true democracy could conflict with the representative, traditional democracies. But then, I think that conflict will be resolved nonviolently. I think information is the best weapon, and this is the more advanced view in my opinion, violence is a losing cause, in particular with people who invented the game of using violence. Infomation, exposing, explaining, education are more effective at least in our current situation I think. I want to remind people that in my stories, every story in fact, the focus is on stopping violence, and perhaps people view that as being as pussy, but you know, I view that as the advanced truth and future reality...violence is barbaric and is probably going to fall to the past, and the only reason it still persists is because the public has not fully condemned violence or chosen to stop violence even at the level of Fiorini and Cesar, where, you know...who could miss it? The more subtle or less popular homicides I could see missing. I wonder if this movie reflects some secret war that is going on, where decent law abiding people are forced to defend themselves against powerful violent people, I kind of doubt it, because we don't hear about too many people disappearing or dying mysteriously. I don't think things in the USA have gotten to far off the road map, and I think that in 2008 there is a good chance that we might get back on the road to law, order, nonviolence, stopping violence, properity, progress, peace, etc...pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, focusing on cleaning up the violence on our streets, opening up free info...I view this movie as more of a warning about where we are headed as opposed to a relation of how things are now. The majority of people in the USA or at least a sizable amount of them, has made a terrible decision in going with Bush jr, but we can survive and repair what remains, although obviously, ofcourse I recognize that this is an 8 year setback at a time when we need more than ever to come to terms with Fiorini and Cesar, and get past it, move forward and take the lead in terms of full democracy, consensual sexuality, openness, honesty, technology, etc.
I think we will have a never ending "war on violence", and perhaps a war on war, but a "war on terrorism", is a subset of the "war on violence" in my opinion.
I hope for the liberal mayor of mexico city, Lopez Obrador, to be elected president of Mexico. It looks like sinister people tried to oppress Obrador, but that Obrador survived and is looking to be the next president of Mexico. Obrador is clearly the liberal where Vicente Fox is the conservative. Fox was in the news this week because he is transfering so-called "drug king pins" to the USA for imprisonment. And again, I must say how terrible and stupid the drug war is. It's like alcohol prohibition, let people use drugs. In particular, stupid for clean living, drug free people to be killed just over drugs. Violence is what we ought to focus on stopping. And what is happening is that fine, young people are being brought into the government, in for example, police, and they all have a clean record, but then they are asked to use violence against people that sell drugs, and what happens is that the anti-drug government leaders make first degree cold blooded killers out of those innocent young people, because killing a person who is just selling drugs is wrong...it's violence against nonviolence. I mean, the drug war has escalated so that...you know...these people march onto a drug lords property and they are fired upon, and many would claim they are using self defense in firing back, but you know...it's to start violence, I think most people would agree...just because the cannot tolerate drug use (but ironically they tolerate gun use, and alcohol use, and the buying selling and owning of many other dangerous items). You know I think I made a good point in saying: when a person you love is addicted to drugs, there is always a chance that they may sometime stop and become drug free, but when a person is the victim of homicide, they are gone forever. And I think that there is some emotional grief when somebody you love becomes addicted to drugs, but I think most people will agree the grief is more, the sorrow is more, and the loss is more final, for those who loved a person who was murdered. And here Fox was saying that they expected thousands of people to be potentially killed in this transfer of drug kingpins, but that it was worth it, or something like that. But you know, ofcourse, there are going to be new drug king pins, it's like some bizarre game that those in power play...you know...they jail some drug lords, but then they ofcourse allow more to rise up...the system has been worn over the years, it is so predictible. Like alcohol, we are going to legalize drugs, and I think the focus will shift more to encouraging people to not get addicted. Look how effective the anti-smoking campaign has been in just 50 short years, and tobacco is still legal. I doubt Obrador will end the drug war, but at least he is clearly the step in the better direction I think. I think Vicente Fox is better than the PRI obviously, but am glad to see Obrador holding a big lead in the polls. Ofcourse, the people in the legal and illegal drug industry are going to try to sell their products, the same is true for tobacco, alcohol, gun, sugar, milk, cow, chicken, pig, industries....even if the product, butter, of cow muscle, candy, what ever, can cause damaging effects and may be addictive. That is just freedom of information, it is up to people to educate the public and themselves, and ultimately to decide what they buy and put in their body. Many people make bad choices, and become overweight, or have some other bad habits, but I think to think that some day they will have the right to do that.
I saw a really smart "The Simpsons" where they drew the comparison of Montey Burns owning all the media with Rupert Murdoch. Ofcourse I can identify with the part Lisa Simpson plays as the one lone independent reporter and newpaper. It's somewhat frightening to see the images of Burns trying to step on the ant, saying "why this should be as easy as crushing an ant", and the ant resisting being squashed. I mean I don't want to provoke those powerful people, I think we can all live in peace, and no doubt their tolerance of free information is helping to keep my life and the lives of many people violence free. It's a stirring image for me, and I can relate to that, but I'm not alone in this struggle for truth and justice, there are others like Ted Charach, Oliver Stone, John Hankey, Dave vonKleist, there are many others interested in the public getting to see the truth about our secretive history. Still, that has to be one of the smartest Simpsons I have seen. It's interesting I was thinking about the differences between the Simpsons and Southpark and I think it may be the debate between being traditional versus being experimental, so the Simpsons are less offensive, but maybe not as radical or experimental as South Park. I haven't seen South Park in a while and I don't watch television much.
With this latest air raid, is this just one of those "bomb and missile a view villages and then expect the violence to stop?" Again, I support a stop violence constant, consistent effort within our budget, which is open and uses cameras and arrests the violent (doesn't explode them).
Some people view pro-sexual people as so-called "pigs", but I don't think the compairson fits because pigs have no problem enjoying sexuality, openly, and care nothing about strutting around in the nude. Pigs are quite affectionate and loving (although everybody is different, and no doubt there are mean pigs just like there are mean humans). I can't take credit for this, but I think it is true: for people calling others "pigs", they are the one's that are doing all the "hogging" of the camera-thought network.
03-14-2006
A person I can't remember who, but refered to Emergency News by saying "I realize this may be hard to believe" or something like that, where I say "I realize this is shocking information, but thought can be heard!!!!!!". In other Ted news, on the BBC this person said "You hear...blah blah blah", then the other guy sez "I have to say...blah blah blah" in rebuttal which was soooo cool...yes, they have to talk out loud even when we could be thinking back and forth to each other, and we don't hear shit. I should be able to clearly hear the din of thoughts around me, but I don't hear shit G, besept my own thoughts.
I think we ought to put together a "war on violence", not a war on "terror", since "terror" is roughly defined as a subset of violence and/or destruction. And then I think we ought to have a modest war on violence, that operates within our financial means. I think this should be focused mainly here in the USA. I look at 9/11 as an example of how our stop violence defenses failed. How we failed to uncover those who put together plans to do violence, or destruction in the USA to people in the USA. Our defense team basically failed, and I think we ought to fire the coach (the Bush administration, not celebrate them), accept that we have flaws in our defense structure, address those flaws, and apply corrections. And to me, some simple corrections are what I have suggested: simple cameras on every street that the public can access, that are just cheap unmoving cameras whose images are archived and available for all for violence crime and accident investigations. We need to open up the 9/11 calls, and what the police do, we need to make vehicles designed for skyscraper escape (big helicopters with retractable ramps that insert into windows, or some such similar idea), we can't keep on with secrecy.
Goggle also identifies that Thane Cesar is still a killer on the loose with their top Washington Post story: "Israeli Forces Seize Palestinian Jail in Jerico". Again Thane Seizer!
There are some people, in particular older people, that have trouble physically cooking, cleaning, paying their bills, even though they have enough money to. It can be one of society's more difficult problems, but for the most part, I see a government that works to end involuntary starvation, involuntary dehydration, that is designed to provide basic minimum health care, perhaps nothing extravagent, but simply some base line, survival only kind of services. Perhaps even a government paid group that can clean people's houses, apartments if a person is unable, that can pay the bills of a person who has trouble doing that. For those who what help cleaning, cooking, and can afford it, perhaps there should be an option for them to be part of a government program, and perhaps it could be partially or entirely funded by the government. My main concern is ending starvation, dehydration, cleaning unclean environments (within a ligitimate degree). I think one of the most difficult problems is when a person is unable to care for themselves (cook for themselves, pay their bills), but then also refuses to accept assistence. One major and simple part of that problem is that currently, the government offers no assistence to those people, even if they did consent, what currently happens is that everything is based on psychology theory and the person is locked in a hospital, experimental drugs are forced on them, and then they are released weeks or months later and everything is expected to solve itself, but what society gets is a temporarily debillitated, over drugged person, who still can't pay their bills, shop or cook for themselves. This problem relates to people like my mom, and I hope I never get as incapabile of caring for myself as she has become, but it easily could happen, many of us reach old age, and at some point, most people absolutely need assistence. Some are smart and able enough to afford it for themselves, many depend on relatives for assistence, but many don't have the money or the relatives and are stuck with a very tough situation. The amazing thing is that we as a society could help to solve many of those problems, but we haven't gotten smart enough and organized enough yet, we are approaching an era of walking robots that clean houses, can pay bills, drive cars, shop for people and only have to be plugged in, and an era of free information where everybody can know anything and everything about the current status of any human on earth, but we aren't there yet, we are still a paper-filled beaurocratic, slow moving, ignorant, antiscience, secretive planet, who doesn't want to know what's really going on, doesn't want to work to solve people's suffering. There are many things we could do through our government, like provide nannies, free once a day meals, once a month house/apartment cleaning, for those who want help. For those who don't it's a tough problem, and many time it falls onto those who care for that person. Many times these situations come down to a person who doesn't realize, or won't admit that they are failing to pay their bills, failing to clean and maintain their house, failing to feed themselves, basically looking at a self imposed suicide, and people who love them, perhaps overstepping the legal rights on the individual, enforce many times drugs on the person, but also court ordered assistants that the person must pay for, "conservators", basically people who assist the person by paying their bills, making sure the person's house is clean, and that the person is getting enough food, etc, at least in theory, ideally. That's what I think people like my mom need, is simply some person to supervise the things she can't like cleaning, shopping, paying bills. I wish I had the money to do that, but I don't, and she probably wouldn't accept anybody I could hire to help if I did have enough money. But, I am optomistic for the future, and most of my optomism is placed on walking robots to care for those who either are too old to be able to do those menial tasks of cleaning and shopping, or simply too lazy, or are busy doing other things. Finally, there will be a low cost smart "maid/butler" for the lower income people.
03-13-2006
It's kind of cool to think about the far future. One thing that is clear is that eventually all the matter of this star system will be converted to life, and the objects life needs to live. Although more matter can be imported and perhaps will be. But there are many many steps along the way. First all of the earth surface will fill up with buildings, and humans will even move out into the oceans. Then the earth will be swarmed with single family ships, so many that eventually, almost no light will reach the surface (although perhaps humans will regulate some way of keeping the orbiting ships to a finite amount, by forcing humans to go into star orbit where there is almost infinite space). The entire asteroid belt will be settled, and eventually will probably just be a ring of ships. At some point what is really cool is that there will be coordinated movement of all the ships around the star, because the movement of ships will affect the overall movement of the star. At some point, and probably very early in the development, the velocity and direction of our star will be taken over by a central democratic computer system that connects to all ships. Ships will be thrusted in unison, perhaps, to adjust the direction of our star, perhaps to go closer to alpha centauri. And ofcourse, first robot ships will go to Centauri, and then humans will follow them, and what an excitement that will be when the images of the planets, close-up, of the stars of Centauri are seen by all the trillion and trillions of humans in this star system. Then I think life, growing like a bacteria, will eventually convert all the matter in this star system into life and the objects they need to live, as I said, but they will no doubt, hold on to momentoes, and there will be museums of the ancient past, where there are maybe cuniform tablets, preserved from a million years before, pieces of statues and ships, millions of years old that are only preserved in images. But the earth, venus, all the matter will be converted into humans, air, water, food, etc. The same will happen to Centauri's planets. Then I think life of earth will pull together star systems, to form a small multi-star federation...in any event, they will probably work together and move together...looking at the long term goal of making a globular cluster and eventually leaving the plane of the Milky Way. It's an interesting debate...there are perhaps unknown and known dangers for staying in the galactic plane, but there are pluses too. One plus is to continue conquering stars which have not been already conquered by other advanced life...probably those stars, we (and they) will not fight for since there is nothing but matter and places to go. We may look like tiny bacteria to them, or vice versa. The pluses are all the matter in the plane, but the minuses are the unpredicatable supernovas (although I doubt that could destroy a civilization of a few stars), but also, the inability to clearly see the rest of the galaxy, the driving curiosity of what the galaxy looks like from above. I think we should look for other star clusters that may all have the same kind of stars...maybe they just pull together stars of one kind, as they do for globular clusters, but maybe they pull together what ever is near them. There has to be major communication between the globular clusters, I would be very surprised if there was not. And then within the globular clusters, potentially globular clusters could be all one kind of species, or more likely a mixture of many thousands of different species. It's interesting that perhaps some part of life that originated from earth would want to pull apart from the main group and form their own star group and future globular cluster. The decisions of what stars grow together, are not decided in days or years, but in thousands of years because stars move very slowly relative to the size of the Milky Way.
The Orange County trial of the 16 year old males that video taped them doing things to a passed out 16 year old female raises some interesting issues. My first comments are that 4 years for a trial is a ridiculously long time for a decision I can make in minutes. Full democracy will solve the problem of multi year trials and our back logged and 1200's snail paced court system. Next, there are some interesting issues raised that I had to think about. When there are complicated issues, I always try to think of parallel examples to help make the nature of an activity/crime clearer. Without knowing all the specifics (since the evidence is not available to the public), I would compare what these males did to a person putting a finger, a penis, a bottle or some objects that most likely cause no permanent damage or pain into and out of the vagina, and rectum a person who is passed out. As far as I can see, since, to the credit of the DA, they dropped the claim that the female was drugged, which would have made the activity, I think, much more serious. So the issue, to me, boils down to these basic ideas: is this a violent crime or in the realm of nonviolent crime? And, it's tough to decide. One key issue is: is this touch with out objection, or touch with objection? And that depends on, perhaps, everybody has their own opinion...technically, unless a person makes a statement vocally, and/or in thought saying that they do not want to be touched by other people, then any future touching would be without consent and clearly against objection, which is kind of an amazing thing, I don't doubt, people will run through a long list of verbal objections to all kinds of violence and touching, because they waqnt to avoid there being any kind of issue about consent. But then, I think many people think it's common sense that most people would object to somebody putting a finger in their rectum when they are passed out, an average person would most likely object to such a thing. And for myself, I put this into the realm of nonviolent because there was no damage (to my knowledge) and no pain (although...it's a tough issue, but basically, I define violent crime, and "assault" as something that causes at a minimum pain and or damage. Perhaps there would have been pain had the person been conscious and so that adds an extra level of complexity to this.), but I do put it into the catagory of touch without consent (since most people would object, even though there was technically no objection on record, probably), and then a touch with penetration into a body (could be an ear hole, mouth, nose hole, rectum, vagina, penis hole), and then a touch to a sex-related organ (vagina, testicles, penis, anus/rectum: could have more seriousness to many people). So ok, now what kind of sentence for these young males. First, without doubt, what they did is a terrible thing to do to a person. That is far from what a trusted friend would do. It was immoral and unethical in my opinion, and in this age of hearing thoughts, I can't believe that these young males didn't know better. But then, I think this kind of dehumanizing activity and philosophy is very common in the camera-thought net, I mean look at the way people zap us, and beam suggestive images onto our brains, pplay songs on our heads, like we are their personal radio stations! This female was saying something like: "what right do they have to treat me like a piece of meat", I am kind of interested in using that argument too now...what right do these camera net bastards have to beam their crappy songs on my head, to make me itch my face like a piece of meat?...etc. So, perhaps these males thought...who ever is going to convict us? Our dad is in the police, every body sees everybody and hears thoughts. You know, my feeling is that these beamer-people..that zap us...they know they are never going to be diciplines or punished in any way...or at least clearly believe that at the present time. So I think what happened, was that, these guys got into the sexual realm...and in Orange County that is a no-no among the puritans. And the power to control the story got out of their hands and the majority turned against them, perhaps. So, in this era of seeing thoughts, and seeing in people's houses, why did the father and older people tell these young males..."look, don't do that...you are going to seriously regret it...it may haunt you for the rest of your life...in terms of your job prospects, your reproductive, love life prospects..." (look at what has happened to me for poking a person at age 17...I'm practically a monk in terms of what remains of any kind of sex life). Still, a 6 year sentence, or even 12 years, is too harsh, but again, the jury only decides on the crime not the sentence which is a trajedy of injustice in my opinion, the jury cannot even suggest a sentence, to my knowledge. To me this is under a year, and potentially no jail, simply because, it was a terrible thing to do, and those people will forever be recognized as doing those things, it will affect their careers, their mating possibilities, etc. that is a form of punishment, but in addition, it's a nonviolent activity. At absolute most, it's a touch without consent, and potentially against an objection that was not stated but one which most average people would most likely default to. That's why, just from the evidence I have, I might say 3 months, or less. It's a first offense. But this shows me, again, like the 100 year sentence for sucking toes, that some of these Orange County judges, perhaps all of them, I would never want to face in a court battle, because these sentences are way too harsh in my opinion. In terms of the female getting $23 million (or some amount like that), you know, I can't believe that kind of money would be given to a person, but it happened with the molestation trials, those "victims" are now millionaires. They have more money now, than they would ever normally have in an average life. To me, and I am probably in the minority, in a violent crime, those responsible should pay for all health expenses to the extent which that is possible, including taking from their income, and reasonable expenses, but beyond that, I have a tough time accepting arguments of million dollar settlements, when there was no physical damage or even pain, that is ridiculous. More complex are the issues like Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and the OJ civil settlement verdict. For example, when a person is murdered, or severly damaged in a way that cannot be repaired. Those are complex issues, because it's difficult to put a price on a human life, and for homicide, the human can't benefit from money (although perhaps relatives can, or something or some people in their will could benefit). I kind of lean towards, just jailing the people that do violent crime, and against large monetary settlements. But I'm staying open minded. My feeling is that some of these settlements in the millions are far from what a person would ever earn in an average lifetime, and is usually too much. But just getting back to that point. I would be telling young people: "you never want to get a violent first degree assault on your record...it will plague you for the rest of your life, and then in particular a sex-related assault that will really limit your future job and sexual possibilities". And I would go on to say that many young males want to not be virgins and try desparately to get sex, and it would be much better to allow them to get sex, through legal, clean, healthy, disease-free, mutually consensual prostitution. "Prostitution" has such a negative connotation, in particular when all it is, is that same old sex with some fine human, except there is money exchanged.
I can't understand the Bush jr cabinet guy that stole from the clothing store, doesn't he hear and see thought? If he doesn't I think that's shocking, that somebody so close to those at the top might not know about thought being heard.
The president of the AP, Tom Curley, hinted strongly what many of us already know that Thane Cesar killed RFK. Unlike Frank Fiorini, the killer of JFK, Thane Cesar is still alive and can be prosecuted for the homicide. Here are some good quotes from Curley:
"Government by secrecy doesn't make for enduring democracy. Judges will be more sensitive to the public's access when they see the potential for public harm from secrecy."
[TP: halleluja, finally somebody speaking out against secrecy. It's interesting that when it's ethical to hide some info, it's called "privacy", it has a positive connotation (at least currently for many but not me), but when it is not ethical it's called "secrecy", and has a negative connotation.]
"Q: Are efforts by the media to become more transparent so the public better understands the journalistic process actually working?
A: Research by the Pew Charitable Trust and the Freedom Forum show impressive upticks. That should inspire all of us to seize the moment."
Ok now that I look at this it's weaker than I remember, but still any reference to "seize" and "effort" usually refers to Thane Cesar.
I thought more about the people who are so uptight about people repeating their thoughts out loud, and the more I thought about it, the more I think it's a little bizarre, unusual, or weird...it seems like a quirk to be so uptight about people that talk out loud. You know...they have to repeat their thoughts when talking since they must maintain the absolute secrecy of the hearing thought technology. I think it's like some code of the club...they are big into just thinking, and not talking out loud, but beyond to an extreme. I think it's like a clickish thing...they have this new shiny machine and there are only certain ways to rub the machine, only 3 times with your index finger...the machines can not be rubbed any other way... Who cares if people talk out loud. These people that administer the thought-hearing, image-sending networks (since we are the owners of most of the technology) are block-heads, total uneducated idiots, in my experience. I think they are using the excuse of people that repeat their thoughts out loud as an argument that the person might not be able to handle seeing video in their eyes and hearing people thoughts around them, that the person doesn't understand yet that thoughts can be heard, that they are being watched by hundreds of people. But it's all a smoke screen so that conservative people can keep a tight control over the technology and all the people on the planet. Next it's that the excluded initiated into the included, have to: be married, have children, go to church, be christians, be baptized, be believers in a god, have a drivers license, be at least 25, ... To me, it seems clear what should be done and that is to use the technology for all people, and initially, perhaps calling the person in, or sitting together with an excluded person, like learning to drive, like a DMV class, and saying "ok so thought was first seen in 1910, and here is an example of that technology", and gaging the person's reactions...are they shocked? Are they hysterical? If yes, than perhaps stop there, but if no, continue on: "then in 1913 thought could be heard, here is that", judge their reactions...still ok? continue on: "then images could be sent to a brain...is it ok now to send you a sample image onto your brain? It is? OK then tell me when you see the image. ok now we are going to play a sample sound into your brain, is that ok? ok it is? good. Then you tell me when you hear the sound." "Now people have been living for a long time with video in their eyes...they like to see different videos...and they like to see these videos...right in front of their eyes...they don't even need a television to see them...isn't that amazing? Now would you like to see some video in front of your eyes? You would? ok...tell me when you see the video in front of your eyes....you see it? ok good...now where do you see it? ... in the upper right corner of your view? ok good. Now do you understand that this video can be in any location... ok now lets go back to heaing thought...now did you know that many people now, communicate to each other in thought without having to bother to talk? you do? ok good. Now let's try to have a small conversation just by thinking to each other, and not by talking. My thoughts will be played onto your brain, and your will be played on to my brain. Is that ok for a few seconds? it is? ok. " and then going from there, and my feeling is that 99% of all people could easily adapt to the system. "would you like to keep using this service or would you prefer to not use this service?", and then there must be many details, who you can see, what costs money, etc.
03-10-2006
Here is an interesting NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/americas/24brazil.html?ex=1142139600&en=372ee7761dcfef74&ei=5070
In Brazil prostitution is basically decriminalized, which to me says that there is a large amount of wisdom and compassion there. They turned down $40 million in US support because the puritan administration in the USA required them to "explicitly condemn prostitution". Isn't that amazing? What a bunch of evil bastards are in the US government. Now, people can't think for themselves or have their own opinions. They hold out our money and then make people jump through hoops to get it for basic services. Good for the people in Brazil to take the road of ethics and morality above money, if only those in the USA could make that same choice.
Here is part of the article:
' Until recently, the condom campaign of the group called Fio da Alma had been partly financed through the United States Agency for International Development. But no longer: rather than comply with an American demand that all foreign recipients of AIDS assistance must explicitly condemn prostitution, Brazil has decided to forgo up to $40 million in American support.
"Our feeling was that the manner in which the Usaid funds were consigned would bring harm to our program from the point of view of its scientific credibility, its ethical values and its social commitment," Pedro Chequer, director of the Brazilian government's AIDS program, said in an interview in Brasilía. "We must remain faithful to the established principles of the scientific method and not allow theological beliefs and dogma to interfere."'
I was thinking more about the drug and prostitution arrests, and I think what it boils down to is that, people don't stop consensual drug use or prostitution, people are going to do those things anyway, because they are doing them consensually, they are not forced to do them, and so all it amounts to is filling the prisons full of nonviolent people who were no threat at all to society. Then we have to pay for all their food, clothes, storage. Billions ofour tax dollars go into keeping people that want to use drugs and have sex for money from doing what they want to nonviolently and with no threat to society (at least not as much as the threat of guns, alcohol or religion). Plus, the puritan people in power are not for the "free market", obviously not for the free market when it comes to consensual adult drug use and sex. People can flip burgers for money but not touch genitals for money. With the drug war, it is shocking to me that people want to jail humans who are only hurting themselves...it's a bizarre logic, as I have said it's like locking up the overweight for their own good. The prisons are for the violent, the murderers, the assaulters. And then maybe a nonviolent prison for those who repeatedly do annoying things like abduction, restraint, property theft, trespassing, touching against objection.
What Thane Cesar will say to the bar tender when ordering a pina colada in 2008 if:
The Republican candidate wins: "Make it a double!"
Clinton or Kerry wins: "Just a regular!"
Kuchinich or Dean wins: "Make it to go!"
Huntington wins: "I was never here!"
03-08-2006
What do: Michael Jackson filmers, Tommy Chong, and Martha Stewart have in common?
I will now tell you what they all have in common. They are all victims of this administration's random and spin-based philosophy on how to use the Federal resources like FBI and DOJ. What ever their crimes, they are all activities that most people have done. The latest are the Michael Jackson filmers, well, as many of us now know, we are all on camera and beinf filmed every second of our lives. And not only our physical bodies, but our thoughts too! Millions participate in this secret camera-thought network where thoughts are heard, and have been since 1913 (and clearly since 1937 when "The Thought-Hearing Machine was published by Harper before Murdoch effectively silenced that source for truth). So, I think an ethical leadership would view filming people as like...look we all do this...it's like punishing out selves...we ought to send the message that filming people is a nonviolent crime, and should not even be a fine, certainly not 7 years in jail, as these two people are possibly facing. We as wealthy leaders, ought to send the message...look, this activity is either popular and should not be punished, or should be popular. But what we see is a president and administration that is more interested in random arrests of nonviolent people for bizarre spin-based reasons...to steer public opinion in some way. Even Clinton used the federal government in this way to close down the California Hemp outlets. Instead, I hope we elect a president that uses the FBI and DOJ to focus on identifying, stopping and jailing those who do homicide and serious assault. That is what I would focus the federal resources on, not jailing people like Martha Stewart, who...they all do insider trading, they all lie, it's free info, it's dishonest, it's unfair, but it should not be illegal, or certainly not reason for jail. Or people like Tommy Chong...he's no violent person, selling pipes is far from a real crime, many people sell pipes, and millions use marijuana and tobacco. It's just a chaotic use of the federal resources to frighten millions of people with random harsh punishments of selective people. On a related topic, can any of you explain why oh why the FBI seems so geared up to enforce copyright and antipiracy laws? I have to guess that they get paid...they are actually receiving extra funding. A second theory is that supressing info must be in their interest. We need an FBI that is going to focus on stopping violence, but then beyond that, in the spare time, inform the public, yes inform the public, about who is lying, without necessarily prosecuting, but simply making helpful video available to the public to expose liars who are suceeding on a large level. To help victims of lies. Rather than publicizing the Enyart photos they work to destroy them, and the same is true for the 9/11 gas station video camera. So, it's frightening that they go after these two Michael Jackson filmers. If I were President I would use the FBI and DOJ first to stop homicide, then to stop assault, then to free those abducted or held against their will, and finally to inform the public about those who are being dishonest. I would stop the active prosecution of copyright, and push to have copyright more like patent, only 10 years, to move this nation and people forward. And I would not use the Federal resources to randomly and brutally prosecute nonviolent people who are involved in activities that are no different from what the majority are involved in. Perhaps these two Michael Jackson filmers are being prosecuted to show a skeptical public that the Bush jr administration does not film people, or it's to show others...look we can prosecute you for your filming of us...I mean it's clear the camera net administration is not going to be jailed, it's almost always individual people who have small camera networks...those are the people that probably fear this type of thing the most, the bigger camera and thought nets no doubt fear the public more than the insiders that use their service like Bush jr and those wealthy people in power. If I were President I would direct the National Science Foundation to make a web page with images of every species, including electron microscope images, and make them all available to the public and make them public domain with no credit requirement. Then images of all the people in science. Then a web video of the full story of evolution, a web video of the full history of science, and finally a web video of an estimation of the future for life of this star system. I would also include in my request/mandate that they make a web page with images of every major [nearby] galaxy, each planet and moon (possibly every star within 15 light years, including a 3-d map). These are some of my promises to you, the public, if elected President. In addition I promise to vigorously support opening up voting to the public on all government decisions (including all court cases, and existing laws). Initially these vote counts will not be the final answer, but will only serve as a guide to those representatives, judges and other government employees of what popular opinion may be on a certain law, trial or issue. I promise to support reducing copyright to only 10 years, like the patent law. I promise to oppose trademark laws, since all nobody can own any word, and people must be free to use any words they want to. I promise to work to legalize marijuana, and eventually all drugs. And look forward to the time when all those now filling the overcrowded prisons, consuming billions of tax dollars to house, feed and maintain, can go home, back to their families. I also pledge to initiate a new focus on locking violent people in jail, and prosecuting violent crime. I promise to continue supporting cameras on the street, and hear me now, with images not only for the elite in government, but for all of the public...again I say for all of the public to see. I promise to reopen the investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder and to bring Thane Cesar to justice, in addition to making a commission to fully explain to the public how Frank Fiorini killed John Kennedy. I promise to work to bring the thought-hearing technology to the public, like the x-ray technology, the public deserves to be able to hear thought and we need to use this technology to identify and stop violence working together as a full democracy. Let me not forget that I promise to work to legalize prostitution for adults. Let me make my focus clear to the public, I want to lock up the violent, and free the nonviolent, in particular those people who are only hurting themselves, for example by voluntarily and consensually using drugs or being involved in voluntary and consensual-only prostitution. I want to overhaul the psychiatric system, and make it consentual treatment only, allowing those jailed the basic rights to trial, and finite sentence, free from coerced or involuntary drugging. My goal is to bring science and the truth about evolution to the public. To democratize our government so that the people rule the nation. If you want to live without ever hearing thought, to be the victim of those who watch and zap you, without you ever seeing who they are, and with the threat of being jailed or hospitalized, even though you have always lived a nonviolent life, and you want to live with Thane Cesar and other killers and assaulters free and out of prison, then by all means vote for my opponents.
It's interesting about Merck, this Vioxx scandel is making them look bad, but I have to say to their credit, unlike Johnson and Johnson, and unlike almost every other phama company, Merck has not gotten involved with psychology drugs. Psychology drugs are a nasty business in my opinion. Maybe when there is only voluntary psychiatric care (no more involuntary treatment), many of us will have a better view of the experimental psychology drugs, but when they are forced on to objecting people, it's not any good in my opinion.
03-08-2006
I think when we need a term for gametes where any 2 gametes from the same species can fuse. Perhaps "nonspecific isogamy" and "specific isogamy".
I think possibly that describing cell processes in more simple basic terms may be helpful:
1) DNA in cytoplasm duplicating
2) DNA in a cell nucleus duplicating [which may be identical to 1) but within a cell]
3) cell with DNA in cytoplasm dividing (prokaryote division)
4) nucleus dividing [may be similar to 3) only within cytoplasm]. Is the division of a eukaryote nucleus the same as binary fission in a prokaryote?
5) cell cytoplasm with nucleus dividing
etc.
Because each of these may have been an evolutionary step, and it's important to identify each major step in evolution.
One thing on my mind, is that I am shocked by the immorality of people in this time. It's a total shock to me. I don't like to think about it too much, but ofcourse, it's something I think about. How they could actively protect Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, and millions of murders, how the can lie about hearing thought and getting video squares beamed onto their head, etc...for 100 years, no less. I mean, just very very immoral. I can't put into words, but it's so foreign to my experience, and I like to think to the values of most people, but perhaps I am some kind of bizarre exception. Just the way, they can't stumble into the forward direction, on any topic. Can't stop violence, can't support free info, can't get more democracy, can't promote sexuality, evolution, the history of science...I mean million dollar people with nothing but money, cannot make a movie of the history of science, cannot expose hearing thought, cannot increase democracy, assault us with lasers, misguide people into death and destruction, with images and sounds they have been beaming for 100 years, I mean I don't know where to begin. Mainly, just the way violence is tolerated, the entire hearing-thought lie network, the way sexuality is high crime...it's all a total shock to me, but basically to me shows how disgustingly immoral, dishonest, arrogant and brutal most people are. I certainly am not perfect, and I don't claim to be. I lied many times when I was younger, but came to realize later that honesty is best. I love the end of privacy, even when younger I hoped for such a system...it's a dream come true...to use technology to find out who is lying and in particular to see who is doing violence. A person would think that the stopping of homicide alone would be enough to motivate people to support public street cameras everybody can see, or to expose hearing-thought, to end jailing people for images that violate privacy, but apparantly not. I lied about smoking tobacco and marijuana to my parents for a long time, but eventually told the truth, once I lived on my own...many times people lie, and no doubt it is justified because of an unfair system, in particular the drug war. The drug war, for example, is so immoral that to lie about having or using drugs is less immoral. But the scale of the thought hearing and beaming, etc, then the common basics of stopping violence, enjoying physical pleasure....that is truly a major immoral and simply evil activity (the lying not the spying) in my opinion. We have a long, long way to go and it's frightening, the chaotic society we have now. The way people are thrown away to jail for years and years, and they never caused a scratch of damage, while other killers millions see go free. I guess it's just the things I see, you know, people that take money to be deceptive, and just the reality of what all these people are involved in, how they are have a very different experience than I do...here they are getting little video squares beamed in front of their eyes and my screen is just blank...but beyond that...just that they lie for money and just constantly rude, and angry, violent, antisexual, their main philosophy or understanding of the universe (or "the world" as they call it) is through religion and psychology. I am adding, the filling of jails and hospitals with nonviolent people who are far from serious threats to other people...to me is highly immoral...I mean people care nothing to throw away a nonviolent person for years and years into a prison or hospital, and then for psychiatric hospitals, without a trial, without a sentence, with torture, involuntary druggings...many people don't see it, but I mean they have to know it is happening, and then those who can see it all in the camera thought networks...what about their ethics and sense of decency, of humanity, care for their fellow human and ultimately for themselves? To just throw people away for 20 years for using cocaine, while murderers like Thane Cesar go free...with the drugs where people are only hurting themselves, to the psychology where whatever the crime, there was no trial, and no sentence, no jury. It's thing like that that I am talking about. Just the callousness, and the suppression of any helpful info, the paid for lying, the massive unseen networks and secret technology, the filling of the prisons and hospitals of nonviolent people. All the immorality adds up to large scale violence, destruction, suffering, torture, and injustice, but of itself it is nonviolent and less serious than stopping violence and freeing the nonviolent.
Here is another very good idea:
When you have a violent image of suggestion in your mind, chances are it is not something you originated, but was beamed there. Many times, these thoughts take the form of a spouse or friend doing violence against you. At that point, instead of pursuing that thought, recognize that it was beamed on you, and vote to ban the person that sent it from having the right to beam images or sounds onto brains for: either 1) life, 2) 10 years, or 3) 1 year. This way, we can accumulate some votes to get some of the worse of the "violence suggesters" away from the thought sending machines. Even if the votes and the majority votes are ignored, still it helps. It helps to spend a few seconds to identify that evil person, to bring them out into the open and identify them as a problem. And ofcourse, always the hope is that some time democracy will prevail and those people may be banned from sending thoughts later.
With the Hatcher thing, I think it is an interesting topic. People like to talk about sex-related events and I am glad we can without being labeled sex offenders ourselves (I mean the entire latimes staff would be labeled sex offenders for openly discussing molestation if such which-trial fever was in effect). Look how the Glitter trial filled the headlines, gaining more attention than ever murder, and ofcourse, certainly assault, even celebrity people that assault. The specifics of how Hatcher was fondled were not told, but it's clear that there was no assault. I was assaulted when I was under age 18, by a sibling and once my mom slapped me on May 1, 1980. My brother pounded my head into a wall several times in a first degree way, and once I threw scissors at him, but strictly in self defense. You can see in the video "I'm Doing Ok" how I was assaulted at least once and that was just when the camera was taping. I survived, but first strike assaults should (obviously perhaps to me alone) be punished with very small jail time (maybe room time for the very young violent). I have trouble believing that most other people do not experience assault when under 18, and those crimes should be punished, and not with long sentences but sentences of only hours or days (for first or second offenses) in safe prisons for violent offenders which are free from violence. And in my opinion assault is worse than molestation, but molestation seems to get more attention than violent crime, people love to hear about sexuality, kinkiness...I mean...maybe you can explain it to me...why does a child who is assaulted get far less attention than one who is molested? Why are the punishments for assault far less than those for molestation? One issue is about the honesty with claims of molestation, and I support a law requiring video evidence of molestation before any charges are pressed, because without any video, there is no physical evidence, and many people, no doubt including Hatcher, lie about hearing thought, so why would they stop when it comes to molestation? All the lying throws me off, the people that hear thought are so deceptive, and many times for money. Her uncle appears to have plead guilty to molestation which boosts her claim of being molested. And he was sentenced to 8 years. That is a long time for just kissing (or "a passionate kiss" as was reported) a female under the age of 18. Then this female that he kissed killed herself. What a bizarre reaction to receiving love from an old man. And I have to blame society and those antisexuals in the camera network who probably view somebody that an old guy kissed as a freak, or damaged goods. But also those who view being kissed by an older human as being a serious thing. To me, it's more of a thing where if you don't like it, don't expose yourself to it, but let's not lock up affectionate adults. There is a video of JFK squeezing the buttock of Caroline Kennedy, and many people would want him jailed for 8 years for molesting his daughter, but I think it's just playful...affectionate...it's not anything bad. I doubt Caroline needed years of counciling to recover from that ass squeeze, although in this society, she might be overwhelmingly convinced that she does. Violence is, in my mind, and no doubt I am in the minority here, worse. I think a relative or friend that behaves or does something not wanted within the realm of nonviolence is just reason to not visit them, to not interact with them, to expose them to the public or to other concerned people that do not know, not reason to jail them for years and years. Kissing and genital touching for the majority are a major no no, but for some, it might be at the level of...don't visit or hire the person any more, and then for a tiny few...it might be seen as normal (in theory there could be families of genital touchers who feel genital touching is moral and ethical...I don't think anybody would openly admit to such a thing and for people under 18 it is highly illegal, but nonetheless, some people might find genital touching strictly among people that are all under age 18, which as far as I know, may still be legal, to be moral, ethical, and perhaps even of value).
03-07-2006
Quick thought voting guidelines:
1) made you scratch, 1 hour in jail
2) gave you little pain, 1 day in jail
3) gave you bigger pain, 1 week in jail (tumor beam, swallowed wrong way, etc)
There are some interesting and confusing aspects of being able to beam sounds and images directly onto a human's brain. It's similar to the touching against objection, I think since there is pentration of the human body, although it is also similar to playing some sound or showing some image into a person's head from an external source. First even against consent, it is within the realm of nonviolent behavior, so what ever punishment should be a light punishment, only hours or days in jail for repeated occurances. Imagine a person playing the same song in your brain every minute...most people would think..."ok I officially oppose this song being beamed onto my head.", there are people who think and are on record as thinking and even saying clearly: "I object to any images or sound being beamed into my head.". And for those people, even if it may appear trivial, it is factual, that any sounds beamed on their head are then determined to be unconsentual, since they have clearly objected at some point in the past and have not reversed that vote in the time since. So, then those people who beam onto that person's head are basically touching a person against clear objection (and without consent). The sound laws are a good example of this kind of thing, like a neighbor plays the same song, or even any music, at a certain volume, it is completely legal, and all those within hearing distance have to legally tolerate the sound (and/or images), or somehow plug their ears or eyes (which cannot be done with this new 100 year old technology). But at a certain volume, it is not being "oversensitive" to have the sound volume (or perhaps image intensity) lowered. It's different when it's beamed onto our heads, since there is penetration, but ultimately, at this time, the problems of violence, homicide and assault are my main concern. This is trvial bs, next to Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, the person that killed Bonnie Blake, Jam Jay, and most recently the graduate student in NYC from Boston. It was interesting to hear the Vice Presidential candidate Geradine Ferraro comment that she thought the police were more interested in removing evidence. I thought that was a really unusual comment to read. Most people go along with the myth that the people in the police are interesting in stopping homicide (which clearly the Thane Cesar case and thousands of others I think is evidence against). That's unusual to hear that kind of statement. I wish I could have voted for Feraro, her and Mondale would have been good for the USA, but instead the vicious Reagan and Bush won in 1984. Can you believe they only won Minnesota? That is shocking, and to think that Reagan allowed the murder of John Lennon, and then there has to be some info about Vicki Morgan and that murder. Then Reagan and AIDS, how he felt that was a diety's punishment for immoral behavior, how they believed and paid a "psychic", the drug war minimum sentences which put nonviolent drug use getting 20 years while homicide (manslaughter) may only get 10 years, all kinds of brutal, idiotic decisions. But to me, that comment, and that the building is owned by Feraro makes me wonder if this isn't a murder that was encouraged by the current republicans in power. One thing that is for sure, is that democrat or republican, they both know who did the murder, because obviously if they can see and hear thoughts...I think they can figure out who killed who. The street cameras alone would prove who does 7 out of 10 murders. Infact, the streets are where some of the first hidden survalience cameras must have been used. Since, most people do not murder without a vehicle. Certainly many cameras were put inside the houses of important people, that was an early use of the movie camera and microphone (and wireless technology). Some person inserted "sock" into my text on Murdoch below, and then I found out later that this grad student Imette St. Guillen, 24, had been raped and killed. With rape and murder, it should usually be simple to catch the raper/killer because of the semen and sperm DNA. Apparently this person or people used a condom, still...I have a tough time accepting that no sperm dropped onto the body somewhere...condoms are messy. The DNA from under the woman's fingernails should easily be enough to identify the killer. This murder, to me, again says: we need cameras on the street available to the public, we need to focus more on stopping and identifying the violent and violence, we need to make this a planet where people can walk safely any where without fear of violence or arrest. I think there are possibilities for emergency devices, I thought, a cell phone with a quick 911 GPS location button, but then also, perhaps simply thinking "help" or "911" or "security" might be able to trigger a thought recording program. Evenetually we need to have camera programs that can identify abduction, violent activity the way humans can. Cameras may not be able to get a license plate, but they can be strung together to follow a vehicle to a neighborhood, or to track the vehicle from street to street.
Immigration is a current issue, and ofcourse I have opinions about immigration. I think citizenship should not be based on a marriage certificate, but on, if anything, a person's skills, physical beauty, the popular demand for the person to be a citizen. I am basically for no borders on earth. It's a tiny planet, and we can live together. For example, I am for mixing together the people of the Americas, and earth, diversity is going to be good. I don't want a city, nation, or planet all of one race of people. I see people in the US growing into the beautiful land of Mexico and South America, and those people growing and mixing into the northern nations, until there is a uniform consistency. Much of this I think will appear more obvious once humans live on the moon, mars, in star orbit, etc. But I think most humans will want to move from the earth eventually, because it will be too crowded, the people will have backwards old-fashioned views...some will have never left the surface, while here people are vacationing in between planets, etc...they won't want to be faced with the ignorance of those who have never left the surface of earth, who may be in some old religion, etc. The problems on earth will be a huge headache, they will be complex and vary tightly controlled, mainly because of the overpopulation. They will have to figure out how to manage the ocean water, with billions of humans and other species living in it. The strictest model, has them forcing humans off the planet, to the moon, to star orbit...but that requires having transportation, food, water to sustain those people. Matter is going to be the key to survival, and the ability to convert that matter into water, air, and food. The looser models, have the earth as all humans, importing water, everything else from other planets (or perhaps the center of earth). I don't doubt that what is called earth thousands of years from now may be a huge bee hive of ships and no actual planet. All the matter of the earth converted into living objects and supplies to maintain the growth of those living objects (our descendents).
I am glad the AP went through the US court system to get the names of those people locked in jail by the Bush jr administration without trials. It's bizarre what the Bush jr people are doing....if there is evidence, take the people to trial, if no let them go...it's like some kind of police state ideal. I know I would hate to be locked in a jail or hospital without a trial or anybody even knowing I was there, in particular when I have never been violent, and obeyed all the laws (which is shockingly difficult to do, given our bizarre, scotch-taped together law structure. our law system ought to be fully understood and under constant scrutiny and voting by the public to assure that we still all agree with the laws we can any time be charged with violating).
03-06-2006
Christianity (and on a larger scale all religions) has been such a disease of earth, and in particular is the disease of the americas. I think it's the main reason that Japan leads in robots, video cameras, automobiles, etc. It's because everybody here is lost in a christian fog. It's shocking that a Mediterranean guy could have such a lasting impact that his cult of followers would still be a million humans strong 2000 years later. It's different from Islam, which is also idiocy, because Islam is a "local" religion. Here in the Americas, people have inherited the Meditteranean religion of Christianity, where as Islam is centered around the Islamic nations where it was born. In Islam the people pay close attention to all the relatives of the cult founder, where in Christianity, they really don't, the cult founder is more or less a place holder to win popular support, or to be accepted with the majority, nobody actually knows anything of much about Jesus, or can understand anything in the bible. But, christianity is like a virus, and it's infected much of South America...that is why there is very little science and technology originiating in South America, because the allegiance to the Jesus Cult was hammered in, forged in blood by the Spaniards. And the same is true, for why we see very little science coming out of Spain, simply because the Jesus cult held a stronger support there, and the same for Italy, although it's interesting that Italy, does have some science and technology despite the christian idiocy, and I think it may be from the pre-christian Greco-Roman tradition, but I don't know. It's interesting that the asian nations don't have the disease of christianity, but yet, they have other problems, China and Viet Nam for example, have not reached even representative democracy yet. The same is true for Russia. I think, hopefully, the USA and south America will throw off the virus and shackles of religions and get back to science, social justice and technology and take the lead in science, and I hope the people of Russia, China, the so-called nonreligious nations are not infected with religion, continue to progress into full democracy, and continue the focus on science, social justice, and technology.
Communism in Viet Nam, and representative christian democracy in the Americas, all agree about anti-sexuality, and have harsh sentences, not one nation on earth, I think has avoided anti-sexual hysteria, or has a futuristic view of sexuality with consent. It's interesting that on the issue of sexuality, many communists, democratists, monarchists, representative democratists, oligarchists agree. Violent crime, also has wide spread support on paper, but obviously many nations do first degree homicide, like of drug users in Singapore, of homnosexuals in some Islamic nations.
My vote on the Randy "Duke" Cunningham is for no jail time, and I think that perhaps I might vote in favor of giving back money to the public. Since his crime is nonviolent, and it's not theft, as far as I can see, it's simply unethical. For those people, expose them, don't elect them, etc. But jail is too harsh, in particular 8 years, that is absurd. People get less time for violent crime. In addition, I have to wonder what happened behind the scenes, since this is a federal prosecutor, I think that Cunningham either pissed off Bush jr, or some other powerful person, or is being made an example of by Bush jr, because they all do that stuff...I mean that is what a representative government is all about...they sell their votes to the highest bidder. The public might do the same thing in a free market...for example, a candidate could pay them for their vote. In a true democracy buying victory would cost a lot more than it does now. But ofcourse, those people in our representative government all support causes that support them, it's the free market, if you don't like what you all see them doing vote for somebody else. I have to guess, and I lean towards, Cunningham was chosen to be made an example out of, he was a weak link among the republicans, it had to be a republican, and it is to show the public that Bush jr is bipartisan, and anticorruption. Perhaps the public is feeling that Bush jr is not bipartisan and is monetarily corrupt?
I was watching "AMW" (Americas Most Wanted) and you know, it's kind of interesting, they always show at elast one murderer, and at least one molestor. Can you imagine if they pursue their nonviolent crime angle more? Like this lady is wanted for stealing a dress, if you see her please call our hotline...this guy was caught with a bong but decided not to show up for court...cops what to talk with him...call our hotline. How about psychiatric "crimes", this lady has got adhd and she needs to be hospitalized and to take her meds, if you see her, call our fuguitive hotline. Then the future of that kind of orwellian nazism, crimes like obesity...this guy bought fatty foods, and can't control his eating habits, if you see him call our hot line. But then I was listening and ... it's an agressive show...Walsh wears a dead cow and does tough talking as a theme...but then I heard "somebody got close enough to kill him with a knife"...and I thought it was unusual, because the story was about a person who placed an ad for a person to rent a room...I mean...it didn't fit to say that somebody got close enough to him to kill him with a knife...and so I think this is an example of how conservatives are people, many times, who are advocates of violence. Look at who owns Fox, it's Rupert Murdoch, a person who said he feels Pat Buchanen is right on all the issues, a big supporter and friend of Ronald Reagan Sr. I don't doubt at all that Murdoch is as big into murder and violence as Bush jr is. Bush jr is openly pro violence, as he is the person most responsible for the homicides in Iraq of thousands of humans, and there is no hiding that fact. Those who voted for Bush jr, contributed to thousands of unneeded homicides of Afghan, Iraq and US children and adults. I think many people fell like, when they vote for a republican they may get a fiscal conservative and a tame person, but, when we look at history, all we see are conservatives linked to murder. Nixon linked to Fiorini with the JFK killing, Ford and the Warren commission, how they covered up the truth about Fiorini. Reagan, how he helped to get John Lennon killed in his first months in office. It's interesting about what Murdoch does, he buys up liberal media. For example, he bought Harper press, the people that printed "The Thought-Hearing Machine" and many other helpful books, and promptly silenced that source of info. Murdoch bought the new York Post and according to wikipedia, converted one of the most liberal newspapers into one of the most conservative newspapers. Murdoch basically plugs up any pipe of truth to the public that might exist, and fills it with his lies, pollution, and calls for violence. That's what is going on with Fox and the violent messages. Mursoch has been using his vast wealth, not to stop violence, not to free the nonviolent, not to spread the truth to the public, not to build robots, tell the stories of science, of history, to build moon stations or make more democracy where the public gets to vote, and certainly, obviously not to enhance the free flow of information, but to promote violence, to cover up and protect Thane Cesar, Frank Fiorini, Bush jr and Sr, and many other secret and public murderers. I think buying a copy of the Ny Post is like buying a bullet in the head for the next John Lennon, or the next Martin Luther King jr, the next RFK, etc. That seems clearly, to me, to be what people like Murdoch and many other pro-violent conservatives spend their time and money involved in, in particular when it comes to what images and sounds get beamed onto people's heads, they make full use of that to spread their evil violent images and sounds and brutal message of violence. It's interesting that when people elected Bush jr, they opened up a wave of violence on the earth, that has not been seen for a long time. They basically handed over the keys to the lambs to a bunch of Jessie James-like wolves, who promptly started up the mass murder and slaughter, starting with 9/11 which I think is clear Bush jr either masterminded, arranged, or allowed to happen, then Afghanistan and Iraq which have killed over 10,000 humans that never would have be murdered had Gore won. It's all part of a philosophy by this current group of conservatives in power, although perhaps not all conservatives, it's the idea, that it's ok to use violence to support your beliefs. They all seem to believe in that. For example, I am not that way, I think people have a right to express themselves nonviolently, to express their views, many times, I find their views dangerous, for example, religious beliefs, the cult of Jesus, muhommed, etc. I find to be very dangerous cults, but unless those people are advocating violence, or in particular if they are doing violence, I think they should be free to live in peace, and express their views which I find repugnant, evil, or simply bad. But Murdoch, Bush jr, Reagan, Nixon, many typical conservatives of this group in power, I think, have the view that their enemies ought to be killed. It's a natural reaction probably for many people, somebody criticizes you and you want to kill them, but to me, it's barbaric and illegal. But to them, violence is something they use, and don't mind using. I find it kind of ironic that a show like america's most wanted would be promoting violence, but yet it's the truth. Homicide is ok, when it is against their enemies, even when their enemies are law abiding people simply expressing their nonviolent opinions nonviolently. There is a side point to this and that is, in particular people who promote sexuality with consent. like look at the verizon.com web page, they are listed as a red company in buyblue.org, and they have this violent image of a male right kicking a ball, and I think that has to symbolize the Nazistic felling of violence against the sexual. the "violence against the sexual" is such a major theme in the conservative feeling. The Nazis for example, and many conservatives have very strong anger and dislike of homosexual people, in particular males. In Nazi Germany homosexuals were jailed, for exmaple. Even in some states recently homosexual males were jailed under the "anal sex" law, where...I mean it's right out of the nazi handbook, police broke into a apartment and arrested two males they caught having anal sex. With the cameras in our houses, and our thoughts on display for the elites, you can guess that most of these home invasions are not "coincidence". So I looked and it's interesting that T-Mobile has a prepay where you can only pay $25 every 3 months, where verizon charges $15/month. That's almost half the price, in particular for a person like me that only holds on to a cell phone for emergencies. So I think why not sell my verizon phone and buy a tmobile phone on ebay? I can't stand to be giving money to murderers.
qt: There are those who are the supressors of information, the shut-uppers, and those who are the liberators of information, the speak-uppers, which are you?
Secrecy is so evil. That is clearly what many of these conservatives benefit from. If only the public knew about the Nixon and Bush Senior link to Frank Fiorini, E Howard Hunt, I doubt the Bush familyi would be as popular. But that is another point, that for me, violence is a last resort, it's to be used only in self defense, and even then, jail is the answer to violence in my opinion. I am against the death penalty, but I accept homicide in self defense from violent assault. But you know, I was thinking that, again with the idea that the public elected a violent criminal into the highest office in the USA and how terrible that has been for the planet and in particular for the USA. They could have elected a person with a strong dedication to stopping violence, they could have elected a person with a neutral do-nothing attitude about violence, but then they went and elected a person who is pro-violence, causing more homicides and assaults then ever before. I don't know what the statistics are, but clearly, when 2000 US people are killed in Iraq, and 10,000 Iraqi people are killed, I don't think the actual numbers of violence on earth are going down. Supporters of Bush jr might argue that some rise in violence is necessary to reach a period of nonviolence, but look at their history, they're the people that have used the hearing thought machines to reak violence, and in particular murder onto innocent people like RFK and MLK, who always advocated nonviolence. Then in addition, Iraq is more violent now than under Saddam, and I think a lasting democracy is doubtful since it was implanted there...they would need people of the USA to hold it together for centuries probably. Still, no future peace justifies first degree murder in my opinion. In my opinion, we should be looking at a future where no missiles have to be fired, where no war happens, where only policing happens, and openly, with open trials where everybody votes and there are no secrets. Walsh was promoting some bill about, I think, extending the senteces for people charged with molestation, and I ask what about violent crime? Why is the focus not on violence? I think ultimately inside, many people's rage comes from their opposition to violence...it's the acts of violence against children that so anger us...the genital touching angers people...but in my mind the murder, the assaults of children (and ofcourse adults) ...those are the things that are much worse. I think I want to promote some new laws that protect the falsely accused of sex-related crimes. Perhaps a law like: there must be video evidence of molestation for a person to be arrested. Because I think there must be many people who have taken advantage of the anti-sexual hysteria to falsely accuse people of molestation. Then I can see supporting a law to protect those from overly antisexual judges, perhaps the "Trenton Veches" law, where no person can be jailed for more than 1 year for any first non-violent offense, no matter what offense. Perhaps to exclude restraint or abduction. That was another aspect, that Walsh and other anti-sexual crusaders could focus on longer sentences for child abduction, child restraining (and we can start in the psychiatric hospitals where restraining is routine). Still, I vote for a registry of violent offenders. It's fine to have a registry of sex offenders, but why not violent offenders too? Then I support a laws to put cameras on all the streets. That same person featured on AMW that murdered the person that placed the ad, would have been seen with a simple $100 street camera, but then, again, as always, I must stress, with images the public can also see and have full access to.
I think that young people should get a life-support pack when they turn 18, free pornography, tips on how to and help with getting hugs, kisses, oral sex, etc. In particular males...kind of a "congratulations you made it through 6 years without the legal right to have sex" (technically males age 12-17 can have sex with under 18 females...I think..I'm not sure about that...but then...what do they find? The female vagina is not ready for sex until 18, so they are sol [shit out of luck]). To quickly steer them from antisexuality, and violence, and back on the track of love and physical pleasure before the damage is irreversible. The same is true even for females. The second they turn 18, they can enjoy kissing, hugging, touching of genitals, oral sex (getting and giving) from all people 18 years old or older, and that ought to be opened up to them fully, to resussitate them from the cold period they survived of no genital caressing or physical affection (except from parent, siblings and pets).
I think I might support a law to not jail anybody that shows young people pornography, and in particular human anatomy books, and I wonder if people like Walsh and the lady who is supporting the antisex bill in Congress would support that too. In particular showing children books about human anatomy, shouldn't that be legal for a parent at least? No parent should be locked in a jail for showing a child they made half of a book of nude humans, describing the process of sex, about the vagina, penis, sperm, ovum, etc. Even actual images of nude humans, and nude humans having sex. To me, I see that as a personal choice by the parent, and not as lewd and licivious crime. But, I don't think that kind of a bill is going to pass any time soon, not in this decade or probably the next. In addition, what about a child that wants to see for themselves? I can see supporting a law to allow a child the right to see pornography for themselves, as long as they are the person initiating the request. People like Walsh, I think clearly, would deny children the right to see pornography, children that request to see pornography. It's all part of a group that is interested in limiting the freedoms of children. Children are not allowed to vote, to work, to own property, to see pornography, to drink alcohol, to touch genitals, even if they want to. In particular, voting, working and seeing pornography...for me...whouldn't that be the right of a child? I am not talking about a child that is forced into voting, working, or seeing pornography, but a child that explicity requests to vote, work or see pornography. Isn't it wrong to deny a child the same rights other humans have? But you can see, that children cannot defend themselves against those who want to limit their freedoms. It's tough to stand up publically for your preferences before age 30, really, in particular for humans that do not have much experience, have not had much time to learn history, etc. I don't doubt we will see some children smart enough to stand up and speak out for their right to vote at any age, and perhaps work some time, but I doubt many will speak out for the right to see pornography...they might be labeled "pervert", which is sad, because, I don't doubt that even the antisexuals like Walsh and that woman who support that bill saw pornography and enjoyed pornography before they were of legal age. It's sad that there are no adults that speak up for children's rights to vote, work, to see pornography, etc. On the topic of that bill, people like to use the exmaple of older males fondling younger people, but what about the cases where it's a young person, maybe an 18 year old fondling a 16 year old? Is that really a major crime? I can see some jail time for people that touch people without consent, but less than those who do a violent act. It's an interesting issue, people that go around and touch other people because for some it is a nuisance, even to the extent of wanting to jail the touchers for long sentences...decades in some cases, but other people don't mind being touched. I kind of am probably in the minority in feeling that people touching me in a nonviolent way is not a big deal, but if it obstructs my activity, I might be willing to vote for laws to restrict touching without consent, with punishments that might include jail sentences. So far, it hasn't been a problem, since very few people ever touch me. Once in a DMV in San Diego, a semi-attractive female in her 40s put her hand on my butt, and I enjoyed that, then years later an older guy put his hand on my butt in a Carl's jr and I felt neutral about that...I'm not aroused by it, like the female in the DMV, but I don't care. That is basically my experience with people touching me without asking, very few occurances. There are many things people can do simply from free information, and this is something that many people don't mention. Just the accusation that somebody has touched genitals is enough to ruin the career of many people. There can be public databases with all that info about every person, and no doubt, all people can get access to info to determine who to let into their house, who to let into the school, etc...with more free information, less secrecy and less punishments for those who own images that violate privacy, the public will become safer from violence in particular, but also more informed about who is who...for example...ok those people are religious, I won't try to make friends, etc...or those people spank,...or those people are atheists...that person has touched genitals...this person smokes...etc...all info that will allow people to direct their children and themselves in ways that they want to, without violating the rights and freedom of those who might have minorty lifestyles or opinions.
A quick note about the oscars, I am glad for John Stuart who is liberal, but the oscars is ridiculous. I can't watch that, almost all movies, and television, mainly because they are all so stupid. Star Wars and Robots are the only 2 movies I saw in 2005. Star Wars should win award for best movie, if popularity is the deciding factor since it is one of the highest grossing movies of all time, then came the Harry Potter and Narnia followed by the Mars thing. To me, it says, simply, the public likes movies that are not just people on earth, they want special effects, stories of other planets and stars perhaps. It's a mystery as to how Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time, I didn't bother to see it. It's a remake, as was war of the worlds. It's ridiculous to remake 1940s ideas, they are so outdated and tame. Plus, you know, the reality of hearing thought and the massive secret history, total free info (like they have it in the thought-hearing net), is going to completely change the routine of television (and the Internet is already making the television stations lose money).
03-03-2006
I think there is a strong argument to be made that the first eukaryote nucleus was the result of sex/cell fusion between two prokaryotes. Because when you look at some of the metamonads, they look very much like a sperm stuck in an ovum, in addition the mere fact that some metamonads reproduce sexually, I think is a strong piece of evidence that sexual reproduction came before the first eukaryote (at least those surviving eukaryotes). One idea I have not heard before today is that two pili capable prokaryotes merged. One opened a pilus, the other was completely engulfed through the pilus, then opened it's own pilus and the two DNAs merged. From then, the DNA would produce both cells within the host cell (and somehow the captured cell is created inside the other cell during assembly). So that would imply that nuclear pores evolved from pili, which perhaps could be tested. There are many theories about the origin of the eukaryote nuclei, but I think clearly the flagella on the nuclei of metamonads (parabasalids, for example), is strong evidence that the eukaryote nuclei were prokaryotes, and that some form of sex (most likely conjugation) was created among prokaryotes and inherited by the first eukaryote. It's an interesting thing to think about, and I think that the answer will be revealed relatively clearly in the next 100 years. When you look at a species like "coronympha", it looks very much like 8 sperm got captured in a big ovum. It looks like sex that was incomplete. The only difference is that the DNA in the ovum is missing. I think initially there was only 1 sperm, since then the DNA can easily be copied and connected to the main DNA. But the ovum DNA must have been merged with the sperm DNA, as would be the case for many instances of sex/cell fusion, But instead of the sperm dissolving (as is the case for humans), the sperm stayed intact and became the cell nucleus of the ovum. Then the two functioned as a single cell, which would be the first protist, or cell with DNA in a nucleus. Perhaps from there they did asexual budding, in fact maybe budding only evolved because of the merging of two prokaryote genomes (and those two species could have been different species or the same species). It's all speculation, but it's good to flush out these ideas to think about and compare to the physical evidence as time continues.
Gary Glitter was sentenced for 3 years for kissing and fondling the genitals of children, and I doubt I would give people that did violent crime, at the level of a spank, or perhaps even a first offense punch 3 years in jail. Somehow, I doubt that adult child spankers and assaulters are not even taken to court. I would be interesting to compare who else was sentenced in the Viet nam courts this week, how did the violent fare compared to the non-violent Glitter? The president of "enslave the children" wanted the full 12 year sentence, but has no comment on record for what sentence he approves of for violent crime, for example, spanking of nonviolent children, which must not be as big a concern of his, and many many others. As I have said many times, I think many of these "child" groups are less interested in stopping violence against children, and more interested in or focused on stopping nonviolent activity, in particular pleasure-related activity. As the only member of the "Stop Violence Foundation", my concern is violent crime against children and adults, so Glitter (presuming the accusations are true, which I think have not been proven, at least to me) would not be a concern for me. I think this will probably lower asexual tourism to Viet nam, because when all a person has to do is accuse somebody of molestation, without one piece of physical evidence, and the person gets sentenced to 3 years or more in jail, many people would not want the risk of being accused and then jailed without any evidence. It would be an easy way of getting back at your enemies, just pay a parent or child to accuse a person of molestation. In addition, there is probably a monetary incentive to accuse people that have more money (like most tourists) of molestation, the perfect claim, because, again, no physical evidence is needed. Each parent can only make the accusation once, but perhaps the extorsion money could be divided. There is one point about the UK charges of child pornography, I just want to comment that, can you imagine telling the nazis in the thought-hearing network: "um..sorry, you can't see inside this room right now, you know why? Because there is a nude child in there...sorry you are going to have to stop the routine saving of images from that particular camera...", a little voice beamed on my head since I was a child tells me that would not stop them. Perhaps people could change the child porno law to only include charging those who derive pleasure from child porno, not those who simply own it, to then make the thought-hearing people legal. But to me, how can you prove that somebody derives pleasure from seeing nude children? Just from the images during their masturbation or sex? Then, should thinking or finding pleasure from some image really be a crime? I vote no. It's freedom of thought, and many times our thoughts are not even our own, since they can be beamed there. Then look at how biased the press is, this shows me that people are long way from understanding the difference between violent and nonviolent crime, in particular when some element of pleasure or sexuality is involved. Why no comparison to other people being sentenced, for example people that are accused of assaulting a child or an adult? Because, I don't think they understand that there may be an imbalance there. The antisexuality is another thing that scares me, in addition to the psychiatric arrests of no return. It's still as I mentioned below, the public simply cannot get a handle on the division of violent crime and nonviolent crime. They have not been introduced to the idea of a standard system of sentences applied equally and uniformly (and fully constantly democratically) to all people. So, as a result, one human is sentenced for years for a nonviolent first time offense, while a second human gets a few months for their third homicide or fifth assault. It probably would not matter to any body unless they were that human sentenced (for the nonviolent accusation) or assaulted. But to me, I guess I have a special power of empathy that others do not have, I can easily see myself in the shoes of the latest nonviolent witch-trial victim, where I guess others have trouble considering that possibility.
03-02-2006
EX: if metamonads (diplomonads and parabasalia) have nuclei that were prokaryotes, which prokaryotes do their nucleii most resemble (obviously flagellated prokaryotes)? Lynn Margules has a good web page in PNAS (vol 97 issue 13) that supports the theory of a prokaryote origin in eukaryotes, and after thinking more about it, I think this is the most likely scenario, but am still keeping an open mind. It's an important question, because potentially all eukaryotes may trace their ancestry to one prokaryote that either merged with a different cell, eventually taking over the functions of the host's DNA, or a flagellated prokaryote that grew cytoplasm outside it's cell wall. One way to figure out which bacteria is to compare the flagella of metamonads and those of bacteria, in addition to the genomes, and chemical composition. That metamonads have flagella on their nuclei I think is strong evidence that the nucleus of all eukaryotes is descended from a flagellated prokaryote, but ultimately the physical (genetic, chemical, etc) evidence will show clearly where the eukaryote nucleus evolved from. I think that some metamonads like giardia form cysts with 4 nuclei is evidence that sex (genetic fusion between two cells) may be directly descended from prokaryotes, and may be very ancient, and perhaps was not evolved a second time, but again, I am keeping an open mind. The giardia cyst is very much like a diploid zygote. And it's clear that there is a relationship between the prokaryotic spore having a thick shell and the zygote forming a thick shell after fusion (sex, syngamy). So, I think the theory of sex being directly descended from prokaryotes is gaining strength in my mind.
Fans of Richard Dawkins and Eddie Tabash will be glad to see that the Infidel Guy, Reggie Finely interviewed both of them recently.
To see people subscribe to psychology scares me. Maybe there will be a time when psychology is not dangerous, when all psychological treatments are voluntary and consensual. But that is not the current situation obviously. The danger to me is that jailing people for delusion is unfair, making delusion illegal is unfair and violates the principles of free thought and free speech. But yet, it is still happening. No doubt there are many delusional people on earth, I cite the fact that 70% reject evolution as evidence of delusion, or at least inaccuracy. Currently psychiatric arrests are similar to arrests of people suspected of being witches, only there is not even any trial, or appeal, etc. To me it's scary, it's like the feeling many democracy supporters felt upon seeing people in Nazi uniforms. It's freedom of expression, and wearing a uniform is not illegal, but what it represents is an evil unjust system of persecution of minorities on nonexistent or trivial charges. The mass conformity, and the randomness of psychology is what scares me. Any human can be labeled as having a mental disease, as being mentally unstable, by the majority, even without any evidence, and in particular law abiding people, or at least people that have made a careful point never to be violent in their lives. And people will believe that mistaken myth, I know from experience. To defend people in psychiatric hospitals is to be labeled with a mental disease, just like those who defend homosexuality, who defend freedom to use drugs, who defended nonwhite people and women, who defended accused witches. To expose the thought-hearing will get you labeled with a mental disease, etc. There are other scary things out there for me, that all fit under the title:
"Jailed, but didn't do violence"
Ofcourse, some people are going to be jailed that are nonviolent, and those in my opinion are:
those who restrain people, who abduct people, who steal property more than 10 times, who touch against clear objection 10 times.
but there are many who get years in jail that should not according to my vote:
those nonviolent people labeled with psychiatric diseases, drug and consensual sex users, sellers, buyers, traders, copyright, patent violaters, traitors, secret sellers, liars, for religious beliefs, for not having any religious beliefs, for homosexuality, consentual sex, for consensual touching and or sex of any age, the list is a long one. But the public is not addressing these issues at all, I mean people are being jailed for life for selling secrets, for drugs, executed for drugs in some nations, executed for homosexuality, for infidelity, and the public can't figure out this basic idea...and many of them get to see inside the prisons, hospitals, inside people's heads...and they still don't figure it out. It is so basic to me: prison is for the violent people, the people that control their violence. And then the only difficult part is that prison, and a nonviolent prison at that, may be for people who restrain other people nonviolently but not consensually, who repeatedly: steal, trespass, or touch people against objection, and then with clear video evidence, not just a person's say so. These ideas are completely foreign to the public, but even if they were not, the only thing the public can do is vote for a representative to fix the system, they can't vote and fix it directly themselves yet. They still need the "training wheels of representative government", but that doesn't matter much, because this public is no where near addressing these blatently obvious injustices that are in the news everyday, where nonviolent people are getting years and years in jail, while violent people are going free in months. I just think, whern you are out there watching people's thoughts, watching them in their houses and apartments, you should have a basic sense of who are really the bad dangerous people and who are not, and this is something I think many people are missing; a basic sense of who are the most dangerous...why those are the violent? yes, those are the violent. and then the rest, who are nonviolent fit into a secondary catagory. Yes a secondary catagory, of nonviolent people. Those who are repeatedly violent, why, they are the biggest threat to society, they are the biggest problem of earth, are they not? The nonviolent may be a problem, but aren't they are "B" problem, aren't they "number 2" behind the "A" and "number 1" violent people threat? This is a basic idea that I think people are missing, out there. The Frank Fiorini, the Thane Cesar, the OJ, the people that assault and kill, aren't those the evil? aren't those the worst of society?
I was thinking more about the Afghan and Iraq invasion and I was thinking...you know, I think when we address violence, murder, assault, and injustice, like nonviolent people being jailed, etc...we ought to be logical, we ought to go for the minimum starter plan, not plunge in to the worst areas, the wasp nest. I think we need to use policing (ie capture, trial, etc), not missiles (ie murder) and work together as a planet to secure the areas we can, mainly our own nations. And then secure them from violence, and violent people, using as I have said before, an "open info model", where we openly use cameras, with images available to the public. The view of many conservatives is to plunge into an area and go ballistic, murdering and destroying everything, where I think the path to true democracy is not through violent take over, but by maintaining what we have and working at the borders, with free information and arrests of the violent to get more safety from violence and more democracy. But also, one key aspect, is by the policing method, the nonviolent method, nobody needs to be murdered, which is technically illegal, but currently, most people allow it.
02-27-2006
In trying to guess what the future will look like, I have stumbled on some really interesting ideas. One idea is that the earth may look like a sphere of moving (maybe many colored) ships, that are basically single family homes in orbit, so many that the people on earth will probably not receive any light from the sun (only electrical lights) eventually, perhaps. Other things include, when humans come to enjoy two things, science and sex. For science, people will recognize the stupidity of religion, I think, in the next 1000 years, at the current rate of people leaving religion, I put it at 2700AD for an end to major religions, and that was only linear. Humans will realize the basic scheme of colonizing planets and stars, pulling the stars out of the galaxy, forming globular clusters, elliptical galaxies, and they will be actively taking part in that with robots. But in terms of sex, imagine a society where nudity all the sexual images you could ever imagine can be shown publically. Eventually, people would not be so shocked by the same 4 or 5 basic sexual positions humans have been enjoying for thousands of years. I think people will come to accept their sexuality, to come out of the dark closets and admit that they enjoy sex, that it's biological, it's the most basic part of life. Eventually sex will become boring. That is why I think that ultimately, science will prevail, even over sex. People love sex, and no doubt sex is much more searched for than science, but you have to imagine a society where everybody gets all the sex they want, then I think they will turn to the longer term struggle of science, which includes, increasing life span, what planets of other stars are being exposed, and explored.
I vote for the human in Columbia that got 4 years for slapping a bottom to only get 1 day in jail per slap. Again, yet one of a trillion trillion examples where a democratic vote would have been better than one person's decision.
02-24-2006
I think many people think of, and I some times get thoughts about: is there a major catastrophy, or war coming because of the hearing thought? Clearly, when all the images of the past are made public, it's going to have an effect. Maybe they will come out smoothly, slowly, among small networks of the excluded, and grow slowly to include everybody, and by that time, many will have been adjusted...but it won't stop the majority feeling of jailing the violent. If done slowly, we would see the fall of the republicans because of the public's knowledge about the Bush family, Nixon, Reagan, all of their violent activities, but we are not seeing that, instead, we are seeing the public as ignorant as ever, unaware of the Bush family history. We are drifting backwards and a very fast pace. But back to this, cataclism...you know, for sure, there will be anger on the part of the excluded directed at many included, but also, we have two sides here at 50/50 in the USA and they are constantly at each other's throats to begin with, the images about hearing thought, Fiorini, Thane Cesar, many hidden truths, may open up a civil war, and we wake up and we are all being shuffled into underground bunkers, who knows? To face a life of producing military robots, tanks, and jets to defeat the killers of the Kennedy's, and all intellectuals, scientists and liberals...basically republicans versus democrats, conservatives versus liberals...it would be terrible ofcourse, but it enters my mind, are we standing precariously on a point or firmly on a plane? I see a huge chasm from those who hear thought and those who don't...between the official history of law and order and the actual history of lies and mass and multiple secret murders. Is that space going to be bridged, or filled with corpses? I can't predict the future, but I think people have to agree that...when hearing thought comes out it could be nothing like the xray machine...or it could be something like laser war, or worse. I am one of those people trying to bridge that scary space. For example, I vote, in thought no less!, to jail those who assault me with lasers, maybe it's a joke for those in the included...arrest an included...an included go to jail...that's a laugh. But, you know, I'm at least trying...I'm voting for democracy, I'm voting for law and order, even in the camera nets, I think that's a good effort, I doubt others are. They sit back and ... you know it's probably tough to think...they accept what ever is in front of them. "A month in jail for that prick that is assaulting me with a laser from above!" I think out loud (at least for those that can hear thoughts), and this is my latest effort at bridging that vast chasm, bringing those hidden in the thought net into a logical society of democracy, law, order, and out to the public for an introduction.
It is ironic that the conservative called in google and yahoo, what a time waster, but time flies by while nothing gets done in this ignorant age. It's all for show...what a petty deal. It's the free market people can sell censored material, any material. And here the republican are concerned about censorship...that's their bread and butter, look how they had the FCC go after Janet's nipple, Howard Stern, ... I mean that is pure irony and hypocracy, not even to mention the secret 100 year old hearing thought bs. It's a big time and money wasting show, the conservatives hate the young people in the technology companies, because they are liberal. Why don't they address full free democracy, full free information, stopping violence, ending the drug war, legalizing prostitution, a major science and evolution movie, being able to quit the military, something of value? But they raised the topic of China and I was thinking about one thing, that China is still using a 10,000 symbol language instead of a phonetic alphabet of 30 symbols. Japan and Korea went phonetic alphabet, but not China or Taiwan. I get the feeling that the elites that can read and write which are perhaps 20%? enjoy the supremecy and keeping the rest down. They could make a phonetic alphabet for chinese, even using my own which is fine, and perhaps 60% more would be able to read and write. It's like living in 1200 to have a writing system that you have to be a mensa or virtuoso of memory to be able to use. Who can remember the meaning of 10,000 symbols? But you know, it's also ridiculous waiting for communism to fall in China, ay yi yi, cmon already, we know it's going to happen, why do they keep delaying it? go democracy already. And even then, you can be sure, as they are the last nation, actually the Islamic nations may be the last to reach democracy, they will only go "representative democracy" which is like training wheels when going from monarchy or oligarchy (which is probably more close to the current Chinese government) to full democracy. Even the USA still has those "training wheels". The Islamic nations are going to need training wheel harnesses you know, because democracy there is going to be a long time coming, except maybe for Turkey and Egypt. I don't doubt that we will welcome China into democracy within 100 years, and perhaps more like 50. The best part about China is that they are not plagued by a religion, like we are here and they are in the Islamic nations, and really everywhere, as they are in South America and the native american nations (but the advantage there is that it is a foreign religion, where in the USA it's native since they are european...the native american people may throw off christianity as the white people's disease, but then science has traditionally been the white people's too, no doubt both religion and science will become fully integrated). So China does not have the cancer of religion there, and that may serve to make them first to the moon, first to mars, who knows, first in the economy, but what they are lacking in is social justice, full democracy, obviosuly and they are a long way away from that, so intellectuals are still in trouble in China, more so than here in the Americas, Europe or Russia, but perhaps safer than in Islam and Africa, which, if you look has the highest rate of homicide, although south america has many too, and the USA is in the top 30.
I think there are many comparisons to the current modern society and the nazi society. In a way it's nazi light, because there are clearly two classes of people, those who are included and those who are excluded from the 100 year old secret of hearing thought. There are similarities in how the elites have unimaginable wealth and luxury, I mean seeing and hearing thought, seeing inside everybody's houses...just a very very large advantage over the other side, the other side, the excluded don't really stand much of a chance when technology is compared (although technically the excluded own much of that technology). The included have a clear supremecy in technology, in information, in wealth, just like the Nazis did over those who opposed them in Europe (mainly Jewish people, liberals, intellectuals, atheists, agnostics, scientists, etc.), but there is a price they had to pay, and it's a price the included must pay now too, and that is great wealth and technological advantage, but very very poor morality, poor ethics, poor logic. So it is a wonderfully posh life for the included, but like the posh Nazi life, it can't really be fully enjoyed because of the antisexuality, the persecution, the random violence, the power of ostricizing those who don't conform, ... it's a life of many many advantages to be included, hearing thoughts around you, seeing inside houses, but in addition to the lack of logic and puritanical values of the majority that must be endured, there is the imminent dark clouds of the allies, the resistence, the union army, the abolishonists, etc. it may seem like a laughably weak group, but the forces of freedom, I think win over immorality, dishonesty, elitism, oppression, in long term battles. They won in WW2, in the civil war, the war for democracy. And ofcourse, those in power, could not imagine a time when they would ever be defeated, and why would they? They have always enjoyed technological superiority, with moral inferiority. So I think, that's why the elites in power are using "terror" all the time, they know it's coming...the time the truth and the public finally win against the tyrants, the oppressors, the liars, the violent, the brutal, ... we know the truth will eventually win, and I think that will happen sooner without religion because all the religions are mostly lies, science, truth and life without religion is the future, is the more honest. But it occured to me that there are real similarities throughout history...take for example, in Auschwitz, the Nazi's had building after building of food, while the people in the prisons were gassed and starved. Here, people in the included have unending information and wealth, but the excluded live in poverty, and ignorance, not an idea of who killed who, or what is going on around them, they don't even get the crumbs that spill over from the included. The interesting historical effect is, I think, and maybe I'm wrong, but the worse punishments are given out in the time of oppression, the worse the payback is...it is like an eye for an eye, or maybe even 2 eyes for one eye, who knows...but clearly, the South got pounded, the Nazis got pounded, it was terrible ofcourse, but many would argue they deserved it, and certainly murdered many people. With the increase of technology, the good thing is that the excluded, once they do get to see, which is inevitable, I think within 50 years, all those crimes, all those lies, all that secret violence, will all be shown in living color, and those people, unlike many hidden Nazis will have no where to hide, I am glad to say. And it serves them right, we are heading into the walking robot era, the street cameras for the public, the big democracy, the big free info, the moon cities and interplanetary travel era, and I think humans will leave this filth era of lies, ignorance, secrets and violence behind us after a very very large clean up.
I think there is a phenomenon where many religious people celebrate their dedication to illogicalness by purposely chosing the most illogical choice. It finds echos in the phrase "taking a leap of faith", where despite all physical evidence to the contrary, they choose the illogical answer and proudly so. The main problem with this is that, when we as a society chose to go the exact opposite route of logic, we get a chaotic society, for example where violent people are not jailed and nonviolent people are jailed. Where truth is viewed as bad, and lies are viewed as good. It's a recipe for disaster. It's like walking proudly off a plank.
I am a very busy person, but I can't not comment on this, it's a gross miscarriage of justice. http://www.courttv.com/trials/posey/ has many of the details but this guy, kills his dad, step mom and step sister with a hand gun and may get out of jail at age 21? I mean that is disgusting, and here again an example of how our court system needs to be democratized. One man decided the sentence for Posey, this guy http://www.courttv.com/trials/posey/sentencing_transcript_ctv.html James Waylon. Again we can credit the no-where-near proven theories of psychology for this release of a killer of 3 people. Waylon claimed Posey suffered from "post-traumatic stress disorder", and that is why it's ok to let him go free. I don't believe in PTS disorder for the most part, and even if true, excuse me for life but stress is no excuse for killing people in first degree. Here this guy Posey killed a 13 year old girl, Marilea in an absolutely first degree homicide. That alone should equate to life in jail, but in addition, the killing (ruled 2nd degree homicide by the 12 person jury... I mean...that is second degree? shooting a person who is sitting there on the couch?) of Tryone Schmid should leave no question about a life sentence, and that is my vote for Posey, a life sentence in jail, perhaps if he had only killed Paul Posey, having seriously looked at all evidence, from the thought-hearing and eye camera network, perhaps rules only 30 to 40 years in jail, but killing a young girl and then an adult female, to me all 3 add up to life in prison. It's shocking to me, and Waylon, the judge uses the word "bore" to imply that Posey was sodomized, I serious doubt the charges of sodomy, and I can only speculate but I am going to type what I think happened: Republican christian conservatives hate Sam Donaldson and I will tell you why, because Donaldson put his career on the line in the 1970s to bring down Richard Nixon in Watergate, more than perhaps any other television reporter. Clearly Donaldson was branded as a total liberal and in my mind he must be to so actively take part in the bringing down of Nixon, who was a criminal, a thug, a vicious liar, obviously. Nixon is clearly linked to the killing of JFK through Frank Fiorini who was in the Watergate...I mean it looks like a small sect of outlaws the Fiorini, Hunt, Nixon, Bush group but they must represent many people's bizarre violent values. So what I think happened is that conservatives in New Mexico, or perhaps in the US federal government, which is like an underworld group who commit unending crime and are never charged because it's part of this massive secret camera-thought network. But they saw this young male, Posey as a person that could be used to get back at Donaldson, and/or to make Donaldson look bad. So a person with the initials "HE", maybe Henry, Hank, how many first names with "H" are there? And this person is either in the NM police, FBI, the US FBI, CIA, or US military, beamed some images and/or sounds onto the mind of the young Posey, which was nothing new, this is their job...they try to spin people's minds to the republican advantage, but this time, as is the case many times, HE, whoever that is, many people know who he is, beamed perhaps an image of Posey's sister's gun, images of Posey shooting his dad, onto Posey, and planted the suggestion to kill his dad with his sister's gun into the mind of Posey, who accepted the scheme as his own idea, or in any event as a good idea. This beamer took advantage of Posey's anger at his dad, to plant the idea of murder into Posey's head, and for that, I vote to sentence "HE" to at least 20 years in jail, and perhaps more, once all the evidence has been shown to the public. This story, though has been buried for some reason, maybe because it's not a big deal to release people who murder 3 people, but I think it's because it makes the conservatives look bad, many people must know what happened. Some people beamed a memory on my head, of an October many years ago, when I was very young, 10 to 14, and somebody beamed the idea on me to stick a knife into a pumpkin my parent had bought, which I readily accepted into my mind, and thought would be funny, my dad took this knife in the pumpkin to be kind of serious and chatted with me about it, saying he didn't think it was funny. At the time I was surprised because I didn't think it was a big deal (we grew up with toy guns, etc...looking back I wouldn't advice that), but looking back now, I can see, that, putting a knife in a pumpkin (although perhaps many people do that) is not funny, it's just supportive of violence, in any event it's definitely not funny, society is so scewed currently that some people might think it is, which is a bizarre phenomenon. So I think the events are similar, some conservative, conservative uneducated christians fill the police and government ranks, there are exceptions, thankfully, but statistics show that most people in police are conservatives, and this has been a terrible injustice for the people of earth and in particular the USA. Look what they did for Thane Cesar for example, and I think there are parallels here with this Cody Posey and that he may have been helped perhaps with the "welding rod" burns. If the burns are real, then this shows that people like Donaldson, with money, should never support people who do violence. It's a basic ruling guideline in life...never hire or support people who are repeatedly violent, don't support that kind of unpunished violent crime, and you know, I kind of have doubts that Donaldson would support a violent person, but millions of people are violent. But I seriously doubt Posey was sodomized, and I don't know if that was claimed, but, you know, after age 30, an erect penis and physically doing sex is many times not even possible for males, so I have doubts there. Then the accusation that Cody was tortured with farm tools...I mean you have to think about that for awhile...a person would torture their son...with special items like farm tools found in the barn...I doubt it. Look how people in police helped out Frank Fiorini, with the magic bullet, and how they burned the Enyart photos, and you know the list goes on and on and on...the republicans are like Nazis, they rule in a brutal lawless way, supressing oceans of truth. Again, this is one of a million examples, where again I say...look let's take the sentence out of the hands of a judge and give it to the jury, and to the public. I would like to see a candidate for government say "we are going to open up voting by the public, not as the final word, but to serve as a guide on all court decisions, on all laws, on all budget decisions, on any and every government decision, because the public deserves to have a voice in the laws they must live under.", and then on the Internet, with credit card type verification of identity.
But so with the pumpkin example, the power of suggestion with this image beaming technology is shockingly phenomenal...that is why it is beyond simple nonviolent activity to beam suggestive images on people's heads at this time. Because for many people, and perhaps even the vast majority, beaming suggestive images onto people's heads many times is like controlling a pawn piece, like directly moving a robot...I mean there is very little free will involved on the part of the victim, in this case Cosey Posey. Posey can't be relieved of his responsibility for doing the actual murder, but clearly HE, whoever that is, pulled alot of the trigger, and I don't care if HE cries until he dies, that asshole has to go to jail. But you know, I doubt he will. And this is part of this massive injustice that is happening. Nobody in the camera thought network gets jailed...they get away with murder. It's like a two sided planet...you know, those who are excluded and are the victims of the laws, and those who hear thought and cannot be prosecuted.
I think the feeling is that, the republicans picked up the side of Posey, because, first they hate the liberal Donaldson, and so murder ok employees of Donaldson is ok and moral in their mind, and secondly because they can spin things to make this case an example of how it's ok to murder the sexual, even though I doubt, as I said this young male was sexually abused in any way, still all anybody needs to do, and this is a classic, standard of defense theory, is to claim sexual abuse...it's the most heavily used, the most effective device, it works much of the time, no evidence is needed, just a person's say so is enough, and then it justifies murder of the alleged sexual abuser, step sisters, brothers, relatives, neighbors...anybody. And so, that concept of it's ok to murder those who touch your balls, or are sexual, etc. that theory has been a gold mine for conservative republican criminals in power. I could go on for hours about this, because it is an example of the millions of things that are wrong with the USA government and people. in addition, I think it's clear that there should be no "juvenile" law. That has been a mistake from the very beginning. There is no line where a person magically changes, the closest thing there is to that is puberty which happen at 10,11 or 12 for most people, not 17 or 18. And even there, you know, there is no magical transformation, younger humans certainly have less experience, but it's like ignorant people, if they didn't know homicide was against the law, and people are jailed for life for killing other humans in the first degree, we don't then free them, they still must be punished for their crime. But all the wording like "bore", etc and the bizarre logic of the person employed as judge on this one, to me, say that Bush jr, and other conservatives, stepped in and said...light to no sentence. They did the same thing for Mark Chapman, Thane Cesar never even was arrested. It's shocking to the extreme, but true, and much of it is due strictly to the secret of hearing thought, that is the only way, these criminals can be getting away with all this murder and dishonesty. And then as a brief aside, I want to again explain, the hopelessness of our situation here in the USA, to get to see and hear thought, we need to 1) elect a liberal in 2008, but even that is just a tiny tiny step towards us all getting to hear thought...like Kerry or Clinton...they are not going to open up the thought network, none of those people are, but, for sure, without question the republican never never never in a million years will open up hearing thought, they are the people who are mainly responsible for the secrecy to begin with. plus they have taken full advantage of the network to do murder, to cover up murder, they can't possibly think the public hearing thought would be to their advantage. So, we, the public are not going to get to hear thoughts, ... I think for a long long old time...long long time....years and years...decades...the way the idiots in the USA are voting....then...I think a part 2 requirement is 2) the public needs to vote directly on the laws...that is one major way that we might get to hear thought, when we ourselves could vote on the laws...there would be much less fear, much less injustice, etc...it would then be possible to progress to open up the hearing thought technology, which is "our trillion dollar technology controlled and operated by people with minus trillion dollar values." and 2) is a long long old time away...decades...maybe a century...maybe 5 decades...long ol time. We might have trimmed 8 years from there had the US elected Al Gore, now really we've tacked on perhaps another 15 years until we can even get back to not being at war, no deficit, and working to stop violence. There are many lessons here, and one certainly is don't look for justice if you are a liberal in a red state, but then that is a very old lesson. Even a liberal in a conservative county can expect injustice. It is interesting to me the way, nowadays simply "law abiding" is liberal, I think...people that have lives, that are busy with their hobbies, and benign people, then "law breaking" are the conservatives...their infantile, violent, vicious, liars, uneducated, outlaws. It's going to take decades to make a decent law abiding society in the USA, I mean I am talking about when Fiorini and Thane Cesar are completely exposed...hearing thoughts is no longer a secret, we come to terms with all the secret murder and lies. It's going to be a long long time because we can even get simple justice in the USA, and I mean the most basic of logic and truth.
To summarize, I must be from Mars, or somewhere to think that murdering 3 people should result in life imprisonment. HEre is a guy, although very young, that killed 3 people included a young girl. I mean do you think this guy is going to have a happy life and never kill again? It's like the Willie Horton thing...what are the conservatives thinking when they protect Thane Cesar? When they protect Frank Fiorini? and now...when they release Cody Posey and this HE camera-thought net guy?
More info: I think people should be told that: if somebody assaults you, you should tell the police, even if you will be jailed for making a false call, or hospitalized for making up false events, or even getting in trouble with the police yourself. Basically, I think we will get to a society where people will not only be told to call police if they are assaulted, to get as much evidence, mainly video of the assaults, as possible. The answer to assault is jailing the assaulters, not murdering them...I mean that is perhaps a valid answer for somebody being assaulted, but I wouldn't want to take my chances with murder...I would simply report that assault, but, like most people, I have come to realize that the people in police will not do anything, and it only gets me in more trouble to report assaults, one assault I never called the police about because it was a person I worked with, plus it was a minor assault and the sentences for assault are far harsher than should be, in particular for minor assaults, which should potentially only be hours or days in jail, not years. But still, it's good to add to the statistics to show what is really happening on earth. So, ideally, when a person is assaulted, they should call police, the police should gather evidence and make an arrest if there is evidence of assault.
There was the one example of the homeless people being murdered by young males, and again I vote for life imprisonment for both those males, but then that is Florida under Jeb Bush...I mean...I think they will probably get a couple of years in a juvenille jail. It's amazing to me that when we look at the juvenile laws, they appear to allow young violent males to go free. When really the phenomenon of violence probably appears continuous, mainly from young males, ages 12 to 25. There is no line at 18 where the act of violence suddenly jumps up to high occurance. It probably starts up for males around age 10 reaches a peak around 20 then bottoms out around 30.
02-23-2006
LINK: http://www.sheetmusicarchive.net/index.cfm
free sheet music of the classics, like Mozart piano sonatas, I'm learning to play Piano Sonata 1 (k279) which totally jams and is in C so easy to play. I doubt people will gather to listen to classic as time continues, but I see a possible rebirth of that kind of technical skill in the future. When looked at in retrospect, perhaps there was a kind of decline in musical skill requirements, or appreciation of technical skill, kind of a miny collapse of music after the 1700s with Bach, Mozart and Beethovan, Chopin, which ended, perhaps in the 1800s and continued with pop music into the 1900s...it's an interesting history. It's interesting that the electric guitar is a descendent of the violin (I guess or perhaps the other way around violin from lute). But it's interesting that the introduction of distortion to electric guitar is what happened in the 1960s, the 1950s had that twangy amplified guitar, the electric guitar that replaced the acoustic, microphoned guitar...the 1950s music sounds tame when compared to the distorted guitar. Now the distortion guitar effect has become more refined, more varied. I can only imagine what kind of simple thing like a guitar distortion circuit will make the next musical era. Already the synthesizer and electronic sound is becoming popular. The amazing thing I realized about digital sound is that, it's completely an open canvas...any sound can be created...for example with 16 bits at 48khz samples, one second of sound/music has (2^16) 65536^48000 possible sounds. It's a finite number, although very very large (it's too large for the windows calculator, but it's 6.5e48004, 6 with 48004 zeros after it), interestingly enough. Anything you can say in 1 second, anything you can play in 1 second, is included in those 6e48004 1 second samples, if I am not mistaken. So, you can see, that unlike a guitar, piano, or other instrument, the digital sound canvas offers many more possibilities, many of which, will probably be explored in the next thousands of years. It's interesting that people like to please their ear sensors, we know they like to pleasure their eye sensors, and although many lie about it, also their touch sensors. We have a limited amount of sensors (although again a large amount) in our bodies, and we enjoy filling those sensors with a wide variety of data. It is perhaps a battle of "sensors versus censors" ahaha.
One thing in robots I found kind of cool to share is the way that robots will track objects. It's kind of amazing that we do this ourselves. We basically estimate what people in cars will do, and people walking will do...where they will go and be located in the next 3 to 5 seconds. Robots will do this, but much better than we do. One other thing is that I think it's clear that robots will have to make a 3D map of the universe around them in order to pick up and put down objects, and to make sure where they are walking is clear, and that has some interesting results. One is that, as far as I know, and there is probably a quick fix to solve this problem, but some objects are hard to model. Objects that easily and often change shape:
liquids (like water is difficult to model)
cloth, towels, clothing
electric cords
thin paper
It's interesting to compare to humans, who have no problem understsanding the spacial dimensions of those objects. I think as a basic guiding principle, if humans can do something, there must be some simple trick to allow robots to do that thing too.
Without trying to offend anybody, simply stating my honest opinion, not directed at any one person, and this applies to many many people: I find the belief in gods and demons (although less than these:) hell, heaven, (which are shockingly very common place) is just dumb...it's just very dumb I think....it's like believing in magic...you know that the rabbit actually materialized in the hat, etc. in Santa, the easter bunny, in ghosts, ... and I think one of the main reasons people believe those old myths is because many of them have never been openly questioned or explained. There was a good book on the "history of hell" by a woman who goes through history and describes the various views of hell in the past, where the myth originated from, etc. Heaven and Hell are as Pat Benetar said althought taken perhaps in a different context "for children"...there is a double meaning there that is apt belief in hells, and demons, etc...it's for people who are easily duped, that don't know much about history, don't know much about biology, ok you get the picture. don't know much about a science book, don't much about the french-eye tuch(us), isn't that the lyrics?, anyway. The key I think to getting people to overcome that fear and mistaken belief is through a good history of earth videos, and it has to be done in a way that is not boring...perhaps animation, I dunno...some people are going to be a loss, and really, bad traditions are only truly gone when they fade to the past...there is always some lingering belief, for example in witchcraft that still persists, but for the most part, much of society, perhaps a majority, dismisses claims of demonic possession, witchcraft, etc. Still, the power of pasting a devil onto somebody persists as strongly as ever, because like insanity, it's a powerful myth. That gave rise to the expression "demonizing" a person, people could lower the popularity of an opponent simply by suggesting that they were in league with the devil. The key to rising out of that kind of society of idiocy and suspicion is through learning about the roots of those myths, but also arguing logically about what things like evil actually are. For example, I have boiled it all down to this: evil is a human prejudice...we as a species determine what is evil, although perhaps there is some universe code among all the advanced life to determine things like...purposely destroying any life, even at the size of snail is evil, etc. it's just a set of values that people make for themselves. But to make things clearer, basically I have come to the simple conclusion that first degree murder is the worst evil, then assault, then restraint, restriction of movement, and then we are in to the realm of still evil, but certainly less so, like lying, touching against objection, making people itch without consent, lying about murder, murdering other species besides humans, assaulting other species besides humans, theft, ...so you know...that's my view of evil, but I get the feeling from many religious that their view of evil, doesn't include any of those things but only includes one thing: not subscribing to their common shared religious beliefs, which is shocking to me. Simply because a person does not believe in god, a simple free information choice, religious people view the person as evil...even if the person has never murdered, rarely lied or stolen, etc. the person is many times a totally law abiding citizen, but the religious label them evil or in league with the devil simply because they reject the person's religion. It's a phenomenon and it's total idiocy to me, but I see it everywhere. Somehow they can condone lying and protecting Frank Fiorini, the killer of JFK, Thane Cesar, etc., they can condone lying for 100 years about hearing thought...I mean that is what Jesus, Muhommed, all the Gods...are all about? They approve of that? I have doubts. So we find, the religious, many times, although there are most definitely exceptions, lyings, murdering, protecting murderers, ...and then in the same breathe arguing how moral and ethical they are, and what good values they have, and how the godless are the most immoral and evil. It seems to me a tough argument to make in light of all the lies about Fiorini, Cesar, and hearing thought. But clearly, my opinion, and the weight of what I see clearly as truth has little or no value to the majority of people on earth at this time.
---from message to atheism@yahoogroups.com
Besides me enjoying saying "quid" and "pence", I agree
about the free science info, as I just stated in my
last message. Viva open source. I mainly use Linux
and all my works are basically GNU.
Hey I just read today in latimes.com that SF had a
decriminalize sex workers ballot measure that didn't
pass...damn that is awesome that it got on the ballot.
To me that means that decriminalized prostitution is
on it's way to popularity in San Fran. That is a
couragous effort. I hope the talks me and Tabash gave
helped that effort. And when we are talking about
decriminalized prostitution, I think mainly , we are
talking about removing the restraints on average
adults who simply want to list their consentual
services on the open market, kind of like an ebay, or
personals, but to get some money, find some love and
pleasure, get some money for all the work they put
into their beautiful or even semi-decent bodies if
possible. You know, there have to be many people that
would accept $100 just for somebody to touch their
butt in a nonpainful way, maybe I would too, in
particular a nice female (or even for free), were it
legal to do. I don't know that a person would pay me
to do that, but, I honestly can't see any major harm
in that. But now, with prostitution illegal, I would
feel some fear, because ofcourse, I could be jailed
for soliciting prostitution, etc. It seems to me as
trivial as the ancient homosexuality laws, the anal
and oral sex laws...I mean, when will they focus on
stopping violence, theft and other true crime, and
stop making consentual sexuality illegal? Many times,
I am sure, that, in particular, for older inpudent
males, they may simply want to pay to massage
females...not even any sex involved and even that is
illegal. It's a sensitive topic, because people have
been programmed to think that even consentual sex is a
major taboo and should be kept secret and away from
the public. I have a new song I am calling "Stop
Sex!", because that is the feeling I am getting from
the public..."we've got to go for mass extinction!".
But truly, the antisexuality is misplaced and
hypocritical, because it's just consentual touching,
whether for money or for free, just as cleaning
toilets or flipping burgers is consensual whether for
money or for free. And hypocritical because, somehow,
humans manage to have sex, and I think ultimately, the
average human enjoys the physical pleasure of
consentual skin touch, etc. Frigidity is something
that is learned over time, and I doubt would be so
common or naturally expressed in a society that
promotes consensual pleasure, which is what the earth
will probably be in 2500. By ending the prost laws
(which Eleanor Roosevelt called for way back when),
the drug laws and focusing on stopping violence,
bringing info to the public, on democratic decision
making, ... we will go a long way towards making that
2500 society now and today in the 2000s.
This is totally Ted, again, signing off from exlusia,
Ted
---end atheism@yahoogroups.com
---from atheism@yahoogroups.com
That's good to hear, I am sure Tabash will give an
interesting speech. The idea of separation of
religion and state is an excellent idea, but
ultimately I am sure the popular vote will prevail.
For myself I am placing my focus on bringing the
history of science, religion, evolution, and the
future to the public for free. The model of society I
am working towards is total democracy all the time,
removing religion through education and popular
choice. You know, I think trying to get religion out
of government through the court system is fine, but
ultimately I think all court decisions ought to be
decided by the public, the system of individual judges
and 12 people juries is much more chaotic than public
opinion, there are plenty of examples but look how
Larry Flynt was sentenced to life in Ohio for
porn...you know, would the public have handed out the
same punishment? I doubt it. So, in this current
judicial system there are far more liberal losses than
gains. Now we are looking at a Supreme Court who
don't reflect the gender of our nation, and therefore
most certainly don't reflect or express loyalty to the
popular opinion (or ofcourse the most accurate truth
for that matter) of this nation.
I could go on, separation of church and state is fine,
but it's a tough argument when we all know that total
democracy and total free info is around the corner. I
certainly vote against religion in any part of life or
government, but my vote is probably in the minority.
I think separation of church and state is the major
atheist thrust now, where my thrust, as I said is
getting the history of atheism, history of religion to
the public for free...I think that would be money
better spent, perhaps. So, it's two different
methods, but both with the goal of making religion
extinct. You know, I view court victories as nice,
but you know, there is a christian majority here and
they are going to get their way one way or another,
the best approach is trying to convert people through
education I think, to win over the public with truth,
science, stopping violence, free info, etc.
I can't believe the founding fathers were able to pass
a separation of church and state, that is amazing, and
has been very beneficial. It's similar to the civil
war, no doubt racism suffered a major defeat, although
at a great cost in lives, but I think people will look
back and say that democracy perhaps did not win, and
that an end to slavory was imposed on the majority of
those in the south east. I think ultimately,
obviously the USA has benefitted from that
undemocratic liberal victory (although it's tricky
because some humans in the south murdered people in
the union army, and should have been captured, tried,
and jailed, ... but it's the limit on
technology...basically people decided to just open up
a full scale civil war instead of arrest a handful of
murderers). Perhaps, like communism in Russia,
slavory would have eventually fallen in a seceeded or
slavory south, and perhaps pro-slavers became more
entrenched in their belief, it doesn't matter now,
since we receive the benefit of that victory.
I think in some way the religions should be taxed like
everybody else, certainly property tax...whatever
other charities and or non-profits have to pay. I was
thinking this morning that I think the science group
ought to be competing with the religions, mainly
christianity for minds much more vigorously, perhaps
as vigorously as the christians do, with free
literature, dvds, television programs, movies, etc.
It's hard to believe that the multitrillion dollar
science and education industry can't produce free
science-based/anti-religious DVDs, major motion
pictures, free music, radio and national television
for the public. My videos, the Dawkins video
"Religion: the root of all evil?", are I think , just
the beginning of a more large scale effort to bring
the truth to the public in a way that only godism, and
christianity have done up to now. I mean when we turn
through the channels we see far more religious
material than atheist and science material (or pro
sexual material for that matter), in particular
atheist or anti-religious material. We need to pump
up the jam on the anti-religious message...I mean
people watching television are stuck with all that
religious crap...I doubt they will find any truth with
only religious crap on, ofcourse many will turn to
religion, simpy because there is no other choice
available.
To me, the major issues are probably less
atheist-based, you know, stopping violence (and that
includes seeing and identifying the most violent),
freeing the nonviolent (in particular for drugs and
prost) from prisons and hospitals, full
democracy/democratizing the governments of earth (and
not that representative crap either), full free
info...exposing thought-grams, the PSIGI and hearing
thoughts, getting the history of evolution, science,
the future (including walking robots, and an end to
aging) to the public for free, those are the basics
for me, and then ofcourse, criticism of religion,
teaching the history of atheism (which is all part of
history of science), promoting consentual sexuality,
converting the psych hospitals to be consentual only.
I have distilled my main goals down to a paragraph, I
mean that's amazing.
ok peace poopers from the excluded this is Ted signing
off,
Ted
-----end atheism@yahoogroups.com
02-21-2006
SCI: I can only guess how much time it takes for empty space to accumulate enough matter to become a spiral galaxy, and from there how much time it takes for advanced life of a spiral galaxy to turn the galaxy into an elliptical galaxy. There are 300 globular cluters already in this galaxy, it takes 1/4 billion years for one galactic year/rotation. If it took each of those globular clusters, can you imagine being the first advanced life of this galaxy...they would be creating that first globular cluster without any guide other than their own science and perhaps observations of other galaxies. So imaginging it takes 1 to 100 billion years to lift stars into a globular cluster that would be 300 billion to 30 trillion years for 300 globular clusters. Just guessing, perhaps the time from spiral to elliptical is 100 trillion years.
So what is the ratio of stars in globular clusters to stars in the plane of the galaxy. I don't know, but I think that the plane must have more at this time, perhaps the ratio is 1:4, about 25% of the stars of this galaxy are in globular clusters. That would imply that we are around 1/4 of the way from spiral to elliptical. So:
ASTRON EX: What is the ratio of stars in globular clusters to those in the plane of our galaxy and other galaxies?
ASTRON EX: Are other galaxies farther along or more behind than we in terms of globular clusters versus stars in the plane?
Since an E0 is a perfect sphere, maybe the E5, the E7/S0 are galaxies that are closer to true elliptical galaxies...farther on that 100 trillion timeline. With maybe 1 million stars in each glob, that is .3 billion stars, the milky way has maybe 100 billion stars. So maybe we are very near the beginning of the transition from spiral to elliptical. There are star streams observed around M31 (Andromeda). It is interesting to see:
ASTRON EX: How many globular clusters are around M31?
Perhaps those star streams are actually star systems with advanced life moving to globular clusters from the plane, although these people interpretted them as moving from one galaxy NGC 205 to M31. NGC205 (M110) is so large, it is catagorized as an elliptical galaxy, not a globular cluster that orbits M31. People are calling it a "dwarf elliptical". It's things like the stream of stars allegedly observed, although no photos were provided, that show I think that for advanced life, in a place as huge in the Milky Way, there really is no place or reason to hide, every form of advanced life can see their nearest galactic neighbors with some amount of detail. But to me, M110 is probably advanced life that evolved from M31, and judging from the size of M110, M31 is farther along than we are towards becoming an elliptical. Then the other elliptical galaxy, M32, which is like a huge oversized globular cluster is on the top of M31, so this is probably typical, to have one massive globular on top and one on the bottom, on the other side of the galactic plane, but it hasn't happened for us yet, so we are clearly very far behind M31. But how far are they along? I think it depends on the ratio of stars, maybe they are at least 1/10 there, where we are 1/1000 there. M32 is much closer to the plane than M110 is, it's interesting, perhaps M32 is more interested in scooping up new star systems, and M110 is more selective. To me, it seems like M32 is in a better position, what are they doing in M110? Why don't they go in closer? Perhaps they are interested in going solo as a small elliptical galaxy at some point. Perhaps, since M31 is moving toward our galaxy, the two will combine, into one mother-load elliptical galaxy. But it looks like M110 is at a focal point of the galaxy, and M32 might be too close. It looks kind of like a mitosis. Potentially M110 and M32 could be elliptical galaxies that came along from some where else and decided to prune/adapt the matter from M31. This page has a nice image of all the globular clusters around M31:
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M31NMmosaicglobs.html 336 is the highest number. That is similar to the Milky Way. Many appear to be grouped around M110, which to me implies that giant globular clusters like M110 are probably composed of thousands of different advanced life star systems independently joined together. Maybe some advanced life prefers yellow stars, and others blue stars.
As a note about the drug war, it's amazing to me that people are willing to spend $30,000 a year to house, cloth, and feed people who are caught using drugs. I can see spending the cash on housing the violent and those that cannot stop stealing property, but just for using drugs? What if we just let them use their drugs, and made them have to pay for their own housing, food and clothing? I mean we can make some rooms, food and clothing available to those who are too poor to buy those things, but many of these people who use drugs are not too poor to buy those things for themselves. Ultimately, the brutality of jailing a person who simply is using drugs, like alcohol, tobacco, or food is too cruel and brutal, but then, as the above explains, why not take a look at the cost analysis of such a system? Currently, something like a third of all of our income goes back to the government for idiotic wasteful and/or brutal programs like the drug war. That's money that we could be using on ourselves, and not spending to room, clothe and feed people who are no threat to society and most of whom can pay for their own room, clothing and food.
With the google thing, you know, I am on record as saying that no body should be locked in jail for withholding information. For the most part I am against secrecy, but when you look at the scale, you can see the people in the government get to know much more about the public than the public gets to know about them. For example, why don't we get to see those street cameras, here the 911 calls, known where the police are and what they are doing at all times? Why don't we get to see inside congress, the supreme court, the FBI, CIA, etc. all the time? So my inside feeling is that the tables need to be turned around, and the traditions of monarchy reversed, and the government needs to work for the people. But as a summary, I am for total freedom of all information, which brings me to the haulocaust denier getting sentenced to 3 years, I vote for no sentence for haulocaust denying. Then 3 years is very harsh, but then look at people whose crime is simply using drugs, or selling sexual services...they get (for drugs) even more time in jail, and are simply breathing air. I worry about something like 3 years for denying the haulocaust (which ofcourse, I fully recognize that the Haulocaust happened, and have read and seen good evidence supporting that piece of history, now, if you want to talk about JFK, RFK, Pupin, ... there is room for dissent), can be applied to those of us that deny the trinity. I mean, next people will be locking other people in jail for doubting the divinty of Jesu, or for denying the existence of Jesu, or for denying that Jesus was only a regular human, etc. I just think, you know, it's a simple rule which I will explain in the next paragraph and somehow, I don't know how, I always seem to simplify things with wonderful logic. I just think, you know, prison is for the violent, those that abduct or restrain, and then those that are repeat offenders of nuisance crimes, like touch without consent, theft, threateners of violence, things of that nature. And we should strive as a society for keeping nonviolent people (except for maybe those restrainers, abducters) in jail for as little time as possible.
Here I think I have put together one of the most simple ideas that will put the light of simplicity and logic into our minds: I think beyond left, middle and right, beyond conservative, liberal, progressive, beyond democrat, republican, etc. are 1) those that obey the violent laws and 2) those that violate the violent laws. Beyond that I might say, those that violate the first strike violence laws, but ultimately we should be striving for eliminating even second strike violence, violence in self defense, etc...I mean, ofcourse, violence in self defense, or defense of a different human is completely justifiable, and I think necessary under the current conditions, but ultimately, we are headed for a robot walking camera advanced enlightened, educated nonreligious star faring society where violence is going to be outside of the realm of possibility. But can we summarize the situation on earth in those two terms: 1) those who obey the violent laws, and 2) those that disobey the violent laws? I mean there are clearly two groups, easily defined. And to me, this is the big game of planet earth, is how does group 1 stop group 2? How does group 1 control group 2? How far can group 2 go? etc. Underneath all those sunglasses of clouds and wool, this principle is waiting for the people of earth to uncover and make good use of. I think by that principle alone, we could make a better society than we have now.
qt: I think I have found the ultimate in simple ideas: beyond conservative or liberal there are two groups of utmost importance: 1) those that obey the violent laws, and 2) those that do not obey the violent laws.
02-16-2006
You know, when I am talking about legal prostitution, many foreheads crinkle up and think of bad things, but I am talking about just for adults and more like an ebay kind of thing....there is nothing fearful or scary about it, and I think it is going to be common place in the future. People will be getting extra money, basically designing their sexual night or week around other people, some of it may be free, but I don't doubt that much of it will involve money. Currently people with good looking bodies really have very little way of capitalizing on it, the only path to sex for them is the free path, they legally cannot accept money, even for somebody to simply touch their breasts or buttocks. I see a future where adults have a "going rate" for services like genital touching, buttock touching, hand job, blow job, vaginal sex, anal sex, not everybody will get involved, some will sit on the sidelines and prefer a non monetary exchange, people looking for free sexual partners without money involved, and no doubt there will be some good matches. But you know, if taking money for touching genitals and sex were legal, do you think people would do something like that in an eBay kind of way? Yes, ofcourse they would. If some young male or female could get a few thousand just for standing there getting her boob touched, I think only the most antisexual would ever turn that down...I mean a thousand dollar could go a long way for some poor young (adult ofcourse, yes, always adult, over 18 and fully capable in terms of making decisions for themselves) person. So many males fo without sex and it's a recipe for violence, instead of saving up for that six pack of beer or that new gun, maybe they could save up for that nice sex one time a month...you know they would enjoy that, and the beautiful or even semi-decent looking female walks away with a few hundred...just for a quick no pregnant sex that she might like anyway...you know...the receiver of the money might actaully get something out of being touched by a variety of people, getting fucked by a variety of people...maybe for many it would be like work, but for some, I don't doubt that it would also be their weekly or daily sex too...they normally would be having sex, say once a week, but this time, they actually get some money out of the deal, and probably quite a large amount of money...in particular when we are talking aobut sucking a dick, you know. A male or a female...I mean you sit there for 10 minutes, you walk away with $100 or something. You could blow 12 people in 2 hours, at $100 each you walk away with $1,200, that is $600/hour! How many people get $600/hour. For $50 a job that is $30/hour for a two hour day. If you did that (what is relatively easy work, and only your mouth and hands are working), for a week of say a 4 blow-jobs a day for $50 that is $200/day, $1000/week, $4000/month, $60-$70,000/year. Not bad, for simply jerking off 4 dicks a day...compare that to flipping 100 burgers a day, delivering 100 newspapers a day, etc. It's the antisexual religious that are making legal blow jobs illegal, you know...I wish people would lighten up and thikn about the possibilities...in particular since people are busting their ass working all kinds of hard jobs. Is the public really doing people a favor by not allowing people to earn money from sex-related work? and then jailing people that try to? at a minimum decriminalize prostitution...maybe make it illegal but not jailable (just a monthly or yearly fine). It's the principle, I think at play, that for somebody to vote to make something legal, it has to be something they will be involved in themselves, never do people take the out-of-body experience, of legalizing something for others and not themselves. Like you know, poor people in particular, would probably benefit most from legal prostitution, but hey, the wealthy...they would be getting all those jobs and fucks...isn't that a benefit? The beautiful and sexual would climb up the money income ladder...we would see people come from nothing to great wealth just because they have good bodies, are pretty, pretty faces, nice buttocks, etc. poor people who are pretty, but are poor as can be, they can't capitalize on their beauty through anything other than modeling. Prostitution would open the possibility for them to climb the income ladder...in some way it's a natural selection that is happening already...through technology people scour the earth looking for beautiful poor people, most go overlooked...they can't be helped because beauty is a tiny business (and then because of citizenship problems...marriage is the main path to citizenship and who wants that?), but when these wealthy people find a poor pretty person they try to offer them money to model, etc...the person might be able to lift themselves up out of poverty, and then just because they are pretty...it's like survival of the most beautiful (however the majority defines that...and that is a key point...like big boobs is for me...between size C and D, although ofcourse, wisdom, personality, facial beauty play a large roll too, but for the majority of the damn christians? they want a waif! a waif! I tell you...and stupid wimin...they want stupid wimin...so it's like the opposite of beauty for me, I like them big boobed and smart..so it shows you how evolution is working...but in a way that goes against my own preference), althought really, my preference changes, you know I like it all from time to time, I don't have tunnel vision on any one kind of body type. And it's more than just the occassional blow job or whatever, there is also, just sleeping with some person, you know maybe some female wants to sleep with two males for a change and is willing to pay some cash to both, even no sex (only soft touching allowed, and yes/no genital touching...you know people will have it their way) involved, etc. There is one aspect that is rarely mentioned about decriminalizing and/or legalizing prostitution and that is that women are being probably the most penalized by keeping prostitution illegal. I think it is a just one more of many techniques for the all-male power structure to keep women down in poverty and out of power (since more money = more influence, more ads that can be bought, more property owned, etc.).
I think the key to many things is going to be finding out the composition of the nuclear membrane(s) for all protists, are they all the same? The nuclear membrane is probably one of the most conserved structures for protists, just like the gametes are for all plants, fungi and animals.
EX: is the nuclear membrane in all protists the same material?
I think I have an estimate for the human eye resolution: it is around 3,000 x 3,000...less than I thought...more around 10,000x10,000 (not 100,000x100,000 as I thought might be possible). So this puts a ceiling on the screen in the human head. Already there are probably monitors that can do 3,000x3,000, but they are probably larger than a human head. If a human head is 20cm 3,000 pixels would mean our pixel size is: .067 mm 67um for each pixel. According to a google search the size of neurons is 4 to 100um, so that seems logical. Currently pixels on a computer screen are about 300um (about 6 times the human eye). I measure this by using a tape measure and moving the tape measure away from me, until I could not distinguish millimeter lines any more, which was around 80cm. Then I took the circumference of a half circle PI*R with R=80cm to get around 2510mm circumference. If each millimeter line is a pixel that makes 2510x2510...but I could see 3000x3000 being a close estimate. So human eye resolution 3000x3000 with 50um pixels where monitors are currently 1000x1000 with 600um pixels. Interestingly any pixel smaller than 50um would not be seen by a human, at 50um pixels there is nothing more a human can see without a lens or microscope.
SCI: One thing that needs to be made clear is that cell differentiation happens (as far as I can see) when a cell is copying (someone definitely correct me if I am wrong). This is something that appears to be never explained. Different cells, cells that perform different functions or are somehow different from the parent/original cell are made a birth and, as far as I know, do not change during their life cycle, but maybe I am wrong. Perhaps it is some of both. In any event, that differentiation must be coded in the DNA, and the key is: is the DNA different (I think that answer is no), is the DNA code that is executed different (that is probably where the difference is, one other alternative is that perhaps a copying protein starts at a different location along the DNA). I think cell differentiation evolved in prokaryotes, (perhaps it was re-evolved later by eukaryotes but maybe some part was inherited).
SCI: I think we need to define "isogamy" as being when the gametes not only look the same but are interchangable, and have a different word for when there are 2 gametes that look the same but cannot be interchanged, for example "bi-isogamy", or "diisogamoy", or perhaps "bigamy", "trigamy", etc. I think in the future, people may make a label for gametes that are genetically identical versus those that are not (although maybe there are some tiny differences, or certainly there are mutations). Then there may be clear distinct genetic differences, in other words, 2 or more distinct kinds of gametes, but fusion can happen with 2 or the same kind of gametes, so that should be flushed out. The important thing is that "isogamy" should not include gametes that are not interchangable, in other words, isogamy should mean "one gender", all gametes are interchangable and can be fused into a zygote. There are species that are heterogamous, (or I would say bi-heterogamous or something...why not indicate that there are 2 distinct gametes?), or perhaps oogamous I can't remember, where two of the female or two of the male gametes can fuse, which is very interesting too.
I am glad the UN wants Guantanamo closed, and the people to be tried, that's my vote too.
Disappointing to see Chavez use the word "crazy" (although again this is from US media). I think we all want people to agree with us 100%, but that almost never happens. My worry is with being locked in a psychiatric hospital, and then it's just like the USA Guantanamo in Cuba, no trial, tortured, no sentence, no basic human rights, no crime committed. I see, I go to visit Venezuela and then am locked in a hospital like Guantanamo without ever having committed a crime, but locked up for "being crazy" or something, I doubt that would happen but it is a fear for me, here in the USA too. Ofcourse, I just want Chavez and Bush jr, to use their positions of power to stop the violence they must see, to jail those murderers they see in the camera networks, to stop the suffering of those who are in prisons for drugs and prostitution. What's so crazy about stopping violence and teaching science? aiyaa what's so crazy about not jailing people that use drugs? eh? what's so crazy about not jailling people who sell sexual services? meh? what's so crazy about full democracy and free information...ok you get the picture. But violence? jailing nonviolent drug users and consentual sex workers? hospitalizing or jailing people without a trial (and a civilian trial)? religion? now that is crazy, my friends. But back to Venezuela and all nations on earth, I want to see nations of no violence, and no nonviolent people in jails or hospitals, and then no property theft, with legal (but not visible) drug use, with legal nudity, public sex (so long as it is not obstructing traffic) and legal prostitution where there is only consent and no objections or enslavement, and free information, and science, and technology, plenty of cameras, and then, that everybody can see, not just the elites, walking robots walking around, full and constant democracy, the laws well groomed like a well tended garden by the people at every and any time...now that is the future society I want to see happen now. It's rambling, it's not pretty, but it's the same damn message I give every damn time, only with minor flaws or minor improvements.
Let's work together to make this a happy hemisphere, and happy and safe planet of harmony, peace, pleasure, prosperity, popular rule by the people, nonviolence, smartness, science, education, honesty, justice. And then we go to vacation on the moon, to live there in our moon cities, on mars, in harmony with the microbes that may be there, to the moons of Jupiter, on to Centauri, Sirius, Barnard's Star, Procyon, the beautiful Betelguise, the lovely Lalande, ok you get the picture.
I think there will be some nation or state that is going to overhaul the psychiatric system, it has to happen eventually, to legalize it. I think if my vote prevailed, psychiatric hospitals would be voluntary-treatment-only, and people that violate laws, for example a person that spits on or yells at other people, would be locked in the prison system, given the opportunity to all full legal rights of anybody charged with a crime, and given a finite sentence. The view now by perhaps a majority is that a person that yells at other people, or spits on other people has a permanent disease that is most likely uncurable and the person is most likely unchangable, but you know, I thin kthe reality is that one person might yell at or spit on other people, be charged with the crime of spitting on or yelling at, jailed for a few days (not for fucking life you barbarians!), then freed, if they again spit or yell at people, back in they go, and maybe this time for 5 days, or maybe again just for 3 days. In this way, nonviolent, but annoying people are given an opportunity to change, learn and adapt without being condemned to life imprisonment in a hospital.
wiki or gallop checklist on the issues, plus long term trend charts on the issues, laws:
ok what we need are public checklists that show people's positions on the issues:
like here might be mine:
issue Y N (and perhaps they should be in % to show how strongly)
full democracy X
all drugs legal X
marijuana legal X
cocaine legal X
.....
penis in vagina
sex for $ legal X
hand job for $
legal X
annual elections X
people vote on
laws X
stop violence X
evolutionist X
creationist X
religious X
etc...
we could do the full range of issues, and people could search by issue or keyword.
Then we need checklists for the public and we can then total up and see what the majority opinion is. We can plot the trends over time to see for example when marijuana will be legal in various states and nations, what states or providences are strongly opposed to violence, etc. when religion will end. etc.
ok the Attorney General position is ridiculous is it's current form, it's nothing more than the legal attack dog of the president that appoints them. Attorney General needs to be elected obviously. Even better would be to full democratize our entire government,m legally requiring the person elected to enforce the popular opinion. Or possibly forbidding them from passing a law or giving any order that does not win a sizable majority of the public's support.
02-16-2006
There are some good free atheist/anti-religious audio programs at: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/
Two I listened two and think are good are the Dawkins interview and the "Republican war on science" interview with Chris Mooney, then I will probably listen to the Paul Kurtz interview since he probably has a good perspective on the current situation on earth. Dawkins talks more about "Religion: Root of all Evil?" which is fantasic...I mean, I totally applaud that effort in Britain, what a breath of fresh air and honesty. Dawkins has some smart funny wording, like he says "you don't need a spy camera" to live a moral life, which I thought was funny.
I didn't like much of the wording coming out of the Center for Free Inquiry and unsubscribed to their newsletter which was filled with the appeals to and beliefs in the pseudoscience of psychology, which I find indigestable and unpleasant, also the secretive hush-hush position on the camera thought hearing network, both of which are understandable and common-place, but I have many things in common with CFI in terms of speaking out against religion and in favor of science. You know, I find much of the psicop to be too obvious and simple for me, and geared more to believers... for example in ghosts, etc. so I don't get into much of that, but occassionally like these 3 shows, there is some good data for the anti-religious in all of us.
SCI: Here is a pretty cool find: I think that sex, cellular fusion may have evolved through prokaryote conjugation. Some eukaryotes still reproduce by conjugation, ciliates and some algaes like the algae Spyrogyra. I am probably not the first to explain this idea, but I still have never heard it before. In addition, perhaps the first chromosomes happened as a result of a conjugation where the unwound plasmid (no longer in a circle) was simply not integrated into the receiving cell's DNA. Perhaps the receiving cell's DNA circle was split to add the new DNA received, but the sewing back into the cell's original DNA didn't happen leaving two strands of DNA. Perhaps those were the first two chromosomes. That much seems simple enough, but perhaps there is more, because not having the main cell DNA in a circle anymore probably affected the anatomy and life cycle of the cell, if this theory is true. It's tough but possibly, I think to explain how euglenozoa which are haploid, do not fuse, and are genetically more ancient than ciliates would follow ciliate evolution, but maybe discoid christae came after tubular christae mitochondria, or maybe euglenozoa lost the ability to conjugate.
EX: Are there similarities between the genes involved in prokaryote conjugation and eukaryote conjugation? If yes, then the process was probably inherited.
EX: between the 3 mitochondria types, which is the most ancient? or at least what appears to be the order? Which is most like rickettsia?
EX: what genes are used in eukaryote conjugation? Are they found in euglenozoa? Are they found in other eukaryotes besides ciliates and some algae?
update: eukaryote fusion either evolved from conjugation or by itself. But there are clearly at least 3 major methods cells use to make new cells: binary fission, mitosis, budding (which may be very similar to fission and mitosis). Clearly mitosis evolved from fission.
My questions with conjugation being the first eukaryote fusion and creating the first chromosomes are ... why do euglenozoa, very early eukaryotes, reproduce by budding? was this budding inherited from prokaryotes like plantobacteria (planctomycetes)? I think perhaps that euglenozoa may have lost conjugation. It's possible, only the genome's will show that, or maybe they won't. Euglenozoa may have evolved from a budding bacteria and then enslaved a mitochondria too, although I think that is doubtful, but it's within the realm of possibility. It might be that there are at least two lines of eukaryotes, one that evolved through a sexual conjugating bacteria, and a second that evolved through an asexual budding bacteria, but I kind of doubt it. Perhaps the first eukaryote was sexual through conjugation (I have yet to see if there are any truly sexual bacteria that conjugate, if no, then perhaps the first eukaryote was asexual but capable of conjugation, but perhaps only under special conditions...maybe euglenozoa are capable of conjugation but only under special conditions). In any event, to summarize, since there are conjugating bacteria, and budding bacteria and eukaryotes, either:
1) both conjugating and budding in euk are inhertied (invented only once) and there are 2 lines of euk that evolved from two different prokaryotes.
2) conjugating and/or budding re-evolved (convergence) independently in eukaryotes
It's hard for me to accept 2) but maybe the processes are simple, and there is a large amount of time in evolution to develop such systems again.
02-15-2006
SCI: 02/14/06 qt: The first sex on earth was probably homosexual sex. The first two haploid cells that fused were most likely identical, in other words, the same gender or of no gender. Only later did two non-interchangable gender cells evolve and fuse.
SCI: 02/14/06 qt: Our species was built around our twats and balls, since reproduction is the basis of life, the one thing every living species has in common, the oldest part in the design of our body. Reproduction is the oldest and most essential portion of the design of all living objects. The sperm and ovum are the oldest designs of all cells in our bodies. The path of cells from zygote to sperm or ovum is the root, most ancient and only necessary part of any species for continued existence. The most conserved cells for plants, fungi and mammals are probably the gametes.
2 more people are going to be executed for drug selling in Bali. That is brutal and those people that shoot in the firing squad should be identified and those that shoot the bullets that kill a person jailed for homicide. What a brutal way to die, what about lethal injection, can't anybody reach the public with that idea? Maybe Australia will do a trade.
With the Cheney shooting accident, I think this shows how dangerous hunting is (but not Huntington, who is not dangerous). I think eventually, there won't be any space left on earth for hunting. I thought I might revel in my joke about the parent saying..."he wait a minute...isn't that Vice President Cheney over there with a shot gun...get the kids inside", but alas I am very busy. Can you imagine shooting a quail? They are a beautiful bird...no wonder they run like hell when they see a human. The male quails (or is the plural quail...I dunno) have an interesting plume of feathers that protrude from the front top of their head, that must be to impress the female quails. I saw a group of quail on a bike path one morning, they feed in the morning. I got them on film (yes I "shoot birds" with cameras, ahaha). They walk around as a group, which must be a family, or an extended family, some kind of tribe or herd. I would never want to shoot, kill or eat such a thing. My brother once accidentally shot a bird with a bb gun when we were young and actually cried about it, I swore to myself then never to shoot at birds. Then I just saw this chef prepare a quail...it's like a smaller shicken, but ...again...I can't stand the feeling of tearing away skin and muscle from a leg bone...it's too much like a tiny human...I hate to ruin the experience of eating birds, but that is one thing that made me go vegetarian. It's Daumeresqe to me...people knaw on the leg bone of the chicken, and then hey, store the half eaten carcass in the refrigerator for later. Veggie chicken has come a long way, maybe not the full way, but certainly up to the sandwich level.
SCI: Multicellularity and colonialism in species are two different phenomena in my opinion. Colonialism is where individual cells from the same species work together and function as a single unit, and (metazoan) multicellularity is one zygote cell producing all the other cells in the organism, so they are different. It is the difference between "e pluribus unum" (from many one) and "e unum pluribus" (from one many). Perhaps this trait can be labeled as "monoadmulti" (one to many), "multiplicity", "deunumadmulti", "deunumadpoly", "deunumpluralism"...maybe you have some better names. An important part of evolution is "cell differentiation". One other important aspect of evolution is if the cells made from one cell stick together or swim freely. Perhaps there was a transition between a zygote that mitosed into cells that float apart versus a zygote that mitosed into cells that stayed together. How about "monomultiism"? (and then for the case of a multicellular organism that is completely formed from one cell).
A thousand per itch and I would be one rich bitch.
There is an interesting phenomenon of people, I think trying to hide the simple greek, roman, latin origin of words by saying
micrometer mI'KRoMiTR instead of MIKrO'mETR
polymerase Po'liMRAS instead of PoLE'mRAS
and so on...it is a very interesting phenomenon...I think it appears more "sophisticated" to hide the greek origin which appears too simple.
One thing I am finding is that there are very few books dedicated to protists. There are some identification books, but mainly for fresh water protists.
I have to listen to myself, because the best brains on the earth chat with me. Some of the stuff out of me, I can't believe has an origin in my own brain, it's way too good.
02-10-2006
Logic versus sexual fever
I am the victim of sexual hysteria, so that is one reason I feel a certain kind of outrage when I see headlines like this. It is kind of funny that 2 days after I said that people are locked in jail for life for owning images of child pornography (presumably, even if it is to expose such abuses), a news.yahoo.com headline reads that a person got a 'life sentence for child pornography', but after more reading it appears (and details are hard to come by in these kinds of crimes because nobody can say the word "penis" without feeling uncomfortable, in addition, most people want to be as far away from such events as possible...they do not want to be associated with the stigma in any way...it's like having jewish friends in nazi germany...you just don't want to talk to them any more...you claim to have never heard of them...not because they committed any crime, just like, simply talking about a child pornography case does not mean you violated any law or child, but because nobody wants any association for fear of being sucked into the tornado of illogical antisexual hysteria...etc.). after more reading it appears that the person that got a life sentence was charged with: owning images of child pornography (which usually does not get much jail time to my knowledge...a few years perhaps...Pete Townshend never got jail, but I imagine some people do), and the person was charged with "molestation" (which I think should be split into..."genital touching" and "molestation" or "genital touching without objection" and "genital touching with clear objection"...there is a difference...one is molesting...or bothering the child, the other is not). These examples just go again to show to people the lesson: do not ever touch the genitals of humans under the age of 18, and in addition, do not kiss children, even on the cheek...perhaps if they are your own children kissing and hugging is ok, you can send the message to others and those around you that they should not be so antisexual or sexually hysterical...but you take your freedom into your own hands by kissing a child, even your own until society evolves to embrace logic and is able to subdue their current sexual hyteria. But getting back to the crimes of this person...it turns out that the crimes are not just nonviolent, ie child porno and molestation, but also include "special allegations that included bondage and sodomy."...which are difficult to understand...bondage must be that the children where somehow restrained...was it with 4 point restraints? (They do that in the San Diego County Hospital, maybe that is where this guy learned about it. This was one other small point...I would like to think that people on the California coast are advanced, with it people...not a bunch of rubes, red necks, klanners, and yokals...but with cases like this, the toe sucking guy, and others...I have to wonder if California is a lot like, you know, some backwards uneducated back water in terms of their values and court system decisions. I see California leading the way for other states in terms of science, technology, standard of living, justice, integration, sexual freedom, democracy...not one upping the most vicious backward states in the union or being on par with court decisions in those states where human rights are far behind the average). How were these kids restrained? Being restrained, although nonviolent (technically I guess if a person does not fight back which many nonviolent people, myself included almost never do), is a terrible torture...it is usually nonviolent, but it can result in death (if a person is unable to get water, food, etc...a person that is restrained needs to be fed, cleaned, etc. since they can't move obviously)...being restrained is a terrible crime and I put it up there as being second only to violent crimes, but in many instances it is a tough decision, for example, would you rather indure a punch to the face or being tied to a bed for 12 hours? It's a tough decision...the 12 hours on the bed is a terrible torture, the punch to the face is a quick thing, painful, but quick. So being restrained (like being abducted) is a terrible crime even if nonviolent. Then finally there is a violent crime (I mean I basically presume that consentual anal sex probably cannot occur for a human under the age of 16, but there really is little to no evidence of this...in theory there could be younger people that consensually allow an erect penis in their rectum [perhaps with each other, perhaps with petroleum jelly to make it less painful...I can only imagine, but many of those in the thought-hearing net may have seen such things, I know I haven't. I don't doubt for a minute that somewhere there is a 12 year old male that is consensually putting his penis in the anus of a different person or at least that this happens, because it certainly is within the realm of possibility although probably extremely rare.] at ages younger than 16) finally there is the violent crime of sodomy, which presumably is, what most people would think, an adult male using their erect penis to violently assault the rectum of a human under then age of 18, against clear objection, perhaps with screams for stopping and struggles to escape...no doubt a first degree violent crime, everybody can agree, and a first degree violent crime that deserves prison time, just like any other first degree violent crime (at least in my opinion). The victims of this assault endured pain, perhaps even scarring, tearing of rectum tissue, bloody cuts in their rectum from the erect penis, but they have their life, and no doubt those cuts and wounds will heal leaving a rectum free of pain. Anal rape is different from a broken bone in that the pain does not last, any damaged tissue does heal...anal rape is a terrible assault and those who do anal rape must be jailed for some time, but where does anal rape fit on the public grid of punishment? For myself, I put anal rape below first degree murder, and the sentence for anal rape should be less than that for first degree murder, in my opinion. I agree that the quantity of anal rapes may increase the sentence. Between a person who did a first degree murder, versus a person that did 10 anal rapes, I would give the first degree murderer life in prison, and the 10 anal rape human, it's tough to say for sure, I want to make a grid, and I wish the public would vote up a grid of typical sentences, because the judges and judge system is all over the board, it's not working, the judge and 12 person jury sentencing is a terribly chaotic and random system. What we need are clear and simple guidlines, democratically voted, adjusted and fine tuned. So for 10 anal rapes...I think I might approve a sentence of 1 year per anal rape, so perhaps 10 years in jail. You know, maybe I could be convinced, as a guidline to go for 2 or 3 years per anal rape pushing the sentence to 20 to 30 years. It would appear then, by the system I might vote for that it would take 100 anal rapes to equal 1 first degree homicide. Here is a better idea...it could be exponential...so 2 years to the power of number of times. So for 10 rapes, it would be 2^10=1024 years, that is way too many, but people can experiment with various exponential formulas, like 1 year for the first, and 1.5^N for the others for 10 anal rapes would be 1 year + 1.5^9=39.4 years, but look if this person does an 11th anal rape: 1year+1.5^10=58.7 years. There are 2 major issues there: 1) give the person 58.7 years (I probably vote yes here...they definitely should have known better by then...they were given a chance with a heavy fine if they violated again) or give them the difference 59-39=20 years. 2) there seems to be a difference between crimes charged at one time versus crimes charged after time served...it's tough to explain but...and I can see the logic of ignoring this factor, I probably would ignore this factor, but some might argue that a streak of 5 anal rapes all done at once is less severe than 5 anal rapes done one at a time...you know the person is jailed for one anal rape, gets out and does a second anal rape etc. Maybe this is more applicable to nonviolent crimes like drug use...you know...somebody caught with 10 pounds of cocaine versus sombody caught with 1 pound of cocaine 10 times. Anyway, look at the beauty of this system...first anal rape...person gets 1 year, second anal rape, person gets 1+ 1.5^1=2.5 years, we could make it harsher, for example go for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years...something like 1+5*N, not even bothering with exponential. I think people perhaps should work from those numbers, like...you know 1 year, 5, 10, 20, etc. sentences that they are comfortable with, then figure out a formula that applies, and no doubt we would find formulas that emulate the majorities judgement. This is the main thrust of this article, that we need to put the power of the sentences into the hands of the public and out of the hands of judges and 12 person juries...there are far too many mistakes happening...violent people going free, nonviolent people getting life sentences...the sentences are too random and unstructured. This case is yet one more example to add to millions of others. I doubt I would vote to give this Whitmore life in jail, I would have to see all the evidence, but since these were only assaults, I think we are talking under 50 years and probably under 30 years, and my guess is more like somewhere between 10-20 years...depending on how many anal rapes he committed more than any other factor. No doubt this is person that did some terrible assaults, and we can't have assaulter running around the planet in freedom, but at the same time, we can't have murderers running around the planet either, and murder is more serious. Assault people will recover from, but murder can not be recovered from, and murder is worse, I can't believe that I have to make this point, but yet I do. I mean, it's so simple and obvious to me. But then, I am not blinded by delusional sexual hysteria and public pressure that clouds and taints my every decision. This is a second point of this paragraph...others have tried to made this point, for example Frontline, that it is frightening to me to see people drop all sense of logic and collapse into sexual hysteria. Maybe there is a better way of saying it...but clearly to drop all sense of proportion and logic...to drop truth...and to go with popular opinion, or popular belief even if untrue. And the prime example is the quote from the judge (from news.yahoo.com): "San Diego Superior Court Judge Gale E. Kaneshiro told Paul Gordon Whitmore as she sentenced him": "'You are the most despicable individual I have come across'". Well, come on now, she has never sentenced a murderer? This guy is a vicious assaulter, and an assaulter of children which many argue is worse than an assaulter of adults, but he's no murderer. But Kaneshiro is saying this is the worst person she has ever confronted? Where is the honesty? Where is the logic? Murder is worse than assault, murderers are more dangerous than assaulters, you know, I must be on a desert island here to believe that. Those victims will continue to live pain free lives, but for example, RFK will not have that opportunity, Jam Master Jay will not have that opportunity, Bonnie Lee Bakely will not have that opportunity...probably they would have preferred to be assaulted as opposed to being murdered. Assault is an interesting phenomenon too, somehow assaulters are those who could not bring themselves to murder (not always...many times the human assaulting is going for murder but does not achieve that). Probably, the majority of assaulters draw the line at murder. So the two main points of this article are: 1) we need a public system, or grid, of public voted typical sentences, and public voting on court cases. The judge and 12 person jury system is too random. and 2) we need to stick with logic and watch out for sexual hysteria.
I am thinking about just pulling my opinions from this page, because this society is a loss, my outrage and appeals for logic have almost no effect. The key important parts of my web pages are my videos, any science, and revealing the thought-hearing network. I don't know, I am playing it by ear. It's terrible that our society is so backwards, uninformed, and uneducated, and that people like me have to go over the most basic of the basics, expose injustice, and then at great risk and detriment to our safety, freedom and financial security.
Hey this E85 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85) from corn looks like a good biofuel alternative for the future. Why not go for 100% ethanol? That is the way to go. Wouldn't that be wild if we find out eventually that, 100% ethanol was fine all the time, but oil companies paid to stop advertising of that fact. dag. I hope that isn't what is happening and maybe it isn't.
Some people argue that the stink of da war is going to cause the Republicans to lose in 2008, I don't know, but it got me thinking that we have headed back into a Vietnam type of mentality...where we have a constant war going on...it's tough even to remember a the time the US was at peace, which only happened at the end of Vietnam in the 70s.
I've thought more about this logical grid of sentences, and there are some complicated issues, but I think I have some basic simple ideas:
First we need to organize the kinds of crimes by most severe to least severe and here is what I have (I have done a little of this before):
(All of these are "without consent")
1) Theft
2) Touching
3) Physical restraint
4) Assault
Type A) pain only
Type B) pain and physical damage, cuts, bruises, knocked unconscious
Type C) fractured or broken bone(s), permanent damage, scarring
Type D) parallysis, loss of use of body part
5) Murder
There are other crimes, and people may want to add considerations for weapon used (body, fist, leg, blunt object, knife, gun, laser, etc.). Drugs and prostitution I don't view as crimes, but no doubt, a majority of people might and this system still can be applied to those "crimes". From here we can move to this point. In terms of punishments there are 3 clear systems that I can see:
1) SENT, punished with no repeat offender penalty. Just the Sentence (SENT) (or perhaps Severity [SEV]) factor. So for example, a type A assault has a SENT value of 1 hour, a person with 1 type A assault gets 1 hours, their second assault they still only get 1 hour. This is the most lenient system. It's not one I subscribe to, I think there should be an added penalty for repeat offenses, but some people may find this system good for some certain crime, it's out there. This system reduces the problem below where a person served time for a class C assault and then does a class A assault though.
2) SENT*N, punishment with a linear penalty for repeat offenses. N=number of crimes (or counts). This means, the first type A assault=1 hour, a second type A assault gets 2 hours, a third type assault gets 3 hours, a fourth type assault gets 4 hours. This is ok, but the repeat offender penalty accumulates kind of slowly, but yet some people may think this kind of a system fits some particular crime or person.
3) SENT*2^N, punishment with an exponential penalty for repeat offenses. This means, the first type A assault=1 hour, a second type assault gets 2 hours, but a third type A assault gets 4 hours, a fourth type A assault gets 8 hours. The sentence doubles with each count. There are inbetweens where the factor is not 2^N but only 1.5^N, etc...so the sentence is not doubling for each count but only doubling for each four counts for example. Technically SENT*2^(N-1) is probably the actual equation. A system that views the first offense as getting less sentence could be SENt*2^(N-2), because then for the first offense a person would get .5SENT, for type A assault, they would only get half an hour, their second offense they would get 1 hour.
So you know, the public can vote up SENT values for various crimes, and use this grid as a guideline in their sentences of various people. Not that people are going to automatically choose the SENT formula for each person, but it helps to reassure people that their sentence is a typical sentence, is just, is in line with a basic system of sentencing. So they may vote up a sentence (or severity) range like this:
Theft: 1hour to 30 days, Touch: 1hour to 30 days, Assault: 1 hour to 40 years, homicide 40 to 100 years.
I think this system is a good guideline, but there is one serious flaw: it is logical to sentence a repeat assaulter for example, I might give a type B assault a SENT of 5 days, so using a SENT*2^(N-2) they would get 2.5days for the first assault, 5 days for a second assault, 10 days for a third, 20 days for a fourth, etc. but what happens when a person has 2 prior assault A's and now has an assault B? In one method they can be added like this: [using SENT*2^(N-1)] Sa*2^(2-1)+Sb*2^(1-1)= 2Sa+Sb, so Sa=5,Sb=10 it would result in 20 days (instead of 10 days for a first assault) and that seems logical and fair, but what happens with a first degree murderer gets out of jail (some argue that should never happen, and I can see the logic in that...but there are accidental murders, murders with shades of self defense...) and then assaults a person, is giving them 50 years + 1 hour for assault that only caused pain fair? I think most people would agree that no it's not fair, so that is something society needs to think about. In that case, I think the fact that they murdered a person should be taken into account, and might make the assault take on a more lengthy sentence, but how much longer? This is where I am leaving this line of thought and system to be worked on later, but here are some ideas: There is a scale: on one side is just the assault, on the other side is the murder sentence+the assault, and in between there are at least 2 systems I can see: 1) a "with prior multiplier" that is multiplied or added to the assault SENT sentence and 2) a "with prior divider" that is divided from the homicide sentence and added to the assault sentence. No matter what system people chose, the public should feel happy with the sentence they have voted on, and feel that justice was done in their mind...not simply that they had to obey some system of formulas...I mean throw away the formulas as long as people feel that justice was done with each of their votes. One alternative is simply a hand coded system, where sentences for crimes are explicitly stated for the first count, the second count, etc...but I see a formula as being much more simple, logical, and hopefully statistically more effective.
I can't believe myself that I take the time to try and cure society's ills, in some way I may be protecting myself from injustice, but mainly it's my anger at illogicalness, and injustice, and my desire for logic, order, simplicity, and justice, etc. I have a million things I need to do, mainly ULSF, but somehow I am compelled to do this.
Jill Carroll
Have you people been following this story? What a pretty female, and here she may be killed. I hope she is released, beyond that unhurt, and as always I hope that we can stop violence all over the earth. But there are some interesting points, one is that this stuff, probably would never happen if not for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion, I don't think there is any doubt about that. Next, what kind of fool would go there? I mean, that is a ricky type of place to be, and unless I was getting some kind of gigantic money (and maybe even then) I would never want to be there. This reinforces the point about those people who joined the army not thinking they would face any serious violence, but now ofcourse, realize the unendable commitment they have to endure, uncalled for invasion is the main reason behind the "people can quit the army" bill I put forward and that is stalled with 0 signatures. Third point, what the hell kind of demand is this "release all prisoners"? ... you know...with a demand like that...I would be like..."damn...I'm a dead man"....it's like "until people start caring about our cause!"...like how do you know if they have done that? Shouldn't the demand be more specific and realistic..like they might be able to get something out of the deal. Like give us $10,000, or release these 10 people, something more attainable. I hate to see this pretty female get killed...one video web report said 10 people are kidnapped a day in Iraq...what the..is that true?! That sounds out of control. Then I look at the headlines...the latest some people did a suicide bomb, then a group of people came and fired machine guns at the survivors...I mean...that is a law abiding society?...egad.... I can't understand why they don't want to keep Carroll around just for loving...I mean kill the person? here they have a female...to love, but I guess sex and female tenderness is not something these people value as much, to just kill a babe like that. I am not advocating the killing of the those white guys, but it is more shocking to me when a pretty female gets killed...damn that is truly brutal. What could make a person kill a female like that...only religia, only religia my friends.
02-08-2006
with the muhommed cartoon thing...hey it's a picture, get over it already. You know, I hope people look back at this 100 years from now, and marvel at how backward these people were. This issue of cartoons is a tiny part of a larger issue, and that issue is the tolerence the public has for upsetting images, how much of the truth the public can handle seeing. I hope to see this tolerence grow to include all images no matter how upsetting, because that is the root of true news reporting...currently, people are sheltered from seeing the shocking truth and I think this is a diservice to the public, and adds to the level of injustice on the planet. On the one side are a vast ocean of images, including images that are graphically sexual, graphically violent, that reveal hundred year old secrets, that reveal what people are thinking, and then on the other side is what the public is allowed and willing to tolerate seeing, which is more or less the tiniest drop of that ocean. But even that appears to be too much for some people...they complain about cartoons, they complain about nudity and sexuality on tv, about images of graphic violence...so this is part of that big issue of: when is the public going to be smart enough, or tolerant enough, mature enough...I don't know the best way to say it...smart enough to be able to handle seeing images that are upsetting? The public's tolerence is what drives the amount of truthful images that are going to reach them...if they complain...they won't get to see all or even any of the juicy details ... the juicy (sometimes shocking, othertimes dull) truth....that those in the secret nets see all the time.
Sex Slaves story on Frontline and (Robbins Saranden video and) lecture at wgbh.
Right from the start I want to say that I think violence is the worst crime on earth, and the number one priority of all people should be to stop violence in every part of earth. It is shocking to me, I don't understand how people can endure and enjoy doing violence against other people, how could an adult male condone and continue to assault a young child's vagina (or anus) with an erect penis against screaming objections, cries for help, and struggles to become free? I mean that is unimaginably vicious to me, how people could do that and derive pleasure from that. The phenomenon of violence, even nonsexual is common place among humans. Here people zap us with lasers, in our apartments and houses...what joy can they possibly derive from that? Siblings beat siblings, parents beat children, classmates fight each other, people beat up the homeless, homosexuals, people inject drugs into people in psychiatric hospitals without consent...I mean...people doing violence to other people is common through out the planet. How can people just sit there and watch as Frank Sturgis killed JFK, Thane Cesar killed RFK, somebody beat and killed Nicole Simpson, some person killed Jam Master Jay, or Bonnie Bakely, as people cover it all up from the public...and they all see who the murderer or assaulter is, and yet...they do nothing. Why? Why do they not arrest the murderers and assaulters? Perhaps the main excuse given is that to arrest them might compromise the secret thought-hearing network and hidden cameras they have in place...I can't imagine that would be true, but yet, no doubt the excuse persists. And here, in my mind, violence is such a clear, obvious problem, and it causes me to wonder, why are there no international treaties againt homicide, and assault? Why no United Nations commission with the purpose to identify and make available images of assault, a UN commission to capture and try assaulters and murderers? No planetary advertisements against assault, murder or violence? No planetary or even national "public registry of murders"...a public register of "murderers"...I mean, don't you think that might be helpful? No "UN registry of assaulters"...none to speak of. No UN mandate or widescale effort to eradicate homicide, assault? And this does not even mention those nonviolent people locked in prisons and psychiatric hospitals around the planet, for drugs, prostitution, treason, copyright infringement, profanity, obscenity, homosexuality, scitzophrenia, the list of these trivial information-only or self-abusing-only nonviolent "crimes" that hurt nobody except perhaps the self list in the thousands...but there is no international or even national effort to even identify those people...I mean people are being executed in places like Nigeria for homosexuality, in Singapore for drug selling...there is a large amount of violence being done by people in governments...and the United Nations and planetary public does not so much as raise a peep of objection or concern. So with that said, and to reiterate, I want to work together with anybody who is willing (and that number is surprisingly small) to eradicate first degree violence, to free the images of violence, so that we can truly shut down violence on earth and allow people to live freely on a nonviolent planet. With that said, there are a few points that immediately spring to my mind about this "child sex slave" issue that is popular now:
1) The people that made this film ("The Day My God Died"), must have owned some images of child pornography in the making of this movie, and so this is exactly what I was talking about in my introduction to the Eddie Tabash Lecture...how can we see who is doing all this violence to children when owning the images of the violence is illegal? And when I say illegal...I mean...we are talking about life imprisonment...life in jail for owning images of children being raped or sexually abused. So I think that is an interesting point, and ofcourse, the filmmakers will not spend a day in jail because prosecutors will not press charges, and I kind of doubt a jury would sentence them for any jail time. And so, because of that illegality, the nature of videos like this can only allude to the violence...the viewer has to believe the stories without really seeing any video evidence of, for example rape...to their credit they do show what look to be cigarette burns, but video evidence would certainly go much farther to prove the claims made by the film makers and people in the film. One claim, for example, of 10 men or something holding down a child and raping her, I have doubts about (I am presuming that this was penis in vagina and one at a time...that was not mentioned)...it's certainly possible, but video would definitely help the claim...but then any video obtained through non-police sources would be highly highly illegal and dangerous to own. So the child pornography laws in this example serve to hurt the children more than protect them. I just know antisexual people tend to exaggerate. And that is a second point:
2) How much of this outrage is about violence, about assault, and how much is anger at sexuality? Because, if this was strictly about violence done to children, if that is where the rage is eminating from, wouldn't we see more movies and commissions geared to stopping assault (sexual and nonsexual both)? But we don't. We only see, sexual violence being the center of the anger and outrage...nonsexual violence takes a very very distant back seat. The United Nations (and many nations) is very involved and vocal about drug trafficing and sexual slave trafficing...but not homicide, assault, violent crime, or jailing and psychiatric hospitalizing of nonviolent humans (promoting of full democracy, full free information, sexual freedom are other areas the UN is lacking in). And I think it is curious...all assaults and murders are terrible, but as the US government spokesperson (and avid secret voyeur) stated, "no other issue has received bipartisan support like this" (child trafficing). Stopping violence, for example stopping assaults, and homicides, does not garner bipartisan support (and I wonder if it it garners even partisan support). People are drawn to sex-related issues more than non-sex-related issues. Sexual violence is more interesting than plain old garden variety nonsexual violence. Something about sex-related violence is more upsetting, more shocking than simple nonsexual murder with a handgun, fist or knife. I want to splotch throughout this message, again, my vote to indentify, capture, try, and jail those who assault people of any age, whether sexually or non-sexually, and then for a prison sentence that reflects the severity of the assault, no more and no less.
3) The charges are rarely very specific and only one side is ever shown, rarely is there ever any deviation from the party line in such movies. In terms of specifics, they don't address the issues of: what do the children receive in the form of benefits? room, food? What stops them from running away? What stops them from contacting police? Are the people paid for sex? Isn't there a big difference between a vicious violent rape, and a simple fondling? Then what about legal prostitution for adults? Are there not some people, for whom prostitution is a consentual choice they make for money, much the same way that adults clean toilets for money? Should those people be jailed? Is locking in jail the best, most loving, most fair answer for those (many times women) people? The issue of decriminalizing prostitution is never, ofcourse, touched upon...that would lesson or ruin the antisexual (and potentially anti-violence) hysteria that films like "The Day My God Died" are trying to generate, although I argue, that the film might be more effective if they did entertain decriminalizing prostitution for adults...to show that they are not driven only by antisexual feeling.
4) The title "The Day My God Died", to me is terrible, and it is, I think, a form of abuse to lie to children about gods, the divinity of Jesus or Muhommed, Allah, Vishnu, the idea of Santa Claus, for example. Shockingly, most adults feel that it is "ok to lie to children"...it's ok to lie to children...why it's even fun...fun to trick them...about Santa Claus...better that they not know the truth, better for them to think reindeer can fly, to wait up for Santa to come to their room, to try to catch the tooth fairy...who must be very small. It's shocking to me, that people tell these lies to children of all people...don't children deserve to hear the truth? I think they do. The idea that their "god" has died is stupid...I think the people's dedication to stopping violence has died. hoping for some magic ghost to swoop down and save the day...depending on that ghost coming in to save the day I think is pure idiocy...we need to address the problem of violence ourselves, as human beings, as physical entities...no gods are going to come in a save the day for us...we shouldn't depend on prayers and lucky dice rolls for justice to magically appear....we have to stop violence ourselves without our own hands and brains.
5) Eleanor Roosevelt pushed strongly for making prostitution legal and I agree with her. She took her argument to the League of Nations. From www.swop-usa.org: "In 1949, the United Nations passed a convention paper that called for the decriminalization of prostitution and the enforcement of laws against those who exploit women and children in prostitution. The paper, which was read to the United Nations General Assembly by Eleanor Roosevelt, has been ratified by more than fifty countries, but not the United States." We have sadly and surprisingly digressed since the time of Eleanor Roosevelt, when we should have moved forward, developing further her vision of justice for those in consentual prostitution.
Kind of an interesting point is the future of prostitution and I doubt I will win any friends by saying this, but, you know, many young adults could be alot safer and alot wealthier with legal prostitution. In fact, those that try to stamp out consentual prostitution for adults are really taking money and job opportunities away from young people...money that could pay for rent, for food...and a lot of money. In addition, they are leaving those people to a dangerous illegal market where there is no open view of what is happening...people do not work together with the community and police...everything is not open to inspection and verification of consent. People refuse to accept it, but I think it is clear that younger people would be getting the most money, and not just for penis in vagina sex, but even simply for touching genitals or for somebody touching their genitals (like breasts, penis, testicles, clitoris), for masturbation, for simple sleeping together, for oral sex, for kissing, hugging, no less...and then we are talking about a lot of money...just for allowing somebody to touch their genitals, for example...for a young person, it might be as much as thousands of dollars a week...they could use that money for food, shelter, for savings. And they aren't burned with cigarettes, tied to posts, the money isn't taken from them, because it is legal and in full view, not hurt in any way and what they would do is purely by consent, like any job, maybe not pleasant, but something we do for money that is not painful. And that would probably be a common path...young people who are in high demand (I mean it appears clear that people with nice bodies are losing the possibility of getting large amounts of money for very little work because every single even minute form of sexuality for money is illegal). So the wave of the future is legal prostitution, not filling the prisons and psychiatric hospitals full of nonviolent poor people.
update: one aspect of this issue, is the spread of HIV which I didn't mention, and again to me there are some simple points: 1) we need to throw away our ideas of privacy (the 100 year secret of hearing thought and the secret camera net have shown us the error of this way) and openly track the people carrying the HIV virus, or at a minimum provide a public registry of people known to have HIV (and other communicable viruses, and diseases)...it's probably not popular, but isn't this the smartest and fairest answer? It is intrusive on people's privacy, it allows people to more easily descriminate, but it's freedom of information, the other approach is secrecy which is not ethical, and it's already happening anyway among the elites...so why not for the rest of the public? 2) legal prostitution would go a long way to controlling the spread of HIV through prostitution...if we look at examples, for example in the parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal, I don't have the hard data, but I don't hear reports of people getting HIV there, and in pornography, it does happen, but when it does, it is a big deal...making the news...that's how rare it is, but also in porn, people do regularly test for such diseases too. Part of the problem is the puritans keep holding back the latest advances in self testing for HIV and other diseases.
There were some other interesting points, like this woman from the US government was saying how (to her credit) people said: "we already have rape and assault laws...why do we need more laws, why not just focus on enforcing those existing laws", halleluja to that, but she went on to say "but that was missing the traffikers who get paid to deliver the children...now those people may in some instances get life imprisonment". I think that is a tough issue given the current circumstances, but for the most part my rule is "lock up the violent, ... free the nonviolent yeah", but I can see exceptions for those who repeatedly steal, restrict the freedom of people, abduct people, touch without consent, all nonviolent, but highly dangerous and annoying...there are exceptions that would win a popular vote if that day ever comes when we the people get to vote directly on such proposed laws. But you know, the idea of jailing people who accept money for bringing (so called "selling") children to people who force them into prostitution...I don't know...it's not a violent crime...it's perhaps part of the chain that leads to a violent crime. The system is unusual in my opinion, because...where do they get these children to begin with? Aren't there orphanages for parentless children? But also the aspect of, can't the children escape? I mean, it doesn't seem logical to pay somebody for bringing a person to them, when the person can then promptly run away. The ironic thing about much of this is: here these people in the camera thought-hearing nets...see all this violence, as I said before, but they choose to do nothing about it. Why don't they stop violence already? Why they don't go get Thane Cesar? Why they don't get the Jam Jay killer? They all know who these killers are. They see their thoughts...yet they do nothing. The irony, is by enforcing child pornography laws...more children will be hurt, raped, killed, etc. It is simply the truth...people can't stop something they are strictly forbidden from seeing and that helps those who engage is such violent activities. They don't care enough about the children's freedom from pain, assault sexual and otherwise, to let even the street camera images out to the public, forget about the thought images...the hidden camera images...the thought sound recordings...I guess children being torn to pieces...brutally raped, assaulted, burned, killed, beaten... is MUCH LESS IMPORTANT than showing their precious mind images and the risk that hearing thought might possibly go public. Much less important than secrecy, or else why wouldn't they arrest those assaulters and killers, and bring those pictures to the public to use as evidence in order to stop those vicious crimes, images of which are beamed onto their brains and appear in front of their eyes? Why wouldn't they stop an assault in progress using the images they all see everyday but are kept secret? I think the first step is to show those images to the public, then to capture those people after the violent assault has happened. Somehow I have the feeling people are going to take this message as being pro assault of children, which I think I have made clear that I am against...I am against first degree assault (sexual or nonsexual) in any and every form to people of any age, but somehow many responses I get, take the form of threats of violence...it's ironic...the thing that people are supposedly angry about to begin with is promptly what they turn to. I find people on earth in this time care very little for actual content and are constantly just looking for an excuse to justify acts of violence. Maybe this feeling of anger about sexual assault will open the door to stopping nonsexual assaults too (since how many movies seek help in stopping violence sexual or otherwise?), but maybe this movement will close the door on legal prostitution for adults for even more time. We shouldn't let a few people's violent activity related to sex, ruin the vast majority of people's natural feeling of healthy nonviolent consensual sexuality and healthy nonviolent consensual sexual arousal.
One food tip I have been trying lately is partially cooked vegetables in salad. Brocoli, and carrots have been successful, but zukini, and others are soon to be tested. Beyond that I have been throwing together various vinegrettes which is basically oil, viniger and sugar/sweetner. I use various vinigers and oils, some salt. In my experience, equal amounts of oil and viniger...it's tough to ruin a vinigrette dressing. Veggie meats, avocado both add to a salad. Then I made a mexican salad with refried beans, black olives, avocado, corn, red leaf lettuce and vinigrette...and oh my...that was delicious. Maybe some black beans in there too next time.
One honor I have not mentioned here is that Noam Chomsky, I think, is referring to me when he said a "laser-like focus"..so Chomsky probably hears thought, relates to some of the things I am saying, I certainly relate to some of the things he says. That was an expression I said in a large group setting in defense of myself and to point out the situation here...I mean there are a million assaults with lasers...an entire secret empire of laser assaulters...a constant stream of secret images and assaults....and I can only imagine what else...but people still feel the need to pick apart and chastize me for every little tiny mistake in my tiny life? I was trying to make people get a perspective on the current situation on earth...you know I don't think I am the biggest evil out there or even that evil at all considering all that has happened in this last century that still remains a secret to this day. But also, it's a reference to the theory of general relativity...I was saying...you know, maybe I have something to say there...perhaps a "light-like" only set of equations is more accurate...I mean I have many things to say on many topics. In addition there was one other potential reference, Chomsky says "There's a reason...", which may refer to my interview with Infidel Guy where I say "there is a reason sex feels so good, because if sex did not feel so good, humans would not keep reproducing"...and IG actually doubted that point which I was surprised by, because it seems so obvious. There are many quotes from that interview that I am proud of, and had accumulated them over the months and years. I am trying to learn to be as quiet, mellow and gentle as Chomsky is, but being mellow is not easy for me to do...I am usually outraged by injustice and stupidity, and have trouble staying calm as I dish out my arguments.
PM Edish:
I believe in the Congress of the public. I think in open public debate, public voting and open forum of the public, we can do a lot better than a few elites in a tiny Congress or Court. I think the public knows much better than those in the government when it comes to what should be a law, how much money should be spent on what, who should go to jail, who should be free.
I was in Ralph's grocery and just after that song "living the vida torture...ayiii! ....living the vida torture.....untie me I have to pee!' that one is fun hm? the entire earth is living the vida stupid without doubt, and the vida brutal for caring nothing about the suffering of those that languish in hospitals, and jails on ridiculously trivial offenses like for something they smoked, wrote or said. How about those that they all see that are the victims of violence? This group will not lift a vida finger to even blow some air in their direction. Not even a "remove a bullet from their brain whyow!...", or likewise "...stop a bullet from entering their brain yesyall!"...it's the vida "hearing out thoughts" most likely and not living the vida sciencia. Just then, a John Kerry look-a-like gave me the index finger down, ala the "sit horney dog" (remember he was such a nice guy in saying "hunt down and kill!"...yes thor...let me get my trunchion and I will follow thee!") and get back to Centauri and science where you are less trouble. You know, I don't care much for Kerry. I think Kerry is a guy who wants to play president, where I am a guy who wants to solve the problems of the people that are suffering from injustice. Bush jr is a guy who wants to play president too, and his vision is to boost up the military to shockingly high levels, far and away without any other nation remotely close to the amount of money spent on military, and take over the earth by force, who cares nothing about invading a nation, who is linked to 9/11, whose dad is linked to the killing of JFK, so you know, I voted for Kerry (but for Kucinich in the primary) it wasn't a tough decision. I can sum up some serious problems with the Kerry bid for 2008, 1) he is too old...this is one major reason why Clinton won against the old Bush Senior. For all I care, let a 70 year old be president if they are going to speak out against war, against violence, against the drug war, against religion, for science and evolution, but the public judges only by appearance more, a media article even pointed that out which I thought was insightful. Secondly, Kerry has no vision...he wants to waft up into president by silence and default which shockingly works with this nation...I mean he won the democratic party nomination without taking a stand on any one major (at least to me) issue. He changes his mind to fit the mood of the people...he wants to play a lucky roll into presidency by snowing and lulling the people with abstract language, not a sted-fast dedication to truth, unwaivering allegience to justice and fairness, creative new ideas, listening to the public, implementing the public demands, etc... Here he spoke out against a moon plan...I mean this is the science we would get from Kerry...Bush is worse, but Kerry is no prize when it comes to science. Fourth, Kerry didn't win against Bush jr, he didn't win Ohio, we need somebody that can win Ohio. Dean was openly against the Iraq invasion, Kerry and Hillary Clinton both supported the Iraq invasion...they supported the Iraq invasion...I mean what kind of ethics and morality is that? Then Kerry likes to blame me for his loss, and everything that goes wrong on earth. I take the approach of trying to solving societies problems....of addressing them, not burying them under the carpet to rear their ugly head later...(but ofcourse long after Kerry has been President for 8 years or whatever). We need a president that is going to stop people's suffering from violence, from incarceration, from property theft, from a one sided camera thought net...a person that is going to free the information, that is going to tell about hearing thought and the secrets of the Stalinist brutal secretive US past, that is going to be openly rounding up the JFK conspirators and RFK killer Thane Cesar...that is what we need...but the public, I guess, wants some brain dead marshmellow head that is going to blow powder platitudes into their empty ears. Clearly Kerry will do little to nothing for the people of the USA, or whatever he does it is going to be behind closed doors, privately and secretly...and then it, ofcourse, again will be nothing. I think Kucinich is the best choice speaking out against the drug war, then Dean speaking out against the electoral college and the Iraq invasion, then perhaps Hillary, Edwards, then Kerry...I mean, I will vote for whoever is the Democratic choice, but how about in 2008 they get somebody that is going to win? in particular win Ohio...my advice: that looks young, that is smart, openly expresses their values, is outspoken, has a vision which includes going to the moon, which includes evolution and science, which includes cracking down on violent crime, which includes lessoning the harsh sentences for drug and prostitution crimes. You know, Clinton has perfected that "language of love"...that thoughtful, kind of delayed and well thought out type of language...that won over those religious evangelical idiots, I don't think the tough talk works as well...perhaps somebody that is going to deliver those Bill Clinton positive vibe statements... one thing I have to respect about Bill Clinton is he takes criticism and comes back with love most of the time...I mean...it's a very good approach...one I can't possibly implement for myself even if I tried, but I see how effective it is. I am not going to be silent, I will work to solve the problems of earth until the day I die...I'm not out to trick and fool people into liking me, I want the truth and nothing but the truth and that is all. Any way I look at it, they are the biggest bunch of voyeur elitists...like some kind of South African society...I care very little for all of them, which is more than they can say about me. They are a bunch of arrogant, callous, elitist people operating in a secret society...the entire thing is fraud and not any good, certainly nothing I am enjoying or benefiting from, and receive nothing but negativity from...as I single handly expose and dismantle it...ofcourse a bunch of South-Africa-aparteid elites are not going to like what I am saying and have nothing but derision for me, the truth, justice, exposing and jailing the violent, free info, jailing Cesar, full democracy, exposing the hearing thought, and everything I stand for. update: perhaps the Kerry looking guy was not a Kerry rep, or was but was celebrating the journey to centauri. Perhaps I took a negative view on this, but how can "hunt down and kill" be thought of as pleasant? It didn't appear that the guy was gettting down and getting funky to "Journey to Centauri", but maybe he was or simply showing some support by saying "hi" in a pleasant peaceful way. You know, I hope I can instill some compassion in these candidates to care for, stop or lessen people's suffering: the victims of violence, nonviolent people (in particular for drugs and the prost) in prisons and hospitals, and victims of the secret thought-hearing net and secrecy.
update2: I honestly hope Kerry is not the Democratic nominee, we need democrats who are against war, who are smart, honest, for progress, not the flair around in the wind, and have no or bad positions on any major issues. Then a democrat who is on board, and has been on board the entire time, somebody with a solid value system that isn't going to buckle. What a bore, and no doubt I will vote for Kerry if he is the Democratic nominee, but get a real choice and somebody that definitely can, wants to and will do something to win. I just saw Maria Shriver dedicate the new Tiger Woods institute, and Tiger was cool saying "reflect", and some other good words, Bill Clinton was nice, but then Shriver says how she was talking with the mom of Tiger and how her mom told tiger when he didn't finish his school work to go "down and out!" loudly pointing her right finger down. The first thing that goes into my mind, is what an uneducated, elitist, violence loving person Shriver is, and how disgusting her values are. I remember she bought the cover of some magazine and had a photo of her and a big ol' cross on, to me that says: "look at me I am stupid and uneducated". My quote then was, something like "it's so nice that she didn't let science and education get in her way". update: actually it was funnier I said "it's a good thing she wasn't polluted with a particle of science or education". But you know, this raises another issue, look at the Kennedy group, how secretive. I have to wonder what kind of secrets Shriver has in the closet she doesn't want the rest of the planet to all see, while she is busy snooping through our drawers, and no doubt zapping us with a few street lamp lasers too for all I know. It was bizarre, but perhaps it's because of the current secret thought-hearing system and the lack of education in the USA, I saw this photo on Google, and here is Ted Kennedy chatting with Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania...like here is this guy Ted Kennedy, and then the guy who vocally helped to protect the killer of his oldest brother John...you know...it's like...do we have a fucked up government and country or what? I just have this feeling that a serious change is coming in the future, obviously where the public hears and sees all about the last 100 years of fascism ruled by terrible people just like Shriver. And I see the entire iceburg crumbling, I fucking hope. Those people that hear thought and have video of people in their houses beamed in front of their eyes will never be poor or powerless, but I think they will lose any chance of serving the public in government, or getting wealth from popularity. The amazing thing, is also how fucked up Shriver has to be inside, being chained to a guy who is 90% supporting Bush jr, the crocodile son of the mastermind who killed JFK and reversed the trend of science, free infomation, and the remotest possibility of justice in the USA for 50+ years. The violent reign of bloody fascism is coming to an end in the USA, and democracy, freedom, light, justice, and stopping violence are the future for us. I care nothing for Shriver, that fascist elitist antiscience lying rude violence loving person, nor Swartzenegger, nor Kerry, nor Bush...I mean they are all the same, a bunch of iceburg.....in $10,000 suits, $50,000 jewelery, $0 values. What we need is true democracy, true freedom of info...the secret about hearing thought is coming out, everybody knows it, now when is it going to happen, and what is going to happen? It's shocking that I of all people have to pull up the US diaper and say it's time to hear about Frank Fiorini, the second gunman, it's time to hear about Michael Pupin, the inventor...it's time the truth happened in the USA, and the public gets to see all of the violence, and those in power that did nothing but sat back and watched all of it, but also, the awe and admiration at seeing those that tried to do something about it. Why doesn't Shiver get sexualized and honest?
I remember one of my songs "Down and Out", and how wonderful that would have probably been, had there been even one remotely decent person on earth. What nice sounding harmonization that would have been (and was for an audience of elite idiots), what excellent messages those were for the public (but that only reached the ears of the idiot thought-hearing elitists, who promptly squashed it or did nothing to encourage it). But this planet is devoid of honesty, logic, justice, vision, not this century, and probably not for a few more centuries. I always hope, but I think it is over optomistic, I am looking forward to really getting to analyze the future for humans of earth, it's a great story, some parts will apply to me, like I think hearing thought will come out, you know, laptops are $300 now, videocameras are about $300, Internet video is just starting, we have yet to see the result of all that video on society, but how could a secret like hearing-thought last for much longer in the face of all that info?
You know, the antisexual, the religious, are bitter nasty people. Look at Shriver how her anger and hostility overcomes any kind of logic...it comes from sexual embarrassment (perhaps from a photo of two females being sexual, yes porn, I saw and the one getting fucked looks like Shriver), but also just the over all feeling perhaps of anger at the possibility of the public getting to hear thought, of the idea of true democracy, of a rise of science, a lessening of religion...all those things, and look at Kerry, here he is a sourpuss too, he has "sour grapes" about losing the last election, he is looking around to blame other people, and the person to blame is himself in my opinion. He has a bunch of mismatched values, he supported the war, he did nothing to stop the drug war or lessen the sentences of those, and his big complaint was about "leaks", like that CIA leak. I celebrate the leaks, and I think that is the liberal way...in europe the public is housing the power structure...they are getting file sharing, here our politicians take a few thousand and promptly sell out the public, like that Disney copyright extension...was that in the public's best interest? Is that the trend of the future? tighter info controls, when they get to hear thought and see people in their houses? It's religious puritanism, it's lack of science and no vision, it's the elites like Kerry and Shriver on that side, and the poor public on this side. The religious I know, some are kind of cloud-like, positive and puffy, but that is rare, most are dumb, bitter, angry, petty, antisexual, ... rabid...and that is what Shriver and Kerry display, just this stupid...angry...dumb dumb do nothing hostile and no doubt violent bitterness and constant anger. I am over here trying to stop the suffering of those in jail for simply using drugs (something they all did)...I mean should we really be jailing those addicted to drugs? Is that a humain answer? In particular if they are never violent and only hurting themselves? The same for prostitution, clean it up, make it legal, instead of this close-the-door and never look attitude...let's look and make sure there is consent, make sure there is no theft, or violence. And then speaking out for those locked in psychiatric hospitals, who didn't get the right to trial, were tortured even when nonviolent, don't get a sentence, may be locked in their for life and have never committed a crime, most people laugh about them and care nothing for their suffering, but here I care, partially because I am the victim of that idiotic brutal fascist pseudoscience secret system. People like Kerry, Shriver, Swartzenegger, Bush and them say "who gives a shit about those suffering in jail for drugs, prostitution, who have lost their families, their houses, property and freedom and all just for simply smoking"...it's not them. You don't have to be a genius to see the system here...nonviolent people, simply using drugs or selling sexual favors for money...you know...violence is the real crime, property theft, now there is a real crime...cmon wake up people...it's pretty simple, it's the way of the future, we have to adjust our puritan past...like the anal sex laws...I mean who honestly thinks anal or oral sex should not be legal...if there is somebody out there I have to send thee back to the 1200s. I mean anal sex...who gives a shit? It's your own anus I like to think. Yes, oh yes, consentual anal sex, oh my, ... yes, I must explain that to this group, who could not figure it out any other way. Then the Pupin thought-hearing...cmon already, out with the Fiorini, out with the Cesar, and a thousand other killers, the gig is up....you know, I think one big big big reason why those in the camera network don't want everything to go public, is because they have had 100 years to commit crime, and in that 100 years they have built up some pretty bad crimes, and they know, oh do they know...if the public ever knew they would never see the light of day...they would be sent to jail until their bones have completely decayed. That's one major reason why they fight viciously to the bitter end. But I am out here saying the obvious, as usual, hey hey ho ho hearing thought will never go, ho ho hey hey hearing thought is here to stay...in the light of day....in every way....etc. Working to expose those million injustices, those million murders, those billion lies, those assaults, all of it...to stop the suffering of those who don't even know that people are trying to control them through advanced ancient 100 year old secret technology. Then here I am...how do I spend a lot of my time? Trying to put together a video telling the history of science, evolution and the future...Kerry has a finger in his ass, but I am making a movie for the public about the history of science, no thanks to him, and with nun of his help. I will walk away with a wonderful video the public will learn and grow from, he will walk away not having done shit for the public, but continued a long parade of charade.
More about this antisexual phenomenon, you know...it's people who are, hello, obsessed beyond obsession with all things "gay"...and in a negative way...like the worst crime is to be gay, and that nothing could possibly be more demeaning or lesser in life. Their biggest put down is that some person is gay. It's really an interesting phenomenon, I mean clearly they think about gay all the time. It's beyond just a hobby, it's an all consuming fascination for them...I mean put the antiviolence legislation on hold...gay people are trying to have legal marriage, etc. It is amazing...and I have to wonder if deep inside that they are infact the people that are gay. Because all the rest of us, are comfortable and tolerant with homosexuality, it's not an obsession for us. It doesn't dominate our lives in the way it does these "gay obsessed, everybody is a gay" people. And that is one part of the antisexual phenomenon. Then, gayness is the excuse to commit violent crime...why anybody that objects...or wants to stop violent crime? ....why they must be gay! As if being gay would be much worse than commiting violent crime. Shocking as that may sound, it is true. Beyond a bizarre obsession with gay (in particular male and male gayness), then comes insanity...who is insane? After gay...next would probably be pervert, pedophile and/or molester...again, I have to wonder if their obsession is really with protecting children from violence since, like "gay", people are so obsessed with children and sexuality...are they the peds? and then not lovers of children, but obsessed with controlling children and physical pleasure...the child sex phenomenon is like a modern witch trial people are jailed for assault that only were accused of fondling...then no evidence other than coached video testimony is needed, etc.....after that they are all insane...they are all nut cases, crackpots, loony toons, loco, kookoo... then geeks, dorks, doofs, ... never just simply violent, or stupid...those two are not big insults...they are so rare that it sounds unusual to say them...to call somebody violent...it's a rare occassion to hear that...like violent could be a bad trait in somebody?! Then to call somebody stupid, I get the feeling is "too rude"...better to call them gay or insane. What's about religious? Isn't that a valid insult? They are damn fanatics? religious fanatics! That one I don't hear too often, and why? Because the majority of people in the USA are deeply religious, and "religious fanatic" probably lands too close to home.....they would be insulting themselves. "Antisexual" is one I don't hear often...you mean to be sexual is a good thing? it can't be! We are to have sex only for the purpose of continuing the species...we should definitely not express sexuality, any kind of public enjoyment of sexuality, etc. we are to deny any evidence of sexuality in our bodies, at least publically. The antisexual is getting a free ride...free from any criticism, free from being outed publically...free to poop on those they feel show signs of sexuality without any reprocussions. Hey, you can't be too antisexual in this society. You know I can't forget "jerk" "asshole" "loser"... you know...those are in the realm of abstraction...who really knows what they mean? jerk and asshole, I simply boil down to "mean", "rude", "dishonest"...loser boils down to something even more abstract...I suppose somebody that has lost some competition, but you know...ofcourse they win something in life...so ... it's kind of pointless. I never use words like "jerk" "asshole" and "loser" because I go for more specific claims like "rude", "stupid", "religious", "elitist" (although there needs to be more here), "racist", "antisexual", "violent", etc. those are my big concerns.
I have to continue on with this Shriver thing, because there are some important points. First, I definitely am voting publically now that Shriver can get the same future she is voting for me, that she can be down financially, not one fiver for Shriver, nor anyone else who campaigns against the public's right to see and hear thought, and to know about such devices, and out in terms of hearing thoughts and seeing people in their houses and apartments, any kind of beaming services onto her head. It's only fair, after all, that is her campaign: against me seeing and hearing thought or getting financial justice (or at least what might remain of that). And I encourage other excluded people to vote the same way. One second point, you know, I don't know the relationship of Shriver to RFK, but why is it that Ted Charach and me care more about RFK than his own family? I mean it's shocking. Why is it that Ted Charach and I have to expose Thane Cesar? Why the fuck doesn't Shriver expose Thane Cesar? Why doesn't Ted Kennedy, or the children of RFK? Why is it up to old man Charach and me? Why didn't RFK expose Fiorini? TO me, that shows that JFK was more couragous than RFK probably, here JFK was talking about going public with hearing thought. Where are their morals? Their sense of justice? Their love for RFK and JFK? And here, that bastard Shriver is connected to somebody that is in a position to do something about capturing and trying Thane Cesar, her husband is that prig, the governor Arnold Swartzenegger. I tell you what, let's do something good for California the nexts time around, and elect Larry Flynt as governor, he will actually make some change to end many people's suffering in the prisons. Maybe he will make prostitution legal, but first maybe only hand jobs and oral sex, for men, and for women too. Can you imagine the horror? People actually touching genitals for money...how would society be able to hold together? Would there still be enough people to wipe up the public toilets for money? You know I see a time when the overcrowded, million people in prison are released by public mandate, in particular those for drugs and prost. And then the gradual filling of the prisons with all the violent from the secret camera net...yes...the time has finally come...they know it...the party for them is over, and for good honest decent people the party would just be beginning. You know, what the deal on this drug war is, I can make it even more simple: you know the people that are going to jail and the victims of the drug arrests are everyday people like Al Gore jr, the college partier, and George Clinton, the drug experimenting musician...people that are no harm whatsoever to society, they use drugs, they party, they remain nonviolent, they are not the brutal thugs who beat and steal. And here, people have not made any serious arrests in terms of violent crime. Society in the USA has become this group of people who is looking to legally regulate every food item people eat, in order to make sure they don't hurt themselves by becoming overweight, but they care nothing about assault and murder, whether it is with fists, knives, or guns all of which are legal, where drugs which only hurt the self if that are not. Even that hard ass Bush jr smoked weed, while he was busy dodging, but fervently supporting the Vietnam war, I guess to be fought by other, lesser people. DOdging that idiocy was the smart thing to do (and the same applies for Afghan and Iraq), but to support it was definitely dumb (and again the same applies to Iraq and Afghan). We need a president that is going to basically be onboard for those main opinions: for putting the violent in prison, for freeing the nonviolent for drugs and prost out of prison, for integrating the psychiatric system to a legal and consentual-only one, for full democracy, for free infomation...they should be basically on board for those policies and if not, I don't think that we are truly getting a person that shares the mainstream vision for progress and the future.
update 2/28/06 I can't rule out that like many things around me, the Kerry-guy was a conservative provocateur. I am surrounded by people opposed to me who spend a lot of money to confuse or misdirect me, where liberals don't want to waste the money to inform me, perhaps choosing to focus the money on more important stop violent causes, oh do I hope. The interesting thing with the Shriver thing is...you know, one thing is clear to me, and that is that people like that constantly play abstract games of "spin the public", and you know, I wish the public would finally get smart and say we want leaders who put their cards out on the table, who we know openly and clearly what their values are. It's kind of funny, because, for all the proliberal antiliberal language, my money is on these current leaders doing absolutely nothing in either direction. It's all hot air, they don't have any really good vision or values, it's just a constant popularity contest to try and rope as many people as possible into supporting them, and they do that by doing next to nothing. We need to democratize the government, first by allowing people to vote on court decisions and existing laws, even if it doesn't officially count, then we need to end the drug war and open up legal recreational drug use for adults in the privacy of their own homes or in special designated buildings, like is happening in europe. Then legal prostitution for consenting adults. We're all adults here, we can touch adult genitals for money if we want. Besides it's the free market, why are so many people anti-free market, it's frightening. We've got to stop violence, and I think a good start is a registry of violent offenders, we can end dehydration and hunger too, but I think we need to do everything publically, to end the secrecy, to focus on free info for all, end or limit the copyrights to 10 years, like patents.
02-07-2006
There are some new web video sources:
video.yahoo.com (TP videos can be accessed here)
video.google.com (TP videos are here)
utube.com (TP videos are here)
http://www.uctv.tv/
http://www.current.tv/studio/
wgbh forum
frontline.org
-------------------
Imagine the headlines that should have been:
October ?, 1910 New York Times frontpage:
"Scientist Invents Machine That Can See Thought!"
"Scientists See Thought!"
"Machine Sees Thoughts!"
1913 New York Times frontpage:
"Thought Can Be Heard!"
"Scientists Hear Thought!"
"Break-through Machine Can Hear Thought!"
"Machine Hears Thoughts!"
November 12, 1963 Washington Post frontpage:
"Frank Fiorini Fingered as JFK Killer"
June 7, 1968 LA Times Frontpage:
"Thane Eugene Cesar Kills RFK!"
It's not too late:
2006: "??!"
---------------------
Violence because of religious cartoons
It is amazing to me that violence is acceptible in some of these Islamic nations...they can burn embassy's and threaten people with guns and there is no arrest. I am glad there are video cameras...video cameras are going to put an end to anonymous violence. You have to wonder about the ethics and morals of people who think it is not ok to print some picture, but it is ok to burn a building and threaten people with guns. It shows how lawless Syria is, but that is typical of many religious nations...the religious beliefs overrule the laws, in particular the important homicide, assault and property destruction laws. That seems to be typical of many religious and religions...they see some picture of a demon and somehow that is an excuse to assault and do violence...it is really a bizarre phenomenon. Somebody will be reading along...and then they reach page 66, and somebody in the laser beam group decides the person is evil and starts assaulting them with a laser...there are probably better examples, but that is typical. A person simply reading, not breaking any law, and then those religious zelots in power that use any excuse to do violence. What they do is use violence to enforce their religion. Nobody will feel comfortable critizing or revealing the truth about Jesus, Muhommed, gods, the history of religion when the religious threaten them with and actually perform violence on them and their property. That is interesting that people on the opposite side are funding a halocaust cartoon challange. I am ofcourse for full freedom of all info, and so for me, I don't even bother a yawn, ... in some way I think that this is perhaps a creative and nonviolent response. Just to be clear on my own opinions, I am not religious, I am for full freedom for all information, and I do think that the halocaust did happen based on the overwhelming physical evidence...it's like saying there was no second shooter in the JFK killing...I mean the vast weight of the physical evidence supports the halocaust, a second shooter, and Thane Cesar as the killer of RFK...I have to go with the physical evidence.
With the situation in Iran, it sounds like Bush, Blair, Howard and them want to invade Iran. That would be expensive, and then what would they replace the Iranian government with? You know they will never stop Islamic fanaticism...what could they possibly hope to change? Then there would be yet another area where poor US and Arab people are getting killed in a violent lawless nation. I am interested to see what happens with the Iran thing...I guess if the UN or Bush, Blair, Howard and them want to invade Iran they would stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It is frightening to think of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having nuclear missiles given his statement on how Israel must be wiped off the map. It's tough to know how fanatical and violent Ahmadinejad is, and then compared to Bush, Blair Howard and them...BBH are first degree violent, no doubt about that...but are they atomic bomb first degree violent? not yet. They are only conventional bomb first degree violent. It's tough to say...if you look, for example at Pakistan and even Israel both...there are clearly some religiously fanatical people in those nations with nuclear weapons but they have not yet used the nuclear weapons even in hostile conflicts. I am interested in hearing other people's opinions, but I've noticed an interesting phenomenon...when it comes to violence, the drug war, prostitution, nuclear weapons, communism, full democracy, full freedom of info...not many people are on record with any kind of opinions...think about it...do you know anybody that has openly said their opinions on the drug war? on prostitution? on pornography? on full democracy? on communism? on science? ... apparently most people, and I mean the absolute vast majority feel better not to make any public statements that rise above the temperature of tepid or could remotely be called specific.
Look at what is going on in Turkey...it's like Midnight train but for newspaper editors...it's hard to believe there are nations where people can be locked in jail for what they print, but it is sadly true. I hope Turkey becomes the first arab nation to adopt the european laws...that would be an excellent step forward for all arab nations. Turkey would serve as a role model and gateway between the technically advanced societies of europe and the technically behind societies of the arab nations. Any way I look at it, the situation on earth now is terrifying, and it's because of the religious fanatacism, and not only Islamic, but Christian too...we need to turn to secular law and logic, full democracy, free info, and ofcourse ultimately to science and evolution...but we are no where close to that plateau and in the time to get there anything and worse can happen.
I am interested to see if Michael Moore will take on the psychiatric hospital issue and address those people's suffering. Clearly the system needs to be reformed...in my opinion it needs to be integrated into the prison system, and the people given the right to trial and sentence. Involuntary four point restraints need to be abolished...certainly for nonviolent people. Stright jackets, electroshock need to be voluntary only. Basically in a word, psychiatric treatment needs to be made "voluntary only", and I don't think I'm insane for saying such a thing. When it comes to addressing psychiatric hospitals and torture the debate always seems to reduce to thousands of people giggling and flapping their lips with their fingers, which has a large amount of comic appeal, but ... I find myself thinking (ofcourse being the victim of that ridicule helps to see the other side)...can I really laugh about some nonviolent person being tortured, locked away in a room against their will? I find it tough to find humorous, myself, but I am definitely in the minority. Anyway, we as a society have to reform the psychiatric system to make it voluntary in my opinion, but I am the only (or perhaps there are others I am not aware of) person saying this. So will Moore do anything to help those suffering at the hands of their psychiatric captors? I kind of feel some doubt and it is a familiar feeling. I think Moore and many others will probably take the line that mental health should be covered under some national health care program...basically viewing involuntary psychiatric treatment as being necessary (without explicitly saying so). I can understand that issue...it takes a renegade and rebel to take on involuntary treatment, most people are not going to get there for decades I estimate. So, I think we are going to get the point of view from Moore in "sicko" that people are not covered for their mental hostpial stays (which will be implied to be voluntary). One thing that is common in the psychiatric issue is the lack of depth...nobody wants to actually go there. Frontline did, but they tilted it to show only the people there that are loud and rebellious, their purpose, it seems to me, was to reinforce the psychiatric establishment...the entire theme of the Frontline special was..."here these people have mental problems and they are being locked in prisons...when they should be getting treatment in hospitals". Where, I think if there is any treatment it should be in prison, because we are a society with a legal system, where people break laws, they are given an opportunity for a trial, and a sentence...the psychiatric system is a loop hole where people don't get a jury trial or sentence because everything is based on psychology theory. Their sentence is strictly based on when they are "cured" from their "disease", and that is not determined by society, but by a few doctors. It seems logical and relatively simple to me that if a person breaks a law, they are charged and the pay the fine or the sentence, etc. If, that law breaking activity is part of a mental problem, we can do our best to try and cure that perceived problem, but ultimately...it's like murder...many argue that those who first degree murder have a disease, but ultimately they have to be locked in jail, whether they have a disease or not. To clear things up, what about the thousands of nonviolent people who violated who are wherehoused in psychiatric hospitals all over the planet, without any chance of freedom? What about those nonviolent people who have been systematically four point restrained and who will be in the future? What about those nonviolent people who are involuntarily drugged? When will somebody speak out for their rights? I think that will be a long time. For example, Frontline said nothing about the ethicalness of tying nonviolent people to beds...and routinely so...for all those who are taken to a hospital, am I the only person that questions this practice? Why Frontline didn't mention that some nonviolent people are involuntarily injected with drugs as I was in San Diego? How can people who are rabidly anti-drug use sit by and allow innocent nonviolent people, including children to be involuntarily drugged? If they could see, would they honestly condone that? So these issues are as clear as day to me, having been at the receiving end of much of this abuse, but at the giving end, people are not as worried about human rights and the idea of "voluntary" treatment I guess. I could go on for days, but let me finish by saying that can you imagine a system where you can have your theory enforced into belief by the use of torture and indefinite inprisonment? For example, if people that believe in evolution forced those who do not to be restrained for long periods of time until they started believing in evolution? To be locked in an "evolution hospital" until they are cured, and stop all that non-evolution talk even if there is no law against non-evolution talk? That is basically what is being done now but the theories are those of psychology. Many of those people locked in psychiatric hospital have not violated any known law, or the law they violated usually only garners a fine or small jail time. The stigma of psychiatric disease is like nothing ever before...it is a dark fear and an unjustified fear. It is similar to millions of other unjustified fears...fears based on racism for example...some people might say..."it doesn't matter if you are not racist against (let's say for example) white people...because so many people are...you might as well stay away from white people...because chances are you will get in trouble", the same is true for pedophelia, drug use, insanity...even if not true...the accusation is enough to end the career of any human. I guess much of the issue is the question "when will people embrace logic?", you know, because many of these issues require allegience to logic, truth and the facts, but this society appears not capable of chosing truth over popular (and/or traditional) opinion. In any event, I look forward to seeing Moore's take on psychiatric care, and I am going to guess here and now that it will take the form of: "...and buddy? there was no insurance coverage for her mental care..." and that will be the extent of the depth that Moore goes into psychiatric health care. Potentially he might take on the issue of children being diagnosed with ADHD, and given massive amounts of drugs...that issue has just barely skimmed the news companies...and I think many due to funding by the scientology group that appears to be concerned with psychology to their credit. It will be interesting to see if Moore talks about that issue of children being drugged, the most recent story was that some of these psychiatric drugs are more likely to result in suicide, or suicidal feelings, but then there were counter reports...to me the issue is simple. I think somebody has said this but in the 1800s children didn't take drugs for manic depression and all this bs and they turned out ok. But beyond that, adding drugs to a natural healthy body...my advice is against it...we were idiots when younger smoking weed, and using pills...trying to be like adults or rock stars, or perhaps pushing our bodies and minds to the extreme...looking back, I wish I had been sober and pursued science and sexuality/physical love which both are natural and healthy in my opinion (and not participated in sports too by the way, it's too violent, and a waste of precious time, in addition there are many ways to exercise and develop muscles/your body, etc.). Plus, final on the finally, the theories of psychology are patently false, abstract, apply to everybody and nobody...ok right off the top psychosis, neurosis, and schitzophrenia are all bs...the most I can get out of them is what I call "delusion" which is an inaccurate view of the universe (and mind you this applies to all absolute believers in gods, and in particular those that think Jesus rose from the dead, made 10 loaves, Moses got the commandments from a god, those that deny evolution, ...those that deny all matter being made from photons...that believe the big band despite the evidence of an infinitely large universe...even those in modern science are delusional to some extent.), then beyond that there is depression...yes ok...some people may be sad more than others...big deal...that is totally in the realm of volutary treatment only, and I don't think people can make a solid argument that depression is linked to lawless behavior and certainly not violent lawless behavior, but even if it is ...it's like religion and sugar...they can probably be linked to violence, but that doesn't mean we out law religion and sugar. One of the worst so-called "mental disease" are the self-hurting diseases...the sight of people hurting themselves is so repulsive to many people that they are restrained and locked away from objects that can be used to hurt themselves, but as ugly and sad as it is, I think those are the most shocking and probably memorable occurances of where people must let a person own their own body, no matter how much they hurt themselves...it's something most people are clearly not ready to accept at this time, simply seeing how Jack Kervorkian was jailed is a fine example. Most people would probably think suicide and self-hurting would have evolved out of our DNA by now...I mean most of those people would have ended their life before reproducing. The only other mental disease I can think of is paranoia, which is something we all can understand...but again, like depression...if a person's paranoia is such that they still obey the laws then we are talking about volutary treatment only, if a person's paranoia makes them constantly violate laws then they can have the choice of voluntary-only treatment from prison. There are many parallels, look how the belief in some religion causes people to reject health care...you want to force that appendicitis operation on them...we know..from science...it's your appendix...you know..you need to have it removed...no question about it...but we can't force that surgury on them (or even those appendix medications), much as we would like to. The most we can do, is try to explain, as best we can, as effectively as possible, the views of science, of secular nonreligious findings, of past operations, experiences, etc.
02-06-2006
Subject: Uncover the PSIKI, this email is a masterpiece
Hi Mike
I want to thank you for having the courage to make "Fahrenheit 9/11".
I have "healthcare terror" stories from 3 separate occassions on which I
was locked in psychiatric hospitals. I am not sure if you are going to be
touching on the psychiatric issue in "Sicko", but I want to highlight some
areas of concern in terms of the psychiatric system:
1) 4 point restraints
a) people in prison are not restrained in such a restrictive way
b) I saw a drunk guy tied to a bed in a psych hospital in Belmont, IL
ask to use the bathroom a couple of times, and even though nurses heard,
they didn't respond, and he urinated in his pants, Mike.
c) Is tying people to tables a way of not having to splurge for a full
room with a toilet like prisons have?
d) are restraints necessary for nonviolent prisoners? (because all
incoming "patients" get them as far as I know)
2) involuntary and coersed druggings
a) It's amazing that taking drugs consentually is illegal, but hey, when
they're injected into you by a medical professional it's legal. I was
injected with Droperidol in San Diego County Hospital and I objected
verbally.
b) At UCLA Harbor I was told after passing on the "meds", that I had to
take my meds or I wouldn't be served dinner. So I took them and spit
them out later (who knows what it could have been?!).
3) straight-jackets
a) I've never been restrained in a straight jacket, but think about
that...could that possibly be pleasant? They don't use those for
murderers on death row, but it's ok for mom and the kids.
4) electroshock
a) I'll tell you what is shocking, that high voltage electricity is
still being used on unwilling patients. Can you imagine just being an
average Joe and then they tell you they are going to electrocute you?
Most people would say "no thanks", but I guess that doesn't matter in
the USA anymore.
5) No jail sentence: since when can a person be held in a prison without a
sentence? There have to be shocking stories of nonviolent people who have
never been released but never committed any crime. What happenest to
habeus corpeus?
6) People locked in psychiatric hospitals don't ever get a jury trial, so
how can they ever prove that they are innocent of the charge against them?
I guess when it comes to psychiatric laws, everybody is guilty.
7) My mom was locked in a psychiatric hospital in Syracuse, NY recently
(after she kept calling 911 about intruders who were only in her mind) and
she managed to get a call out to me from the hospital so I knew where she
was, but later a person at the hospital told me: "I can't tell you if
there is a person here or not, even if it is your mother" citing privacy
concerns, which I think is an opening for abuse...because it's like
prison...how can anybody work for your freedom if they don't know where
you are? Only my mother and I have ever been locked in psychiatric
hospitals, shockingly our family is not that wild or unusual. Both her
and I have maintained nonviolent behavior.
8) The very abstract theories of psychology, in particular:
a) psychosis, neurosis: How are these defined? I work in a library and
one DVD I saw had a guy who was labeled psychotic because he thought of
having sex with his sister. You know, I think that is perhaps unusual,
but as long as it's just a thought, it's not violence, so I don't see
why anybody would care. Then another woman was labeled psychotic simply
because she stopped cooking dinner for her husband...she was "healed"
when she was back to cooking for the husband every day. So there is no
rule as to who gets labeled psychotic, and many times the "disease" is
some trivial thing in the realm of nonviolent behavior.
If it's just delusion or inaccurate interpretation of the universe, I
mean, I know a million people that swear they saw the Virgin Mary in a
potato chip, but I don't think they need psychiatric treatment. (They
need a good history of science movie which is my advice for yer next
project).
I am a person who thinks delusion should be legal, people need to be
allowed to be wrong and have terribly inaccurate opinions of the universe.
To me "violent", now there is a legitimate problem. We all know what it
is, it can be easily verified with physical evidence. I am against the
"insanity defense"...I take the view that even if insane at the
time...still people that do violence are too dangerous and should do the
full prison sentence. Maybe some voluntary treatment in prison is the way
to go. Then, as if the making up of mythical, abstract psychiatric
diseases were not enough (I think the time is coming where it will be a
battle of disease labeling...the psychologers issuing "schitzo" labels
while the anti-psychologers are issuing "making up pretend diseases
disease" labels)...then psychology doctors make the determination that
some person that did homicide is now "cured" of that abstract disease and
killers are freed.
I could go on for hours, as you can probably tell, I am basically reaching
out to say hi, to send you some support, to communicate wit ya, and to
offer to help you with any movie and/or activity you are doing.
As a final note how about some "faith healers"? Is that fraud or nay?
"yer healed!". Yes, Bush will now be using our tax money to fund that.
Thanks Agin!
Ted
============END TRANSMISSION==================
02-02-2006
Stew Albert died of liver(?) cancer, and I have to wonder if it was murder, I mean he was only 66, and when ever there is a tumor or cancer it doesn't rule out microwave beaming by secret killers protected by the conservatives in the camera thought net. I looked at Stew's web page, and it's good to see he has a page and tried to get his message to the public, others live in secrecy and poop on the public. But I see again, a tribute to Che Guavera, who I myself, don't really support...I don't think Castro and the Cuban revolution was a popular revolution...I don't know...but in any event it has turned into a dictatorship...but beyond that, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Communism is a complete and total failure. I absolutely prefer full democracy and individual ownership of property. I think it's an interesting point as to who decides for newly unowned property who owns it...for the moon, mars, moons of jupiter...spaces in orbit...I am not worried that the public will put something together, initially, it will be whoever can get there...because who is going to stop them or take it from them? But you know...it's disappointing to see people, in particular self-titled hippie people, liberals, intellectuals... celebrating Che Guavera, Castro, communism...it is bad for the so-called left-wing which I see as ultimately, like the name "Democrat" implies are moving toward full democracy where the public rules all of the government through voting, overruling the supreme court, overruling the president and congress. For one reason because that is a fear of those on the so-called "right"...that the left leads to communism which is totally false in my view. I really can't label myself as left-wing or right-wing, I am simply against first degree violence, for full democracy, and have many other very specific beliefs. It's stupid to support anything remotely communist in my opinion, and as far as I can see there is always one major excuse given and that is that poor people will have a guaranteed place to live and enough food to eat...many times the claim is that "labor" will be treated better. I think there are plenty of examples that show that there was more starvation under communism than any democracy...communism is inefficient, unnatural and devolves into rule by one person or a board of a few elites. There is a parallel with the camera net and communism in that those people all echo a party line even when it is a lie, and use there collective power to ostrosize any that won't play along. It's just like in "Man is Wolf to Man" when in the Soviet Union they had these "communals" or "dumas" I can't remember the names...where, for example, a wife turned in her husband for subversive statements and he was sent away to siberia for 10 years or whatever...it's similar to the camera net people...whatever the party line is they all endorse it, help to build and enhance it, help to reduce any criticism of it, to reduce any opposing accusation or assertion, even if true. But back to that idea of poor people being more cared for, I think in addition that, ultimately, standard of living is determined by the public...if they don't like what they see, they support different leadership...over the long term. This process would be much faster in a true democracy with free flow of information...where people would see starvation they would vote for relief...they would repair or improve the system of government...now, they simply are not allowed to see because of privacy and many other reasons. But I see no reason why in a democracy with property ownership (or capitalism which I basically am equating as the same thing), that a basic law of no involuntary starvation will be tolerated could not be enacted and enforced, and the same is true for involuntary roomlessness...but even involuntary starvation, dehydration, clothing, cleaning facilities, violence-free, pain-free life for all earth inhabitants can easily be achieved in a democracy. And the point about labor getting better treatment under communism I think is false, for one thing, because if nobody can get ahead there is less incentive to improve, and that is one reason why science and technical progress advanced in the USA (which is no where near full democracy) faster. The amazing thing is that all people are laborers...even those who simply spend money...their labor has less physical strength needed, but still they have to decide what to do with their money. In the future, it really is going to be interesting, because walking robots are going to replace most of the low skill jobs when these walking robots become efficient enough...more efficient and less expensive than humans...but even if the robots are a little more expensive, people will prefer the orderly regularity and cleanliness of the robots to humans...for fast food for example. People will argue, but it is as clear as can be in my mind...and we are in for a serious societal change...that has very large impacts on the structure of society. I see the future as one of, basically at bottom, a "welfare planet". This is why, when people cry about "oh welfare...make them work"...I say "you don't realize...we are headed for a total welfare planet...where robots do all the work and humans receive a bare bones amount of water, food, room, etc...if they want more they have to do something"...some will be born into wealthy families and may get free credits (money)..enough to have more than a room, etc. Some will perform services for money (basically work)... interestingly enough what industries do you think robots will have trouble filling for a while: I have to think prostitution is one...because for that, the robots will have to look, feel and perform just like humans and that is not easy...and even so...no doubt humans will prefer a real human even if the physical beauty and sexual skills of a robot are better than average humans and the cost far less. What is not clear yet in my mind is how people will move ahead beside inheritance. There may be other jobs...first lets mention the jobs that will be the first to be filled by robots...they are the lowest skilled:
all food serving, cooking, preparing, shopping
all agricultural (planting, picking, pollinating)
...
all driving (cars, busses, planes) [possibly, this may take longer for robots to gain enough experience]
construction [actual building of...not designing] of buildings, cars, buses, planes, rocketplanes
...
all nannying, daycare, baby care (here you can see humans will be employed for a long time, even if potentially low skill level)
All that really remain are designing kind of jobs...the highest level...the building planners and designers, the plane/vehicle desiners, the deciders of what plants to grow, so it's basically the engineering designers of robots, buildings, vehicles, etc. and the owners that employ and direct them. I mean, clearly we are heading for a large scale unemployment/welfare planet..and that is ok I want to make clear. It simply means that the government structure, which will most likely be controlled by the public will be handing out money (and no doubt food, water, etc) to those who do not have any. It may be like in monopoly where people get a certain amount each month...but initially they will simply get enough water, food, a room, heat, etc. And it will all be funded by either tax money on those who already have money (through inheritance), and/or through the public simply voting for the government to produce a certain amount of money/credits. Because, we are heading and already very near a paperless money society where the value of money (and perhaps most importantly the amount of money in circulation...this is a very important and perhaps the ultimate determination of what money is worth...and ofcourse money is simply a more liquid form of things like property/land/etc) is only determined by each governments say so. It is difficult to know exactly what the future will be like, but those points above seem clear. Which reminds me, that humans tend to have a one planet only view (hence the use of the word "world" for universe or largest thing most people use in language), but you have to understand the reality of so-called "space exploration" in the future...humans will be rocketting away from the earth...living in orbit...at some point the majority of humans in called "earthlings" will be in orbit...the surface will be fill with perhaps 1 quadrillion humans, living even deeply in the crust, and high in wall to wall sky scrapers separated by spaces for flying cars (perhaps simply helicopters). Most humans will want to escape that kind of cramped clostrophobia and move into orbit around the star...no doubt many will go to mars, venus, mercury, jupiter, saturn...but around Neptune and other planets...no doubt they will be made use of, humans will start to develop on planets of other stars. That will really be a giant leap for humans that started on a tiny planet. I hope we survive to get to that point, but there are many challanges in front of us that will absolutely have to be overcome.
Matter is money. People will reach a time when any matter can be converted to anything desired, and probably most desired will be O2 and H2O. Initially those on the moon, for example. will be making O2 and H2O for themselves, but eventually they may start to export to earth...because the matter of earth will be tied up by humans that live on it.
More about the female postal human that murdered the 6 people, the latimes quoted a clip from her "racist press" as saying that in a telepathy network keeping it secret must be very important, or something, which to me, in my excluded novice view, indicates that she basically understood that people could hear her thoughts, and no doubt people that are included and regularly hear thought tormented her by using images from her life against her. People around me do that incessently...I honestly think they are paid to make statements and gestures, paid by conservatives and instructed by spin-doctors. I am a good example, I was thinking, of how a fine person can be demonized by money...money can buy many things, I can only imagine how much money evil people spend simply to make me look bad...it must run million a year, but to them it is probably pocket change. It's kind of like Stew on Wall Street with the $500 dollars and the people chasing the money...it's a simple phenomenon...if somebody offered you $1,000 just to call somebody named Ted "ped"...you would think...$1000...damn I could buy a large screen LCD...all just to say "ped"? what could it hurt? And so, ofcourse many of them do. And what can I ever do, it's rude, it's a violation of common conduct, but it's free speech and it's tolerated (but ofcourse the speech allowed to me is very very limited...I absolutely cannot answer back...nor do I want to...in addition, I don't get any cash, other than the value of reverse propaganda to the millions that watch). The most I can think is that I doubt I would ever support hiring such a person if at all possible. But back to this woman...it is a phenomenon I am familiar with...the excluded, which she probably was, figure out parts of hearing thought...but they can't get the full picture and many interpret the phenomena inaccurately and dangerously wrong...attributing comments from a god...there is even a television show to that extent to encourage that incorrect interpretation...where some person thinks god is talking to her through average people. This postal woman took a more accurate view by calling it "telepathy"...which is a fairly accurate description. One other phenomenon from this postal homicide, is, as usual, people's belief in psychology as being accurate are reinforced. It prompts me to want to research how strong a link there is between violence and inaccurate interpretation of the universe, between psychologers who predicted a person would do violence, versus their violent history, or other facts like them owning a gun, etc....to see which is the most accurate predicter of violence. To me, I have to guess the most accurate predicter of violence is past events of violence, from there, I would have to say, precious threats of violence...after that, perhaps religious, but nowhere do I see any value in schitzophrenic, psychotic, manic depressive...the labels are just too abstract to really apply specifically to anybody. I mean, the traditional theories of psychology are basically useless in my opinion. There are many people on earth that have delusions...they see the virgin mary in a potato chip and think it has spiratual or religious significance, etc...many people think god or allah talk to them...I mean a planet full of delusion, but many, in fact most, are nonviolent and live nonviolent lives. Just because they see the virgin mary in a potato chip, and that becomes a planetary AP story for millions, doesn't mean they are going to be violent, even if they see a command to do violence in a potato chip...at least I would guess. I just think that this mass murder, like many, may have never happened, or may have been stopped earlier had the hearing thought been made public. You have to try and imagine the amount of violence and suicide that happens when people incorrectly interpret the massive hearing-thought secret 100 year lie. It really is an amazing phenomenon that happened there in 1910...it was a distinct brancing point (perhaps)...where what the public was told about the rapidly advancing science took one path, and what a smaller group of wealthy powerful elites knew took a different path. In the history books, basically...there is the massive, rapid advance in science...photographs, radio, moving pictures, movie pictures with sound, the electric light, the gas engine, the plane, fission...then nothing...just silence...no more inventions...no more rapid science, except behind the scenes where the other thread picks up...seeing thought...hearing thought...sending images to a brain...sending sound to a brain....populating the earth with hidden cameras...forming a massive camera network...developing transmutation of many atoms....making small powerful lasers...planting lasers in every ceiling and street lamp...and I can only imagine what else. The science didn't stop, it continues on at a fast pace (although it could be much faster and should be...if only the public were included)...it's just that as far as the public is concerned it stopped in 1910, except for the most benign finds that simply reinforce traditional views...some of those views even older than 1910....every thing became frozen in time for the public around 1910.
I was thinking about avagadro's theory that is really stunning. For example 22.4 liters of any gas is equal to the same number of atoms. For example 2 grams of H2, 32g of O2, 28g of N2 all equal the same number of atoms, 6.02e27 atoms according to the theory. For along time in my mind there has been something that goes against intuition, and I think I have figured out what it is: that, the number of atoms may comtain many more protons and neutrons...so some people might think that more matter = more volume, but apparently this is not true. I think we really should run and rerun these experiments with free videos for the public. The only thing that matter to the volume of a gas is the number of atoms or molecules...not the number of protons and neutrons. It is counterintuitive, but I don't doubt that it is true. For one reason, the particles in a gas are not connected as they are in liquids and solids...but I think, what happens when a gas is becoming a liquid, perhaps due to an increase in pressure (that must be amazing to see...actually pushing together the molecules of some gas to squish it into being a liquid)...doesn't the number of protons and neutrons make a difference then? Because they definitely do take up physical space. It seems that there would be a continuum of the gas laws (P1V1=P2V2, etc) for atoms and molecules as they move into the liquid "state" (the "state" difference for gas to liquid may be a human determination...but with a solid...the molecules/atoms are stuck together...there really is a difference that is not simply a human determination). I don't see why the gas equations don't work for liquids too. But, just to raise the point again...clearly the protons and neutrons take up space and have to be significant as a gas is changing to a liquid and or a solid. 1 mole of larger atoms will take up more space, and therefore exert more pressure than 1 mole of smaller atoms. But I can see how in a gas with less pressure, atomic mass would not make any difference in terms of number of free floating particles/atoms/molecules, and that is a very interesting observed fact and phenomenon.
Electron beams don't combust in O2, and I think that is an interesting point. There needs to be the body of an atom for combustion in oxygen to work correctly (to my knowledge which is very limited). So, it would seem, electrons can only lose mass in orbit of an atom, not in a beam, so far as I know. It is amazing that, if the mass lost in a simple combustion of Hydrogen, is only from the electron (and aside from the proton...I don't know where else it could come from...some people no doubt argue that pure energy forms the photons of light and heat from combustion...just that the electron has less kinetic energy...the kinetic energy is converted to photons...heat and light energy...I doubt it, but it's out there as a possibility). It is simply interesting that an electron loses mass...if that is the correect interpretation of combustion (my own belief is that electron and proton [and neutron, etc] are all separated in combustion, which only part of the atoms recombining to form H2O and CO2 [for hydrocarbons]...perhaps the atoms next to the lightning fast combustion separation photon chain reaction...for example...perhaps some H2 escapes uncombusted...I have never read that but I think it is safe to presume...to me that says that the photon chain reaction of combustion is not perfect...some Hydrogen may not be ignited, or only partially ignited...and perhaps those partially ignited...perhaps atoms on the outside near the empty space [vacuum] or other medium...[inert gas, etc] only get a few photons...enough to join or break the molecules and recombine them, but not enough to completely separate them...they are too far from the center of the reaction. So, perhaps a typical hydrogen gas flame can be viewed as having a center, or major focus of combustion where the reaction is most intense...where the most atoms are being reacted on...and there must be a spray of photons...so intense that the atoms are completely separated, creating more photons...I don't know...because it looks like most of the H2 and O2 are converted to H2O. The question is, as usual, how much mass can be attriubuted to a photon. And there are a number of experiments that probably provide evidence to the mass of a photon. The photoelectric effect is one (calculate the number of photons in a beam, equate it to the number of electrons created). But here, combustion is another (calculate the lost mass, and devide by number of photons emitted).
bio exp: radiodurans genes allow protists to withstand high radiation? Way to inject in higher life like vertebrates? perhaps with specifically designed viruses? Do people see a time when this gene(s) could be sewn relatively easily into human DNA? That alone, might increase aging by giving protection from cancer.
faster democracy building
In my view, we in the USA should be working together with the rest of those people on earth that will, democratically to stop murder and assault, and to do that with a strong focus on informing the public. I think this effort to stop violence around the earth should be done at the level of a few billions of dollars...or perhaps 20%, more or less of the total budget of any nation should be dedicated to identifying, capturing, storing votes on, and jailing humans that have done clear recorded (or with more than sufficient physical evidence) acts of violence, for those that are most easily captured (in other words for those in nations where capture would be dangerous for planetary stability, like North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, etc.), those murderers and assaulters might have to wait to set foot in a participating nation to be captured...or simply for a future when the system is more effective and running smoothly. This is my view of planetary policing, and stoping violence. I am against invasion, bombing, using missiles...in my view we should be doing policing to the best of our abilities with a reasonable amount of money dedicated to this task...not this 1/2 a trillion for Iraq...that, in my opinion, in particular a half a trillion we obviously do not have, that is way too much to dedicate to stopping violence and potential destruction. I see a more balanced approach to violence, which, as I said, is highly information based...this information based view is being completely rejected at this time. What I mean is where the public is allowed to see the violent images that serve as evidence against killers, even for murderers within participating nations, in addition for the public to vote on prison sentences for each murderer (and eventually even assaulters...and no doubt property theft, and destruction eventually when everything is open, democratized, and running smoothly with public approval). That being said, kind of an interesting idea popped into my head this morning and that was this: Couldn't Bush, Blair, Howard and them save more money by simply doing this...and I am just going to put the idea out...I do not support this in any way...but simply just as a point of debate...could they not just go quickly from third world nation to third world nation, overthrowing the monarchy, dictator, etc...and implant a democracy, then pull out...and go to the next one. If an earlier democracy collapses, just go back in and remove the dictator, and reinstate democratic voting, etc. Wouldn't that be faster and cost less money? I mean taking over Iraq happened in a few days, and Saddamn was captured within a month or something...then install a democracy...and go into Saudi Arabia or whereever, depose the king, install democracy...if it collapses...go back in...etc. In this way they could use the overwhelming technology and number of this Bush, Blair, Howard group to quickly democratize almost every non-democratic nation. I think they would have to hold on some like North Korea because China would enter and it would be BBH and them versus China, North Korea and them. There are a few problems with this scheme: 1) many lives are lost in the violent overthrow of a monarchy or communist government, a policing approach in already democratic nations would result in less murder 2) is that it still costs more money than they have, 3) with religions...especially Islam, traditions, racism, and nationalism if democracy could exist, many argue it already would...people might argue that democracy, like in Russia for example, has to be won by the people...it can't be implanted by a foreign entity...and so the rate of collapse of implanted democracy might be so often that it might not actually result in a stable long term democracy. I think it might be possible that the people would embrace democracy, even a democracy implanted through violent overthrow and that many nations might benefit from such a change, even if it didn't last. 4) Any kind of violent invasion increases the risk for planetary choas, planetary war between major nations. For me, in my opinion, I go for the low budget (or perhaps actual budget) method...where we simply use info, educate the public with the images of violence, and do policing in the nations where we can...observing and exposing violence and the violent in other nations we cannot physically penetrate (except with info and cameras) as best as possible. We won't be helping those who are being killed and assaulted in nations under brutal monarchys, etc. [many people are being murdered in the USA with no person captured or even identified...I mean we can do much much better by barely even trying, for example with cameras the public can see on streets, and these are nations where there is no opposing population trying to protect killers], but we can get our own nations violence free and spread our info, systems and experiences to those nations, in addition to exposing the violence to the people in those nations who may not get to see otherwise (this is a huge idea that is being completely ignored and does cause friction...but basically sending actual images to the people of some nation that shows violence they are not be shown by state television etc...to try and turn public opinion...and correctly so...they should be informed of truthful events, and here, most importantly nobody is murdered as they would be in an external overthrow). I look forward to seeing more and more oppressive (or simply undemocratic) regimes falling by self determination...as the soviet union went democratic, no doubt china will go democratic...and the arab nations will go democratic, african nations...eventually, everybody will be democracy, and I hope the Americas and Europe are in the front showing everybody in the new democracies where to go and what to do next, which clearly for me is full democracy, and planetary democracy [perhaps in a form of independent nation cooperation... in other words no actual planetary government...but simply nations cooperating on popular goals through public voting].
02-02-2006
A quick note about the person in the CHP that shot the person in the video. Ofcourse, this is an obvious first degree assault, the person in the CHP should be tried for assault and found responsible. I can't believe there is any question. Certainly my vote is for the person that shot to be sentenced to jail for first degree assault. Perhaps there is a tiny amount of thought that I would put into there being a high speed chase...but I mean obviously, there is something wrong with this person (at least at that time...I mean that was a ridiculously bad decision) to just shoot a guy in the back who is meters away and clearly is cooperating...I mean what was going thru his mind? Fortunately the person is going to live...the person that shot is lucky in that regard...he might have been facing life in jail, at least on a planet of logic, ofcourse not this one.
I need to make a "snappy come-backs" page. Remember mad-magazine, snappy come-backs. I came up with two more:
When people are rude to you when eating, for example in a fast food restaurant you can say or in fact you only have to think and they will hear:
SCB 1: "where is the uh-salt?" "I don't see any, uh, salt here!".
I am not a fan of conservatives, not a fan of the Bush family, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon...I am not a fan of any homicidal killers. It's not that I am huge fans of the Kennedy's, Clintons, or Gores, I just think allowing, participating in, covering up first degree murder is criminal, unethical, wrong, and suicidal for society...it's simply very dangerous in my mind. It reminds me of what Ted Charach said "k-off"..and his reference to "Kaos", the pretend organization of evil in "Get Smart". I have described before how this group is a very very large criminal group, and violent criminal organization...the Bush family, Nixon, etc. they killed JFK and Sturgis was never jailed for it...they protected Sturgis and everybody else involved. They went on to kill MLK, and RFK...for RFK, had the Committee to investigate the assassinations been allowed to investigate the RFK they would have opened a huge can of worms...simply by calling in Thane Cesar to testify. It was a major major republican victory to have the RFK assassination dropped from the assignment. So, I was thinking...if there was a name for this criminal group...what must be a major part of the US government, the secret eye network...and K-off was what I thought because for them murder is ok. If only the public could see and was told what really is happening, I doubt they would support homicide...stopping violence is such a basic principle of our society, at least historically.
02-01-2006
science_me+exp: A friend hinted to me another theory about why light is red shifted from distant galaxies, and here it is: the idea is similar to sound...when somebody is far away less of the sound reaches you as compared to when they are closer to you. The same principle applies to light from a galaxy or a star. I think most people can agree that the farther away from a star a person is the less light will reach them. The theory is that the farther a galaxy is from us, the less photons reach us...the loss of some photons in our direction lowers the frequency of photons received, although only slightly perhaps...when we observe a star we are seeing billions of photons at any given time in the x and y dimensions...because photons are very small...it is perhaps impossible to see a single stream of photons...to my knowledge. Even with lasers, we are seeing a very thick beam billions of photons in width and height. The less photons we see definitely lowers the total intensity of the light received from galaxies...no question about that, but does it also lower the frequency of the photon beams we can see. I want to model this in 3d. In theory photons with an original vector, for example (1,0,0) should always have that vector...they should always be moving in that direction, but what if tiny gravitational changes throw some of them off, for example a photon might be changed to (.99999,0.00001,0). Then that photon will fall out of the original beam and be headed a different direction...perhaps part of some other beam going in the direction (.99999,0.00001,0). The loss of a few photons will not affect the size of the beams we receive, which as I said are billions of photons wide and tall (and that may only amount to a nanometer...or micrometer detector). But as the number of missing photons adds up, if there are enough lost photons, the frequency of the original light going in the (1,0,0) direction could be measurably less. It is a simple model to model a spherical point source emitting points in every direction, and then moving the viewer to from a few points away to many more points away. For example, start the viewer at (0,0,-1) and move to (0,0,-100000), initially, many photon will collide with the viewer screen/detector, but as the viewer moves father back, less and less photons collide with the screen. But even at (0,0,-infinity), if the photons never changed direction, the viewer would still be receiving that 1 beam of photons with the vector (0,0,-1) that emitted from (0,0,10) (presuming a sphere of radius 10). But if anything at all changes the direction of those photons...and anything could do that...a proton, perhaps even other photons...then not all photons would be received...I guess I would add in a "random" potential change in direction (by +/-.00001 for all 3 dimensions for example)...if applied to 1 in 3...the beam would be both less intense and lower in frequency which for a single photon beam is the same thing...intensity and frequency are related...or perhaps for a single beam, intensity is 1, or has no meaning. For a larger beam, intensity is the number of beams. In fact, maybe intensity should be measured in beam count (in width and height of beam only), a green beam being exactly as intense as a red beam as long as the width and height are identical (even if the green beam has more photons).
combustion equation
using the equation
2H2+O2=2H2O+(light and heat)
(there are other reactions that take place, according to combustion books...H+O<=>OH, for example).
The key point is a precise measure of the before weight of the Hydrogen and oxygen gas and the after weight. And the after weight should be after hours or more...the longer the experiment the more lost mass can be noticed. Lavoisier was the first to do the Hydrogen combustion experiment and it is wild...water formed and built up on top of the mercury (they couldn't make a vacuum at that time...now we don't need mercury, we can create a vacuum). An interesting point is what happens to the photons in the visible spectrum if the combustion container was opaque...no doubt they would be absorbed by the atoms...I kind of questions the atoms only absorb certain frequencies, but I am open minded about everything. I am even willing to believe that the mass of fire is lost only from electrons...that the electrons are losing all that mass we feel as heat and light...I mean it's interesting...that would mean that a flame would be more of an electron phenomenon...or perhaps an electrical phenomenon...the burning of a flame would only be the result of electrons losing mass. I have doubts, but I am not ruling it out by any means, and in fact in pursuing that theory I think there are interesting conclusions. But how many people tell you that in burning objects, the light and heat we see and feel is coming from electrons losing mass. How many people tell you that? no people but one person, me, Ted Huntington, tell you that, that's how many. So, anyway. I presume that the mass lost from the electrons is because they are reconfigured from H2 and O2 molecules to H2O molecules which perhaps require electrons with less mass. It is interesting that theoretically, electrons maintain their charge even after losing mass, I think it is possible....but I think ultimately being accelerated near the speed of light...and this will be debated for years, they potentially either lose charge (and perhaps mass too), or an electric field can only be made to accelerate an electron to a certain speed, and the closer the electron gets to that speed, the less the field can accelerate it. ok so that's a different issue, but basically this all boils down to:
1) beginning weight, after weight, and let's run the experiment for a long time, hours, days, etc.
2) now, clearly we should see some kind of missing mass...after hours...it should be measurable. ok now that missing mass, which I swear may only be in micrograms...we ought to go for milligrams or even grams. Something that everybody can agree...there is no mechanical error.
3) Now, for that missing mass, is that enough mass to cover the weight of the electrons in Hydrogen and Oxygen (for Hydrogen 1 electron and Oxygen 8 electrons)...an electron, she's very light and small. Mass of electron is 9e-28g. Basically does the lost mass=the mass of the electrons for the number of atoms reacted upon. Even then, we are talking about the entire electron being destroyed which clearly does not happen because the products would be positive ions if that were true which I doubt they are, but still it can serve as a good starting point. the key is if the lost mass is much greater than the mass of all the electrons...it would imply that protons and or neutrons are being separated too. Here, I am really left with this question of...aren't protons and neutrons made of photons too? I definitely feel strongly that protons and neutrons are made of photons, but if combustion (and fission which I still think can be equated with combustion, with the only difference being atoms are split into two or more smaller atoms...I want to make clear that I still favor the idea that some atoms are being completely separated and the below denuded Hydrogen combustion experiment would definitely prove (or tend to disprove) the point handily for all time) was only electrons...what evidence would exist that protons and neutrons are made of photons? There really would be very little if any. For all we know, there could be two phenomena, like the old (and still current) school of thought that atoms are different from photons. This chemistry book actually implied that photons are made at the time, perhaps just as whimsy, I can't imagine a photon being thrown together in an atom from energy (supposedly) and then taking off at it's usual constant velocity. The idea that electrons and photons correspond but not photons and protons. The much more simple, more probable picture is that there is only one kind of matter and that is the photon, all other groups of matter are simply combinations of photons.
Exp: Here is a great experiment that I think must have been done by now. I know that protons can be stripped of electrons...this really would be the proof in the pudding...does that "denuded" hydrogen combust in oxygen? does it? holy cow. I don't know, but perhaps you do. If it does...throw out that electron losing mass theory. This one would prove it for all time, and we would not need to bother with the Hydrogen combustion long terem experiment, but I see no reason why we should not do that one just for the experimental records. Yes, this time I am thinking just Hydrogen in Oxygen combustion, the others are good too, again for experimental experience and data, but H2 + O2 is as simple as it can be...it makes everything easier. Searching in google.com for "denuded Hydrogen combustion" gave no results. The answers are relatively clear on this experiment.
A) Denuded Hydrogen does combust: butane lighter is probably nukes, and probably some atoms are completely separated for all gas combustion and even nuclear fission (and potentially fusion of various atoms smushed together if that is possible). The light and heat coming from a flame comes from the protons, neutrons and electrons of Oxygen and fuel atoms.
OR
B) Denuded Hydrogen does not combust: This hints that most combustion is electrons losing mass. The light and heat of flames comes only from the electrons losing mass. In any event protons cannot be separated by a mere spark.
In addition there may be other findings like, there is combustion, but only while the spark is present...there is no continuous flame. For myself, I would feel better if A were the result...it would say to me that all matter is photon, that perhaps much if not all of the matter that is separated into light and heat in a typical combustion originates in the nucleus of the oxygen and fuel atoms...and only a little comes from the electrons.
2 grams of H2 and 16 grams of O2 should be avogadros number of H and O:
6.02e23 and should result in
Is all that mass being lost only from the electrons?
It is amazing that 6.67e23 protons (and electrons) exist in 1 gram of Hydrogen.
a proton is supposedly 10e-15m in size, a femtometer (one order smaller than picometer).
I was thinking that probably when the news of Alito's confirmation came thru, the women in the cabinet were probably asked to leave the room for a private white man only ceremony.
There are actually forced treatment laws which to me are shocking. Elliot Spitzer helped enact one in New York. People can be injected with drugs without consent. I wish there were some doctors who could rule Spitzer with a mental disease and force him to be injected with drugs. Maybe he has never assaulted anybody, but still, enacting laws that allow forced injection, to me, says mental disease...doesn't he care at all for a human's right to body? The disease is stopping him from seeing that. One would think after a few good injections of stelazine or haldol he would think twice before enacting laws that violate human rights, what say ye? This "violate human rights" disease is prevalent among the wealthy....but I've diagnosed it in poor people too. Same for those bastards who hide in the shadows, E. Fuller Torrey and Ted Stanley. Most people would presume that a couple hundred good weekly doses of ridlin in their arses ought to clear up their minds. The pernt is that, we have laws against violence, lets go on ahead and enforce them...look at a bastard like Thane Cesar...and then the people that controlled him behind his head with lasers or what have you...now, we can't bring back Bobby Kennedy, but we sure as hell can arrest Thane Cesar...it's the best we can do...I don't think drugging a million rednecks is going to help matters and make people safer, or if it does...it's too much of a violation of innocent people's bodies.
I think it's awesome to see the european press printing the cartoons many religious people find offensive, interesting that the US papers do not...I mean I can't find images of any of the allegedly heretical cartoons here in the States.
With the surgically implanted drug dogs, does this not remind people of the prohibition of alcohol days...for years the idiocy continued...people disguising old wooden legs to hold a pint a liquor...I mean the drug prohibition has gone way too far...it is way past time to grow up and accept the reality of drug addiction, and the impossibility of making drugs and drug use extinct. For violence, I say let's keep trying to eradicate it, but for drugs...locking people in jail simply for being unhealthy is too brutal.
We finally learn the name of the postal woman, Jennifer Sanmarco, but still no image of her. It was really interesting, only a few days before this, thoughts were in my head about working with the US post office...it must be an interesting job...it must involve sorting many letters...I can't imagine delivering to so many houses in one day, etc...thinking...would I want to do that?...and what would my life be like had I chosen that job?...really a full 30 or more seconds of thought about what working with the US post office must be like, it was prompted by seeing the postal person who delivers letters where I live, but still...it is rare for me to think about that...and I think it hints that people were watching this woman...they knew for a long time that she might erupt in violence...her unusual behavior must have attracted the attention of many people. Was is complaceny? ineptitude? callous political scheming? What was the story on this multiple homicide? I am sure the "beamages" tell the story fully, and no doubt it is a familiar story. ok latimes.com has images of Sanmarcos. She was racists, it's interesting that there were racist remarks (which are rare in my experience) around Friday...I think ideas rise up and then sink down for millions of idiot people on earth...it's like trends...but most are shockingly stupid. In any event, one question that many people must be asking is what is to be done with those who beamed on Sanmarcos' head? How responsible are they for her homicides? Should they now be excluded from seeing and hearing thought, or just from having the authority to send images and sounds to people's brains? In addition, that Sanmarco shot and killed her neighbor should have been more than enough to signal computer warning messages...perhaps no humans usually watch those two humans, but the gun shot may have activated software monitoring microphones. Some people were joking that the police had found a suspect.
On the topic of teh idiotic trends, one of them in the last weeks are the labels of "yuppie", "preppie", etc. I finally have weighed in my own opinions (you all must decide for yourselfs, but certainly are free to chose the same decision I have) on labels like those...and basically I think they are idiotic...I know for sure that "geek" is simply anti-science, that is simple and clear. But "yuppie", "preppy", "dink" are of a slightly different nature. I think they have more to do with an anti-wealth (for yuppy), anti-rich person. For "preppy", it has shades of anti-science, anti-clean cut, perhaps a little anti-conformity. For "dink", this one is relatively easy, it's people who are pro-parental...immensely proud of their achivement of reproduction...and contemptuous of those who have not reproduced. To me, only idiots use these kinds of labels...all of them, I think are used to try and reduce a person..they are basically put-downs. I like "idiot" and "stupid"...because I am anti-dumbness...but many times...I would probably be more accurate by labelling people "elitist", "rude", or "mean". People might counter with "everybody has to be happy" people, etc...we will never escape labels, but yuppie, geek I never use, and hippie I rarely use...only in a positive way...and then simply for any person that has long hair, and/or routinely wears tie-dyed shirts...again I rarely call people hippie, it is demeaning in a way...because everybody is unique, and I don't want to reduce people to some catch-phrase stereotype. This is an idiotic topic, but nonetheless, it is the current passing trend...who knows why...I think people are absolute underachievers to be dealing in such trivial matters, as precious time spins by us without one walking robot, one public camera, one homicide solved, one thought image public, one moon city...no history of science (and this would be totally patchy at best with all the secret crap being initially excluded), no history of evolution...just a total terrible society, not everybody but most of them...not the tiniest glimmer of a vision for the future, just the most trivial, petty, concerns and activities.
01-30-2006
Alito confirmed
What is clear to me, first obviously this is terrible...Alito will help to send this nation back to the stone age permanently, and the chances of the people ever winning the right to overrule is in the far distant future, but in my mind, I am thinking...we have lost a female representative on the US supreme court, how can that be seen as progress? It seems clear the majority of the public doesn't really care for progress or doesn't view equal representation for women as progress. The number of women in the supreme court ought to represent the ratio of women in the USA which is basically 50%. There should be at least 4 females on the supreme court, so this is definitely a step back, and then, Alito is no where near being a progressive. Alito is from the 1600s with his christian puritan views. I think this Alito appointment should be remembered (but why oh why will people forget), as showing clearly how the conservatives feel about women, women in the workplace, women's rights...clearly the democrats and the liberals are going to do much much more for women equality than this group of old stodgy white male only group of religious conservatives.
A female shot and killed 6 people and herself in Santa Barbara. I don't know where to start on this but one place is: where is all the info? Not even the name of this woman has been released or figured out by the secretive USA media, how about the street cameras, the postal plant cameras...all that should be immediately available and should have been constantly available to the public before this incident. The next thing, is that this is clearly a failure for the stop violence group in the camera network. The first thing on violent events like this most people want to see is all the beamings...what was on her mind? what was beamed onto the killer's thoughts? It is extremely rare for a female to do violence, so that is one aspect of this...the chances of a female getting away with violence is greater than a male because it is so rare, but in addition, she did this a 9pm which is not in the main range of people's working (awake) time, many people go to sleep at 9pm, so people have less of a chance of getting away with violence from 8a-5p. Next people must turn to the smart computer programs...how well did they do? What did they catch on this one? How high did the warning of a human with a loaded gun outside of their house get? Can the software identify a person leaving their house with a gun? Can it identify thoughts of violence? There is also the element of people who might be paid, only to identify people experiencing violent thoughts and intense anger. Probably many of those people are assigned to nonviolent crime duties like drugs, molestation, prostitution, theft. To me, if I could control the people on earth, I would focus on violence and violent crime...stopping the violent people as the number one priority, the rest should no be ignored...it's good to know who is holding people against their will, who is stealing property and ofcourse, that property has to be returned, etc...but ultimately people should care most about homicide and assault. But shockingly, they don't! Perhaps Sneddon and many other government employees were still researching Michael Jackson. Look at the money that was spent, and the number of people that were paid by us to prosecute Jackson...there were something like 40 people whose salaries we pay for that ran-saked Neverland, the days and days of court proceedings. Then with Jackson, there was never even a bruise of scratch of damage....what ever it was, it certainly didn't warrant jail-time, nobody held against their will, no pain or violence done to anybody. Here there are 7 people dead, 6 people murdered...I mean those people weren't molested...they won't be coming back...their lives are gone, they probably felt pain...I mean a terrible injustice was done to them...and what person would want that done to them? But no matter what, molestation will still be the highest funded and focused on...not violent crime, because people are more interested in stopping sexuality than violence for whatever reason. Maybe had the people in Santa Barbara spent more time, money, and attention on the potentially violent people around them, this could have been prevented, and 6 people would still be alive. I think we ought to end the drug war and prostitution arrests and spend our money on trying to stop violence and property theft. This killing will do nothing to shake people's complacency...if it does anything at all it will move things backwards...they will talk about every thing but stopping violent crime and punishing people who have done violence before. That is another question, did this female do violence before? Did she have a history of violence? If yes, then the priority of camera attention to her should have been high, but I wonder if it was. Violent people should be the most watched on earth by people (and computers) that want to stop violence...because they are the most likely to be heading for jail on a violent crime some time soon. When a person with past violence is angry it should be a higher proirity than a person without a violent history being angry obviously. I can only guess what happened here with this woman. I am going to guess that she was excluded from hearing thought, but that many of her co-workers were included, and they used the information they gained from hearing thoughts and seeing inside her house to tease and ridicule her in a very personal way...the evil people in the camera thought networks enjoy most pulling out people's most darkest secret secrets and bad memories...it gives those in the camera net a feeling of ultimate power. It gives them the ultimate put-down...when they are reaching to emotionally hurt a person...they tend to reach right for the most sensitive...most shocking...most unusual info they can get...and they can get all the info there is from a person's life and thoughts. This is probably one of the main chaos makers on earth...that hearing thought is still secret...it's probably the main reason, or certainly a heavy contributor to suicide and violence. If only people knew that images and sounds are sent to their heads by evil violent abusive people, perhaps they could defende themselves more effectively. So I am guessing, that that is what happened, but maybe I am wrong. Was this a case of included teasing and beaming on an excluded, and the excluded fighting back with violence or simply brain-beamed to do violence and took the suggestion?
Where were her friends? Where were her family? Didn't anybody see her anger and intent to do violence with a gun? In particular the computer software and people should rank higher people who have traumatic change in their life, in particular being deemployed for example. This entire thing says to me...that the people in power, as usual, are incompetent in stopping violence. Here this woman ended the violence by killing herself...she wasn't any where near being stopped by somebody else. As usual, the people in the camera network were nowhere to be found even minutes into the violence, they were caught either completely unaware, or fully aware but apathetic...perhaps feeling this kind of a homicide might play well for the conservatives. I have to entertain that possibility, because...with all the technology...I mean these people get constant updates on our thoughts no less...and constantly comment on what we do in our houses...beam clicks into our ears and other images and songs on our minds...did they honestly not know about this woman's anger...about her gun ownership? about the violent imagery in her mind? But it says, again, to me, that whatever stop violence system we have now, is far far from being adequate...is no where near being effective. I think ultimately, what should have happened is that computer programs should have recognized her violent images and send a low level warning around 8:15pm, eventually a human should have tuned in to see the images in question that raised the alert. The really important warning should have been issued when the female left her house with her gun...the software recognizing that the human was holding a hand gun,...basically a "human leaving house in car with handgun"...that is the basic jist of the alert message that some employee would receive (and then you have to understand there are hundreds of these messages all the time...most amount to nothing...some are errors in the software...the program thought it was a gun...it was something else. But at the same time, in each city, handling the error messages is not as bad because it is divided by many people...or at least things should be some day this way. So a human only has to monitor a few blocks, or a small suburb of many a few hundred or thousand. So emergency "potential violence" warnings are rare.). So the software should have issued an emergency message to the human(s) responsible for watching the neighborhood this woman lived in. And that warning may have been something like "human leaving house with loaded gun and thoughts of violence", in addition to "human with 5 1st degree assaults", and possibly other important relevant info. Then the human could get alive image...confirm that the female left her house with a loaded gun, and did have thoughts of violence...clearly images of shooting people. At that point, the human would track the person's current location and should have issued an order to confront her (perhaps that would involve trying to get her to pull over). Perhaps the order would have been "disarm human of hand gun and release", or "disarm human of handgun and hold in cell for 24 hours"...or something similar...and in fact having a gun in your car, not under lock and key for most people is in fact illegal in California to my knowledge, and is a valid reason to be stopped, without having to reveal that people see their thoughts and track their movement. To me, you tell me...do you feel safe with this kind of stop violence enforcement? I know I don't. If somebody came after me with a loaded gun, I know I would have to defend myself...that there would be no way or certainly the chances are against anybody being there to stop them....even for all our tax money. The most I could do would be to hold up some object to try and deflect the bullets and dial 9-11 and wait on my ass for 20 minutes.
Corretta Scott King died, and it just reminds me how nice it would have been to hear what Martin Luther King would have been saying in all these years since his death if he were not murdered. He, no doubt would have been a voice for peace and not afraid to criticize openly people like the Bush family. But his voice was silenced and many others sunk into fear.
It's an interesting phenomenon the way people, as a basic guideline, feel the need to trample on love. They can't have public nudity, or public sex...even if nobody is being hurt...people in police gear would quickly come to tear down the nudity, arrest the nude people, etc...as has always happened for years, even on their own property. What is that phenomenon? There is really just a vicious anti-love feeling among many people. Another example is when a young male is in a relationship with an older female...the anti-love people come out of the woodwork to label how wrong it is, to trample any love the two might have for each other. Why have people turned against sex and love to such a large degree? I can only theorize that it comes from religion...for some reason, people in the past, viewed physical pleasure as being evil, as being immoral. Perhaps early humans found that the constant pregnancy was a bad thing because they had to watch babies starve or something...because it made them work harder to find food...or made competition for food more violent. I dont' know. There are some south american tribes that freely have sex between different people...there is no sexual jealously, they view sexual wants as natural, not as immoral or evil. It's really a phenomenon that is found in all modern societies. I thin kwe can trace the roots to the major religions, but even, for example, in the asian nations and india, this antisexuality/antilove is prevelent. Love should only be expressed secretly, in private...not only in public, only between two people, only between two people of opposite gender, only after age 18, only before age 50, penis to vagina sex only, and then only for the purpose of procreation, only between people of similar age range, ... I mean the list of these love requirements is ridiculously uptight and limited. But the phenomenon that to me, is one I can identify with in the vast majority, is the pleasure they take in stomping on sexuality, and the vigor with which they do so...nothing is a shocking as sexuality, not violence, not theft, not lying...even 100 year lies, even watching people's thoughts, even watching people in their houses...none of that compares...not murder, not assault, not delusion...none of those things come close to the shock people experience and feel over the simple million year old ritual of sexuality. It's the order of priority that is shocking to me...I mean violent people ...I mean homicidal killers...walk around in freedom...but those who posed nude are the big criminals. It's similar to the view on drugs...some guy drinks a beer (ooops snorts cocaine) and is jailed for 10 years, some other guy beats a person to death and gets 3. It's fucked up. Stupid stupid people. damn stupid. and antisexual. and ultimately antipleasure. They love to stomp on love in every and any form, it's one thing that I have observed and remains constant through out the years. Anywhere there is a tiny feeling of pleasure, or positivity, the evil people in power will quickly be there to shut it down.
01-30-2006
I did a search for "atheism" on video.google.com and was glad to find my video which I had submitted earlier. I also noticed a free video with Kirk Cameron, and I thought...what can Kirk Cameron have to do with atheism? It turns out that it is an infomercial for some Christian group and the topic is atheism. Cameron is a guest and a preacher with an English accent chats about atheism and converting atheists (clearly to Christianity and the cult that has formed around the 2000 year old dead Jesus). In my mind, it's kind of like Cameron is like in the Kristna's promoting that idiocy that the Jesus cult, the Moonies, etc. do. There is one or even a few interesting points that are raised and the one that I think that most people can relate to is the idea that many atheists are probably actually agnostics because they have some doubt about the existence of a god or gods...basically they reject absolute 100% certainty in any theory. I can see some truth to the idea that humans cannot prove that there is no god, so in some way I am agnostic. But that is about all I can in favor of this 30 minute video. They then go on to talk all about the 10 commandments, Jesus...all things from the Judeo-Christian religion, which I view as a recent phenomenon. Interestingly they claim that Einstein was not atheist, which is true, and that Einstein was angry when atheists tried to use him as a model or something, which I did not know about. For me for example, the 10 commandments, the bible...those are all very primitive ideas with a very human bias. For example where is the thou shalt not assault? clearly assault is evil...and honestly, any nonviolent behavior is far from evil. In addition what is good and bad is only a human prejudice...those humans that wrote the ten commandments (clearly the 10 commandments were written by humans), presumed to be speaking for a god, and that is the kind of arrogance I am talking about with the modern religions and religious people. That somehow, they know what a god wants. I am willing to say that I cannot know for sure that there is or is not a god, but I can say that, like a teapot orbitting Mars, the chances are very much against it, seeing the history of language, the evolution of humans (I can't remember but it seems like they are even saying that evolution is bunk...they quote Darwin as saying that it is hard to believe....and that is shocking...it shows clearly that Cameron like many people in acting, while probably being superlatively wealthy and popular, never got a college education, and probably cared very little for their high school education). But in addition, it's clear that humans made up the idea of gods, and if there is a god, or creator of the universe...as they put it...a watch implies a watch maker...a creator of the universe....I think the chances of a creator or creators looking like humans is absolutely ridiculous which implies that humans should not describe a god as a she or he. I put the unendingly boring, time wasting question of "is there a god" to this conclusion: "probably no, but maybe yes, and in any event, that question will probably and can probably never be answered, and anybody that claims to know what a god wants is most definitely wrong". Because, then they go on to explain how you should live your life...how you should submit to the christian idea of a god....you know...just because a person accepts that maybe there is a god, all the sudden all the ancient theories in 2000 years old texts must be accepted as 100% true...I mean it's idiocy. That is why I can relate to atheists and agnostics...I can understand the mathematical reality of not being 100% certain in any theory. I think my video goes a lot farther towards a good society than the Cameron video...I expose that people hear thought, I speak out against racism, for science, against violence, against jailing those who use drugs...they really, like most religious never go any where near those topics...only 24/7 christianity...nothing about human rights or any other beliefs. It's kind of aggressive when Cameron talks about "bugs hitting the wind shield"....I know these people like to label me a "bugger" (the English expression for a person that has anal sex with a minor...I never penetrated, only poked the buttock and in addition I was a minor too)...which I am not, but lying is not a big deal for those in the camera net, and assault sexual or otherwise is ofcourse wrong and one of the highest evils, far more evil than nonviolent activity like drug use, prostitution, lying, coveting thine neighbor's wife, taking any lords name in vein, etc. Still, I think we can forgive those with minor assaults if they clearly show that they are done with first degree violence...I mean our justice system is made like that...people are given a second opportunity after being jailed for an assault (should that even happen in this violence tolerant society). As a final point, we don't see the behind the scenes operation on this Cameron project. No doubt Cameron got paid a mountain of money...I mean thousands...maybe $50,000?..perhaps more like $10,000...still that is good cash...I know I would enjoy $10,000. Then, they give a 1800 number...they have books, and products they are selling. For much if not all of my own material I feel like the message is most important...we are in an emergency situation...it goes beyond money schemes...we need to teach the public about science, we need to reach them with the cruelty of the drug arrests, etc. with the mistakes of religion and with history. I wish some people did help me out with money, because this is a movement of one human...I mean clearly, much of this Cameron video centers around what I am saying...they say "you can't touch, see, smell, or taste...etc."... why don't some people from the non religious side help me out? I don't know, but it's not going to stop me...again, the message I have is very important and I am determined to tell it even without any help at all, and against widespread and even violent opposition.
I continue to call myself atheist, and antireligious (because I am against religion), but atheist because I think life without any kind of god belief is better. Perhaps agnostic is a better description for me because I won't rule out with absolute certainty that a creator of universe does exist, I simply doubt it, but I want to make clear that I view religion and undoubting belief in any kind of gods as not good. I think for the purpose of language a person that doubts the existence of any gods can call themselves an "atheist" because they hold a majority view of doubt against there being any gods...in the same way people say "I will never visit Alpha Centauri"...even if they accept that there is a small chance they may, people usually don't include every little exception and possibility...for example, "I don't drink alcohol" even though a person may very rarely...they are saying "I don't (usually) drink alcohol"....I mean a small percentage of alcohol may enter our system without our knowing, etc. So technically, perhaps many atheists are agnostics because they don't rule out with absolute certainly that no god exists, similar to there being no teapot orbiting Mars...for simplicity it's just easier to say they are "a-mars_tea_potists" instead of perhaps the more accurate "agnosto-mars_tea_potists". I guess I should describe myself as agnostic, but I probably relate more to atheists, simply because agnostic has come to mean those who don't practice religion, while atheist has come to mean those who are antireligion..so I really don't know...I think technically I am agnostic since I feel strongly that there are no gods, but don't completely rule out the possibility as I don't rule out the possibility of anything, and I think it is kind of dogmatic to rule out the possibility of anything...but for the sake of simplicity I can see calling myself an atheist because for all intensive purposes I don't believe that any gods exist...I guess both might apply, but probably agnostic is the more accurate...and the strongest form of agnostic...in other words the strongest amount of doubt in the existence of any gods, but beyond that I feel safe in describing myself as anti-religious and anti-religion, although I think that religious people should not be punished with being locked in psychiatric hospitals, jails, hurt, or fined.
I see nothing wrong with a person calling themselves an "atheist" that allows for a certain amount of doubt about the existence of gods, ghosts, heavens, hells, etc. because basically the person is saying..."I don't believe any gods exist" and allow for the remote possibility...it's like how people say they "like a book"...maybe there are parts they don't like but we don't say "I like 95% of the book", we simply generalize. And in fact this generalization forms a large part of language, we generalize almost everything. Agnostic or atheist, it doesn't matter, the key is that religion is fraud and not any good. The is there or is there not gods questions are total time wasters and some people spend their life trying to answer that question, where to me the answer clearly is as I stated above...probably not, but if there was, we probably never will know, and anybody that claims to know is probably wrong. The idea of gods, and ghosts...they are similar...it's idiocy...it's unproductive...even if we knew that there was a god...we could not possibly know what the god wanted...and it seems to me, the path of the future is clear...maximize pleasure, minimize pain, grow to other stars, build a globular cluster, build an elliptical galaxy, travel the universe for more adventure.
Bush jr giving AIDS money to Churches
That is gross. I can't believe that Bush jr is funneling money to Christian Churches from AIDS money that should be used to do scientific research to find a cure and for treatment, that is brutal. I hope some groups for separation of church and state sue them to stop it...but then...look who is waiting in the supreme court...a bunch of christian zelots.
Just to add more comments about Chavez, Morales, Bachelet and this exciting new liberal direction for much of South America. Ofcouse, all summed up I am happy about it, and view it as a good, positive change. There are only a few worrisome things. Here in the US, the press is basically owned by the wealthy republicans that killed many liberals, not only covering up there murders but protecting their murderers, so much of the info I get is very biased, but Chavez's support of Castro who as I said is a military dictator who has never held an election or relinquished control and Chavez's military connection, but to Chavez's credit he held a referendum, a democratic election, and won by popular support. I recently saw that Chavez said something like "down with the USA" which may be innaccurate, and "down with the imperialists". Morales is quoted as saying he is a nightmare for the USA. And so, my criticism (every human must have criticisms and opinions), is that there is a difference between what Bush jr and his followers want and the rest of the people in the USA. I think better statements would encourage "working together with all the nations and different peoples as best as possible", "working peacefully together", "living and working together"...less nationalistic, less one-race only. "Imperialism", does imply colonialism which has been a disaster and complete failure, but "imperialism" is associated to communism so they should choose a better word like "down with Bush jr and his followers, he is a war monger, a killer of innocent people, etc..." and "down with leaders that invade other nations", "down with war and invasion"...not "down with the USA"...that message is not any good...obviously the people of the USA and South America should grow together, work together, make the Americas strong, pleasant, nonviolent, safe from violence, free in thought, expression and talk. Ultimately, both americas should be fully democratic. Then there was a quote from Chavez that he is going to jail peope for espionage...and I just think, and I am no doubt alone in this, that information crimes are trivial...those people can be de-employed, I think we need to focus on free info, but again, I am in the minority in that view. Things like that, scare loud mouth liberals like me...what happens, I visit Venezuela, start talking about democracy and then spend 20 years in a jail for espionage...(no doubt it's similar to the way many non-citizens in the USA are treated too). I want to see a basic principle of limited prison sentences for nonviolent crimes, a focus on jail for violent crimes among the Americas. There should be basic guarantees for all people in the Americas...the laws should be clear and democratic. I would love to visit many of the nations in South America, and Mexico too, but I am worried, do you know that Columbia has one of the highest homicide rate of any nation on earth? I mean...that is terrible. My view is that we need to work together with the South American nations to bring that number down...and the first thing that comes to mind is to stop the brutal sentences and arrests for those in the illegal drug market which must fuel much of the violence. In any event, the key is going to be, even in the USA that has an overly high homicide rate for nations on earth is first to identify the violent, using street cameras available for the public to see, to allow the public to vote to convict those people, but even with representative government attorneys...simply focusing on the violent crime might be an effective approach to lowering those numbers of homicides....because when you know a person killed some person like Bonnie Bakely or Jam Master Jay, and then there is no arrest...what on earth is going to stop that person from killing again, and adding even more to the number of homicides? Then to realize that simple public street cameras would be solving much of these homicides and assaults, which are definitely illegal, and the violent laws hold a large majority of support. I hope to see the USA, and the South American nations become the nations with the lowest homicide rate within the next 50 years. So, I wish I knew what kind of direction Chavez, Morales and Bachelet want to go in...I am hopeful and things look good. I realize a liberal leader cannot clean things up in one of two years...this mess the conservative violent criminals have left us (at least in the USA and no doubt that vicious, violent, secretive effect was felt terribly in the poorer South American nations, perhaps even more so) is going to take years to undo, expose, and correct.
01-29-2006
Castro not left wing to me, Castro is a dictator.
Yes, to me, Castro is a dictator, who rose through violence, and has served as a monarch, is not elected by the people, the people do not rule Cuba, obviously, Castro does.
One thing I want to make clear to those who may not know my views, and even to those who do:
"Che-jo" is not a reference of support for "Che" Guavera, nor for those who killed Che. Che-jo, was simply a nickname in college that was bounced around among those of us who smoked weed...the weed we often called "chafe", and those who smoked the chafe were "chejos", but chejo is spanish slang for person anyway. Because, not 3 days after I released the Photon Yes, Religion No chapter "Information, etc." the NY Times channel was running a documentary on Che Guavera, who honestly I had never heard of before. It's an effort of conservatives to try and link me to communism, to Castro, to the worst parts of things labeled left-wing. To me, left-wing is an ideal where the main priorities are:
1) Stop violence (you can see this is not very popular among republicans or democrats, castro, stalin, mao, etc... the true left in this view has really not emerged yet. Here the so-called right-wing, which I think has grown into some kind of monsterous criminal organization in the USA, for the killing of JFK, RFK, and subsequent cover-ups and protection of those two killers, Sturgis and Cesar. One can only guess how many other murders the current "right-wing" leaders have committed. No where right or left do we see people addressing the problem of violence. There is one tiny exception in Bolivia presiednt Morales who said "we will win with votes not bullets"...aside from that there have been no leaders that have addressed the problem of violence. )
2) full and total democracy, full and total rule by the people through voting on every aspect of government, from laws and budgets to courts and sentences. (Here again, Castro, who people call left-wing will have nothing to do with democratic voting, and rule by the people...he is hardly left-wing...he is simply a monarch, a military dictator, not a facilitator of the popular opinion.). It is worrisome that Hugo Chavez is such a supporter of Castro. I would prefer if Chavez criticized Castro for not allowing voting for new leaders. To me, the view is that Chavez is looking for dictatorship not rule by people...if he is supportive of the Castro model. I wish it was clear that Chavez was a progressive in terms of democracy, but only time will tell. So, I don't want to be lumped together with Castro, Chavez, etc...I agree that Bush jr is a violent criminal, that the majority of republicans in the USA are terrible...but I am for total democracy...there are major, major differences between the philosophy I support and the philosophies that people like Chavez, Morales, Kerry, the Clintons support. Democracy in an uninformed or uneducated majority is terrible, but it's the most fair system that is possible. When there is a problem, like we have here in the USA, where christianity has taken over and the public doesn't know even who killed JFK, let alone that million hear their thoughts...the problem is not democracy, the problem is that the public needs to be educated and informed.
3) free the nonviolent from jail, make sentences for nonviolent crimes less than for violent crimes. Put priority on jail sentences and prison, for example no mixing of violent and nonviolent people...even at the level of assaulter and murderer. So I think Communism is a clear failure and democracy is the way to go. Do we see much support for democracy in the current group of Democrats and Republicans around the planet? We do not hear much support for full democracy...Howard Dean suggested possibly removing the electoral college, and Dean is in the Democrat party, so that would suggest that the Democrats would be the path to full democracy. Bush jr continues to cite his view that they turned Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies as being proof of his support for democracy, and clearly democracy and a democratic, even representative democratic government in Iraq and Afghanistan is better for those people and all people of earth. Still, it's not clear what side will support full democracy...I have to think the republicans will not be as comfortable as the democrats with full democratic rule by the people. Perhaps that was the initial principle behind the "democratic" party, that ultimately the entire government should be a democracy, and not a representative democracy but a full democracy where the people's vote (not the supreme court justice's or other representatives of the people's vote) ultimately determines the final law. It is clear that communism should be forever separated from left-wing as a terrible failure, just like theocracy and monarchy should be forever separated from the right-wing, and that true rule by the people is full and total democracy, not representative democracy, and that no other system is nearly as fair, although there are many versions of full democracy, ultimately the most popular will win.
4) A subset of 3) is Stop the Drug War. stopping the prohibition on recreational drugs. in particular stopping the imprisonment of drug users, manufacturers and sellers. This, to me, is as left-wing as it gets, because those who use drugs are many times artists and intellectuals, but mainly, what they are doing is to themselves...like alcohol and overeating. Ofcourse, the drug war is the current right-wing bread and butter, as is religion. But when you look at the so-called left-wing, Castro he doesn't support decriminlizing drugs, Venezuela president Chavez doesn't support decriminalizing drugs...they are still arresting for drugs...which to me shows that there are similarities between the right-wing view of people like Bush jr and Clinton who are for jailing people that use drugs, unless they are himself or other wealthy supporters, ...they share this view with Hugo Chavez...so they have the drug war enforcement and jailings in common, in addition to not really addressing the widespread problem of violence in the USA, or South America. Bolivia president Morales, looks hopeful, but they say "say no to drugs, but not to coca"...how ridiculous is that? At least it's a start...they are legalizing coca leaf and so that is a certainly a move forward, but they are still jailing those who use cocaine. I hope the take a more humaine view on those who use drugs and lower sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.
5) decriminalizing prostitution. This is an issue that, to me, is the basic ideal of left-wing...that people can work and earn money, so long as there is consent, so long as it is not violent. In the left-wing we should see the removal of religion, antisexuality, psychology [jailing for thoughts or words], all the disease, and illogicalness that stems from religion. But as of yet, all we have seen is one torn paper from US Vice Presidential nominee Edwards, not even a statement from Kucinich. But, ofcourse, the people most identified with left-wing look more like puritanical right-wingers on this issue. In China there is no legal prostitution, they want to stamp out pornography, which shows you that communism in China has as usual collapsed into a dictatorship, oligarchy (rule by a commission/board), or a slow slow representative democracy (where there are occassional popular movements to replace leaders)...they are far from rule by the people. The same is true for Castro, and for Russia when they were the Soviet Union...they were bigger supporters of women's rights, and were not as much slaves to the Christian religion which was good, but clearly they were like the worst kind of right-wingers, monarchs, conservatives, antisexuals, oppressors, jailers of the nonviolent. Perhaps decrim of prost could be put together with "sexualizing the earth". Sexuality will always be on the left-wing, because freedom, free-thinking, free info, sexuality, no religion...it's all the things the right-wing doesn't like.
6) no religion. a life without religion is main stream left-wing, that is one of the only principles that appears to be constant. But there are certainly major exception, look how Clinton used religion to win all the evangilicals...Clinton was certainly a christian church going preacher of religion and not a teacher of science. Bush jr's christian rap appeared more appealing to the massive idiot majority in the US...they are willing to throw away that 9/11 mass murder, the massive trillion dollar debt, the invasion of 2 nations, and the many killed and wounded...because hey...he says "Christ" is his hero, and uses the word "God" more than Kerry did. But even in this new exciting change in South America, we see that rather than see the idiocy of religion...for exapmle Morales in Bolivia is sworn in with a traditional religious ceremony, not christianity, but the old archaic religion of the native Bolivian people...so they may go right back to that religion and skip science and education altogether.
7) Vigourous science and education. Science and education is definitely more at home in the left-wing. The left-wing is usually the intellectual, educated half. We need to bring the history of evolution and science to the entire planet, in bulk, for free. People have never heard of Vesalius, Volta...I mean the entire story of science is in a shambles, and it's no wonder people subscribe to religion instead of science. the religions are much more active in recruiting young people than scientists are. We have not even seen the story of evolution done for the big screen...it is a 100% failure on the part of the earth.
8) Total and complete free info. This is a left-wing mainstay, but we don't really see anything as of yet. Free info, was only casually supported by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Under Carter came the 1977 freedom of information act...now there was some good thinking. Although the act is pooped on like the 1st ammendment, still it is a thorn in the side of evil. Secrecy has been a disease since 1910 and the first seeing and hearing of thought was horded by evil people in power. Since then, it has been a trajedy of unpunished unseen homicide and ignorance, in addition to money grubbing hypocrites in the copyright industry who have violated every thought, but demand money for the public copying their data.
I could go on for a long time, but I am not going to...that is the basic idea...I have said this a thousand times by now. I think the public will wake up, but when? The key point on my mind is that....the government and society that I am supporting is not appearing to fit any current party. I think ultimately the democratic party will adopt many of these ideals, but that may be a long long time away, in particular since the public decided to throw away 8 years by voting for Bush jr.
01-28-2006
There is a possibility that a propane lighter might not be a nuclear reaction, and that possibility is this: after searching thru a couple of combustion books, I finally found...and these books are abstract as any I have ever seen...filled with abstract equation after equation... I finally found in one book that the spectrum from a flame is what would be expected for an electron changing orbit for Hydroxide (or some molecule) and it sparked in my mind what my interpretation of the best defense the old school could take and that is this: That in hydrogen combustion, the mass that is converted to energy in the form of light and heat comes from mass lost by electrons, when those electrons lose some photons in moving from a higher orbit to a lower orbit, closer to the atom. I have doubts, but it remains a nasty possibility. They would claim that every single atom is accounted for in the after products of combustion. Again, I have doubts, but since I don't have the experimental data, and can't perform the experiment myself (which is simply weighing gases in an enclosed vessel after a few hours of burning a hydrogen flame in oxygen). Perhaps that data is somewhere on the web. I can't believe that all that heat and light comes just from lost photons from electrons...that the electrons in every combustion example are losing mass in forming the new molecules (of CO2 and H2O from for example CH4). It's possible, but that is a large amount of photons in the form of light and heat to account for without one single missing atom. In addition, the question is still open about other reactions...is there no reaction where a neutron or proton (or even an entire atom) is separated into photons? One story is that electrons and positrons collide and release two photons...I have to seriously question, as I have before, that there are only 2 photons...that the electron is basically the same mass as a photon....if true, that alone would cause a problem with electrons losing photons in combustion, if they could only lose one photon. More likely, an electron is made of many photons, and the electron positron collision results in a finite number of photons with gamma frequency separation. I have to entertain the possibility that electrons are simply losing all that mass, I think understanding how much mass is lost is the key to answering that question...if the amount of mass lost is more than the collective weight of the electrons in the initial gases then it would be clear that there is more than electrons losing mass. In addition, the resulting atoms should carefully be measured if possible. I think it would be pretty amazing that all that light and heat from a butane lighter is simply from mass lost by electrons in forming different molecules....that is kind of wild if true...that the atoms stay completely intact. Then my question is what are the spectral lines when a neutron or proton separate into their source photons? It seems clear and intuitive that all matter is made of photons (even protons and neutrons), and that atoms can be separated into those photons, and atoms can be built from photons. Sadly, I think this open door, of electrons losing mass may be a roadblock to reaching many people with any other theory and getting this theory shown....because I prefer a theory where there is no question...the answer is obvious, and this "lighter is nukes" theory appears to need to have careful examination of the experiments, and people may battle over the results for some time.
Speaking of a few feet of freedom, I was remembering this poor guy who was drunk, and perhaps roomless, who had the bad circumstance to be locked in a psychiatric hospital in Belmont, Illinois, instead of being taken to a prison. In a prison he would have had his own cell (potentially...for example in Burbank, CA I was in a holding cell...there were perhaps hundreds of empty cells, but they lumped me in with 10 or more other males in one cell...nice people hm?), he would have had his own toilet...but in the psychiatric hospital...I think the theory is that since they don't have enough rooms, they simply tie people to beds...it takes less space. This guy was tied to the bed (with 4 point leather restraints...I can see how the s&m aspect is alive and well in the conservative people in power), and he kept calling "nurse...I have to use the bathroom"...finally after about 30 minutes the calling stopped and I could see a big wet spot on his pants where he simply wet himself and had to lay there in his own urine, hopefully he didn't have to deficate. It was shocking that the nurses and staff did nothing...but they definately heard. Nobody is restrained, or tied to beds in prison. I think a good law is that no person can be retrained or confined to a space with less than at least 3 feet of movement forward/backward and side to side. That law right there would stop 4 point restraints. But no doubt people would feel that for violent people they need to restrain, this law would not rule out handcuffs and even leg shackles...although for a nonviolent person who has never has a first degree assault I think that is inappropriate and brutal. Yeah, speaking of inappropriate, I think it's kind of inappropriate that they nazis that hear out thoughts are hearing out thoughts in secret without telling us what they are doing, that they watch us with hidden cameras...now I find that kind of inappropriate. But they don't!
01-27-2006
Some nation may go public with hearing thought...that would be awesome...like France or some south american nation. If they manufacture their own networks and equipment, they would have nothing to fear from the violent criminals that own the network in the US. That would be awesome if the US was the first nation to go public with hearing thought.
It's interesting when somebody assaults me with a laser beam, as usual, out of no where, I think that they are people who want to be the star of the show. They want to be recognized be everybody that is watching me...they get everybody's attention for a few seconds, while I think about them...think "day per" (one day in jail for each second of laser assault)...this is much of the 2000s, a massive violent criminal organization that controls the thought- hearing technology and uses it to assault, kill, keep secrets, all things evil.
Some people were again reprimending me for talking out lous, saying "that stupid echo!"...and I explained..."all people rehearse what they are going to say before they say it...nobody is any different". It's such a trivial issue in my mind...oh the horror...they have to hear something twice...oh how aweful that must be for those that hear thought in the secret camera net. But I thought more about it and...there is repeating what I think which I agree is stupid, and I think I finally have the thought in my mind that will stop me from repeating my thoughts...and that is...hello those that can hear already know and are a bunch of unfiltered scum bags....why do I feel a need to explain anything to them? in particular when they already know it all? They should be the people telling all of us excluded already. But there is more to saying thoughts than just repeating thoughts as annoucements for the elitist gestapo, ie. the included. There is the phenomenon of "thinking out loud" which I can see nothing wrong with at all except perhaps that it might be a tiny bit slower than thinking quietly. That is where a person talks their thoughts as they happen. This raises the final point, that when I don't talk out loud, then the thoughts beamed on to my head, many times idiot propaganda from the evil conservatives that run the technology, and songs I don't want to hear...our brains are being used as involuntary radio stations...those of us that have a large audience. I don't know exactly why million of people watch and listen to me...probably because many of us are waiting desparately for justice, for the truth to be known by the public, for the tiniest bit of truth, pleasure, democracy, justice, anything like that. Some people simply watch because thousands of others do...I am one of the most popular shows to see this century. Many people feel I am special because I have figured out many things about the universe, and figured out about hearing thought, Sturgis, Cesar, many of the evil secrets of the past and so they think that there may be other interesting things I say...many news items in major news companies originate directly from my life, so it's shocking that people have excluded me and many others to such a large degree. But in any event, this massive group of people is who these evil people want to reach with all their evil propaganda, and so they beam it (songs, sounds, opinions, words) on my head. So, I can see now, and understand clearly, why I enjoy thinking out loud as much as I do...then the thoughts in my head are almost 100% my own thoughts...evil people cannot beam their propaganda, their songs, their words on a brain that is talking ... actually they can but most often they chose not to. Otherwise, their electronic data overpowers the thoughts a human usually would have...they simply make their song have a stronger signal than your song...an average brain can not compete with the sounds sent via some kind of transmitter of photons or electrons...it somehow activates or deactivates the neuron cells in our brain that control what we see and hear. The other thing is that I may want to sing a gig, and then I see nothing wrong with speaking out...the feeling I get from those anti-echo people is that they are very meak...quiet people...I like to express myself...to say it out loud...I know I am repeating my thoughts...it's better louder I guess. You can say that again, it bears repeating...if it pisses off those that hear thought...it can't be that bad.
Those people that hear thought know that a tidal wave may be coming their way...no doubt many of the smarter ones have alot of fear about what will happen when all the excluded see what they have been doing. If I were included I would feel the same feeling...the feeling like...hey...I said a lot...I told the public a lot about hearing thought...I was never happy with it...I know it is wrong...I hated the elitism of it...the injustice...not being able to tell anyone. Still...much of the fear is...what would the excluded do if they ever did find out? Many people probably reassure them by telling them..."look how many of us there are...they can't possibly punish all of us". In addition, those included are all the most wealthy, in positions of the most power. They are similar thoughts to what the elitists in South Africa must have thought about blacks getting to vote. No doubt the truth will be that it will take years to reverse the tables...it will take very precautious decisions on the part of those excluded popular leaders and the excluded themselves...they won't be able to jail all the killers overnight...it will take time, and no doubt that will be the first priority...so most of those in the included will be sheltered because of the initial decisions to capture and jail the murders protected by those evil people in the camera nets. That will take years, but I think that is the initial step, in fact, maybe there are parallels with South Africa...maybe they had to do a bulk arrest of those killers...maybe they could not even do that. A relatively initial thing would have to be some kind of electronic voting system to understand what people want done most. If something is popular, it shouldn't be a problem to have it enforced. But after the murderers, then the assaulters, so there again, many in the camera net, the nonviolent included will have more time. Time, in which, no doubt they will have changed their party line 180 degrees (at least those who were for secrecy). I don't know what the order of events will be, but it is very interesting. One big issue is what to do about all those who were included before hearing thought went public. Some people will vote for no punishment, others will vote for them to be excluded, some will vote for fines, some may vote for them to pay back money from copyrights, some may vote for them to be jailed. I doubt they will get jailed, but some of those other options sound good to me in particular and maybe only for those evil elitist idiots who were for the secrecy.
It's an amazing myth that nonviolent crimes are more shocking and much more evil than violent crimes. It's something that has really been helpful to conservatives. Because of antisexuality, psychology (or anti-free thought), religion, and finally a belief that violence is or should not be illegal or enforced, I think are the main reasons behind this prevailing and widespread belief. It is amazing to me, and a total characteristic of this century (and perhaps even the next century, but eventually it has to change, logic will prevail ultimately). People care nothing about Sturgis, and Thane Cesar for example...they care very little about homicide...there is no outrage about homicide...no ads against it...but where you really see this irony is with assaults. People assault all the time and never spend a second in jail for it. But look how people who use drugs, many of whom are artists, are locked in jail for years and years...and they didn't even hurt anybody except themselves. Many people think I am a bad person, I was jogging yesterday, for example, and this is typical of our growing Nazistic society, a guy said "watch out pervert...!" and my thoughts were "watch out ... assaulter" and "watch out...antisexual zelot". Like sexuality is the big crime, not violence...it's shocking. Some guy said "like you didn't try to butt fuck him" in a lecture (many lectures are geared around my life)...but what ever I have done, my life has been very nonviolent. I guess I don't have the opportunity to go through there lives with a fine tooth comb, but if I did, I don't doubt we would find many unethical decisions...many lies, shocking lies, much support for brutal imprisonings, violence and torture...but ultimately it's the violent activity that goes unnoticed in my experience. Many people with assaults can hear thought...it's shocking. Maurois said it well...in 1937 he was shocked upon hearing many "psycho-grams" or basically "thought-telegrams" how many people were potential murderers. One guy told me "I tell you what you do with those molestors...take a big magnet on a helicopter pick them up in their car and drop them in the ocean"...but changed topics after I asked "but what about the child beaters? aren't they worse?" Much of what people say is geared toward explaining to themselves and perhaps others why what they are doing is ethical and morally justified. For example, the head of SETI, Jill Tarter, says in one WGBH forum speech "muggy" (I some times masturbate about an asian female with large breasts that I hold captive, not with any weapon, that has to suck and let me fuck her, who I never hurt in any way, I don't get into violenc, physically restraining or hurting people, where no doubt others do, again those are just thoughts, I would never do that because I respect people's right to freedom of movement at least to a certain number of feet, and ofcourse I do not want to be locked in jail, and I do not doubt many people fantasize about such things, in one porno I own a female wears a blindfold, it must be to pretend she is a hostage to make sex less boring), and it's to explain to herself and others, still, years later...why they don't include me, why they don't hire me, why they don't even bother to send a message to me or millions of other excluded, why they lie until they die, why they can't allow a particle of science to escape to the public, why they sit back while million are jailed for drugs, for their words and thoughts. But also, when do we the planet get to scrutinize her thoughts and past actions? I guess not for 1000 years! But in addition, I think it's language to cozy up to the power people that murder in the secret thought hearing network, that have ruled over the past 100 bloody lawless years in the USA, certainly not to support the liberal causes of free infomation, ending violence (which ofcourse would require us to see actual violence), freeing the nonviolent like those millions in prisons for simply using drugs, for prostitution, pornography, to expose the killers of the 2 Kennedys, ... instead people like her would rather pile on the bs, lies, the elitism, and more and more secrets. The gestapo are at the point where they pay money for their included minions to say propaganda like "muggy" for them, but we in the escluded can only guess, did Tarter get paid to say "muggy"? If yes, how much? Wouldn't that be helpful? How long has tarter watched people in their houses? That might be helpful info too. I am definitely against violence, by the way, in fact, I speak out against violence, more that Tarter ever will...they are fine without a violent registry for the public, without public street cameras the public can see, without any ads against violence...if not they certainly don't complain publicly about it. I masturbate to many different images, mostly two breasty females experiencing same gender love, for some reason that rarely fails to arouse me. I probably will not win any popularity contents by honestly revealing what images I think about when masturbating, but for me, the truth is more important, and I want to expose what these gestapo thought hearing secretive shyte people are all about and what they are up to and what they do all day and night, how they lie, how they live a lie, how they are elitists, how they are part of a secret camera network that has evolved over the last 100 years, it's more important for me to expose what these people are perpretrating on the public. I doubt I will get the opportunity to reproduce or even get regular sex with more than 1 or 2 people for the rest of my life because of the evil people in the camera network, but I have been living nonviolently with a female for over 2 years and there has not been one violent or pain causing event, and that is typical for me....even in high school I refused to be first degree and unconsentually (I played football, which I view as a complete waste of time now, but that is consentual violence) violent. Some person hinted today that as many as 250 million people routinely hear thought, that is astonishing...that is nearly the entire population of the United States, but it's not nearly enough...that is only 4% of the earth population. It is important that our thoughts be kept legal. I hate to think that thinking about some thing could get a person jailed...for example thinking about violence, or thinking about child pornography. I see no problem with people using those thought images to create safe guards, for example against violence (although wouldn't that be a first for this group in power?), that is certainly legal, but I vote, perhaps against the majority, that we should not be jailed for our thoughts, even if they are seen and heard. The only exception I might vote for against total free speech is making verbal threats of violence against a human out loud, then maybe I would vote for jail for that person, but then a very small amount...perhaps on the order of only an hour per.
update: Another thing that relates to this is the total lack of understanding about human sexuality, for example, how most rapes are committed by younger males (at least I would hazard a guess like most other people)...after age 30 impudence is a major factor...there is viagara, and there are exceptions, but there is always that dark unknown fear of sex...even when the reality is that most males over 30 cannot make their penis into the erect hardened weapon many people fear.
..it must take a lot of explanation and reassurances...why they can't expose Thane Cesar, Frank Sturgis, why they need to lie, why they can't lift a finger against violence, dishonesty, injustice. I was even participating too...hey Thane Cesar...he probably won't kill again...it's old news...leave it in the past already. Maybe I can participate in this planetary condolance game. This woman was still echoing that old Sagan idea of respecting the microbes on Mars...I think honestly...that is completely absurd...humans are going to overpopulate Mars by 3800 if not sooner. I tenatively put the limit at 5e14 (half a pentillion) [update: my estimate is not done yet, and I would estimate the maximum human population of planet Mars and earth both to be closer to 1 quadrillion, and maybe less...for earth that involves humans living completely wall to wall in the oceans of earth] humans for anybody connected to the surface and the inside of Mars alone (that does not even include in Mars orbit). Again, when we all get to see her (the SETI head) thoughts, then I think the playing field would be the tiniest bit level. But in addition, why do they never mention the idea of globular clusters being an in between path of spiral galaxies to elliptical galaxies? Why don't they connect the dots for the public? I mean, this lady was talking about all kinds of unlikely ideas, one was, advanced life orbiting around a asteroid in this star system...but they can't mention the idea that advanced life is living in the stars of globular clusters? But it's typical...they can't bring themselves to support even openly speaking out against something as simple as violence...I mean violence...they can't speak out against violence, forget about the drug arrests, legal prostitution, legal oral sex .. or wait that was made legal in the 1970s...but only where other people cannot see, you know a million things, free info, true democracy...a phonetic alphabet...you name it they can't say it unless it's tradition like religion, antisexuality, prosecrecy, etc. To her credit she did use "photons" which I was surprised to hear. With the issue of violence...they can't mention it because, I think in all honesty the antiviolence movement is basically one person, Ted Huntington. Anybody that speaks out against violence...they are simply echoing Ted Huntington propaganda...they are not original...must be the claim...only Huntington can speak out against violence, and all others are imitators...you couldn't have possibly realized violence is the big evil without the assistence of Ted Huntington, so therefore you are a moonie...who is thoughtlessly following Huntington....etc. I mean it is shocking...I think the smartest people hear a good idea and they change their views and start to accept that good idea...it's simply learning it's not unthinkingly following. For example, the second I heard that Stugis killed JFK, I accepted it, and geared my mind toward exposing it and bringing it to the rest of us in the public and the excluded...I am not simply following those who brought it to my attention...I happen to independently agree and perhaps dedicate even more time to exposing Sturgis than even many of those who originated the exposing of Sturgis do perhaps. So getting back to that original point of somehow violence got buried and is not thought to be a taboo...the lesson is clear to those of us who are the victims of the idiocy...we basically have to start using the language, where they call us mo-"lest" we have to refer to them as vio-"lent", and similar such things...focusing on the never focused aspect and issue of violence...are they assaulters? are they violenters? yes, violenter...we have never thought of such a person...it's not a concern to us if somebody has been violent before...we have as yet no "registry of violent offenders", we routinely elect people who are openly and publicly accessories to murder and assault, they are authorizers and supporters of homicides and assaults. But people don't say that (except for me), but yet it's true. So the monumental task, the million ton task that is on our shoulders as nonviolent people is to lesson the shock of nonviolent crimes and heighten the shock of violent crimes...to basically restore order to the planet...violence on top nonviolence on bottom, violent crime on top, nonviolent crime on bottom. We have to single handedly carve this new language out of the air...where none exists. "Sure, maybe they are perverts, but violent crime is worse"....etc. It's a total hassle that we have to come up with this stuff. "If a kid is hurt, then it's wrong." etc. Nobody could do it before us. We get to explain to people who have had antidrug messages ingrained into their DNA by now, that violent crime is by far much worse than drug use, that violent people have used the drug laws to arrest liberal artists, to intimidate policitcal opponents...while they have been up to their necks in violent crime which ofcourse is much much worse. That prostitution is just as consentual as cleaning a toilet for money is. I mean the list of these obvious obvious facts is in the millions.
There is one common thread through many of the verbal attacks on me, they are all geared to shock people with sexuality...sex is shocking to people...more shocking than violence. It's hard to understand, but true. Accusations of homosexuality, pedophilia, perversion, infidelity always seem to generate the most shock and emotion, much more by far than accusations of lying, stealing, assaulting, advocating violence, accessory to murder before or after the fact. It's shocking but true, and it can only be from the dominance of religion, and the religious belief that sexuality is the ultimate taboo, that dishonesty, theft, even violence is secondary. I think the present and future is going to be many years of conservatives calling liberals homosexuals, perverts, pedophiles, molestors, druggies and the liberals calling the conservatives violenters, assaulters, supporters of first degree murder, jailers and torturers of the nonviolent, murderers, accessories to murder, protectors of murderers, supporters of violence, etc. So it is curious why we now see the one side of that equation...the conservatives doing their part...but we don't really see the liberals doing their half, and I think that is because the liberals feel they must use the language of the conservatives...in other words...they believe like the conservatives that violence, doing violence, supporting violence, protecting the violent really isn't a major issue or ethical flaw, but unusual sexuality is. But as I say, I think that will change and the liberals will start to take on the shape of that second half, and start to call the republicans on Thane Cesar, the Warren commish, Sturgie, drug arrests, etc. In addition I want to see the liberals start to support full democracy where the people vote directly on the laws...that is going to be their issue, that and science+evolution. That is where the conservatives will have flaws and be weak.
One thing that is amazing is that "they haven't stopped talking about it" phrase. They can never let that affair go, that one assault, that one poke when you were 12, that one thing you hate to think about...this is a planet of idiots and they relish in their own fecies honestly. We still are trying to get the message about hearing thought through their heads, still trying to explain about Sturgis, E Howard Hunt, and Arnold...still trying to tell them how Thane Cesar killed RFK, can't end the prohibition, can't get a right to trial, can't let the people vote,...they just can't get it...the media just won't tell them...and so...it's like the slowest dumbest fuck free piece of shit people on a planet. Stuck in these 100 year old problems and happy as a daisy in their ignorance on the part of the public and in their evil technological advantage for the included.
Good yes/no questions for excluded people to think to included people:
9/11
====
There were hijackers on those 4 planes?
There were missiles on the two tower planes?
A missile hit the Pentagon? (already basically confirmed)
Bush knew about 9/11 on 9/10?
thought technology
===================
Michael Pupin was first to see thought? (already basically confirmed yes)
Seeing thought came before hearing thought? (already basically confirmed yes)
Thought was first seen in 1910? (already basically confirmed yes)
Thought was first seen at Columbia University? (already basically confirmed yes)
lasers that assault us are in ceiling?
lasers that assault us are in walls?
things that assault us are in lasers?
we are assaulted with photons?
we are assaulted with electrons?
we are assaulted with voltage differential?
more than 100 million people routinely hear thought now?
more than 1 billion people routinely hear thought now?
more than 10 million people routinely hear thought now?
People have images drawn out into space in front of their eyes?
the images are in front of people's eyes?
the images are clear and solid images in front of people's eyes?
Famous murders
==============
Frank Sturgis killed JFK? (already basically confirmed yes)
Thane Cesar killed RFK? (already basically confirmed yes)
James Earle Ray killed MLK (already basically confirmed yes) [can you believe one where the truth was told to the
public...eerie...]
Marilyn Monroe was murdered? (already basically confirmed yes)
remember basic rules
====================
1=yes, 2=no,
first finger=yes, fist=no
1 cough=yes, 2 coughs=no
as always "yes"=yes and "no"=no
you will see how conservatives tend to lie, and liberals tend to tell the truth until they get scared and then are
only silent.
01-24-2006
I think the Canadian election of the conservative Harper is a step backwards for Canada. Harper supported the Bush jr led invasion of Iraq, although now appears to have back tracked. I was shocked to see that Harper is against the Kyoto agreement, which had wide scale support, but then read today that Harper is a wealth oil magnate just like the Bush family, and so it is no surprise that he would be willing to sacrifice air quality for more oil money. There was something interesting this morning, usually politicians have no issues, everything they do, if anything is secretive and behind the scenes in the cameras networks, but I read that Harper is for mandatory jail sentences, but the article did not mention for what crimes. Knowing conservatives, I can tell you, in my experience, conservatives all appear to be the same throughout history, I thought...mandatory jail sentences...it can't be for violent crime I can guarantee you that...it has to be for drugs or prostitution. And sure enough, he wants mandatory prison sentences (of 2 years) for drug use. It is amazing to me that conservatives and no small number of liberals are more interested in punishing those who hurt themselves instead of those that hurt others. Harper expressed the anger he feels about drug use in the parks and on the street corners, but it's similar to alcohol and tobacco use in parks and street corners, there are many answers. First, people could take a logical opinion and tolerate the alcohol and drugs as long as nobody else was being hurt...as long as there was no violence, but beyond that, people could set up buildings for people to use alcohol and drugs, and confiscate drugs and alcohol from people in parks and on the street, but without any arrest. In addition, people "strung out", addicted to herione, although ugly, albeit nonviolent, are one of the best ad against drug use. Without knowing what drug addicition (mainly herione, because many people use alcohol, merijuana, and cocaine, etc. responsibly without any risk to anybody other than themselves) can lead to, many young people might not feel as afraid to try herione. There are plenty of answers, but many of these things like drug use, tobacco, etc. are like overeating and religion, many people want humans to be healthy and not be fooled by superstition, but people should have the freedom to hurt themselves and take illogical beliefs without being jailed. But, it's classic for the conservatives to blame the druggies and prostitutes. I am surprised that the conservatives (nor really even the liberals) ever make a serious issue about violence, and violent crime. Can you imagine if there were mandatory minimum sentences for violent crime? Then I think you would see outrage, as people's sons and family members are jailed for 2 years for assault...I think drug users are used to taking that risk, but the violent are not. What about mandatory minimums for property theft? The conservatives tend to go past traditional violent crime and make a bee line for drugs and sex. It's interesting that the southern half of the Americas are taking the opposite direction, they appear not to be fooled by the white-only conservative multimillion dollar propaganda. Somehow the people in south america reject the million dollar US conservative sponsored television, where in northern america, they need to be told what to think by the television and are unable to have independent thoughts and beliefs. It's interesting when you look at how the conservatives got the majority of people of Canada to turn against the liberals, it was though scandel...that almost always appears to be the most effective tactic. And then when you look at the scandel...it is trivial as can be...but it makes no difference because in people's mind there is a negative memory/opinion from the media. The scandel as far as I can see is how the government used money to advertise their program...wait a minute...Bush jr does this every week...he was caught paying a million dollars to promote his "no child left behind" ad...but people in the US rolled over and snored. There was and will be no indictment or impeachment for that or any other ethics violation. It is really a bizarre public, the way the tiniest things bring down liberals, but shockingly violent crimes don't even bring tiny criticism of conservatives. I am glad Harper is interested in the history of hockey, and uses the word evolution...so I think, you know, not everything is lost, but honestly, this has to be a terrible direction for Canada and the earth, but I think it is clear that the step backwards started in the US and has brought down the rest of the planet, back in time to the crusades, the Inquisition, prohibition, a time before there were street lights to stop violent crime.
I hate to say something heretical, but I am not aware of what experiments proved the famous E=mc^2 Einstein equation. I think that this equation may definitely be true, but as is the case with all things, there should be experimental evidence to back up all claims. I have already said that more accurately, the equation should be number of photons=mc^2, since matter is made of photons. It seems that experimentally proving E=mc^2 would not be too difficult. Simply by measuring the original mass of a closed gas combustion apparatus, burning Hydrogen, or some gas for a long time, then measuring the change in weight, and dividing by the number of atoms remaining, basically measuring the weight of the photons that exited as light and heat. Because, it is clear that there is something wrong with the equations being given for uranium fission and Hydrogen/methane, etc. combustion. The actual text given, and this is from a modern chemistry textbook is the position that the mass lost is so small it can't be measured with modern instruments. I find that hard to believe...I mean...after 10 hours of burning a gas...there is no noticable change in weight due to the light and heat that exit? That all the mass of a candle is converted to CO2 and H2O? I find it hard to believe. Then...there is a serious problem because...they won't say where that unmeasurably small mass came from! Did it come from a neutron? no. a proton? no. an electron? no. a neutrino? no. So are they saying that...there was simply some photons circling around in the atoms that escape as light and heat or something? I mean where is the mass that is converted to energy coming from? what particles? Perhaps they could claim that the energy is coming from the chemical bonds themselves, I don't rule this out, but I, myself, take the view that the so-called energy is coming from matter in the atoms and that the equations are not complete for combusion and fission.
I think that there is no doubt in my mind that nuclear fission of uranium, plutonium, etc. is not going to be the final method of extracting electricity from atoms...I think it's going to be more like a total separation of smaller atoms, or something similar. I am surprised that nobody has publically come up with a more efficient, no radioactive waste method of separating atoms into photons yet.
I am surprised that people are still using gas stoves, dryers, hot water heaters...there are many reasons to use electric instead. For one thing, methane, the gas used in houses is taken from oil, as so we are putting billions of years of buried Carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and CO. Even the propane gas grill is doing this. It's like some kind of secret that the non gasoline gases, methane, ethane, propane, butane all come from oil...not many people like to teach the public that. Oil is boiled (and even I am not clear on all the details) and at each temperature, a different molecule boils off, for example octane boils off at some certain temperature based on it's molecular weight. If we were to harness biofuels we would not be dumping more CO2 into the air, I mean this is clearly the way we have to go...what ever it is, we can't keep putting more and more buried Carbon back into the air. Maybe nuclear power, basically separating atoms into photons in the form of heat to heat water to turn a steam engine will be the replacement, but I can see a good argument for more experiment with biofuels too. For example, maybe there is some way of getting methane, ethane, propane, butane from plant oil, maybe thru genetic modification if not from some existing species, or maybe some chemical way of converting an existing biofuel into smaller methane, propane molecules. Beyond that, maybe photosynthetic bacteria could be harnessed as they are for insulin, to make methane from CO2 in the air. There are a number of good options on the horizon and I am interested to see what will happen. It's the nature of science that some apparant miracle like hearing thought can happen overnight and forever change the way humans live, and I think that similarly, an alternative fuel answer might be just around the corner too.
I put some of my videos on video.google.com and youtube.com (I saw Infidel Guy had already found out about youtube.com...damn!...still his video doesn't talk about the more interesting stuff I cover). Looking back I can see that my statement that all people are bisexual was way too much for this crowd to accept, but in any event, that's ancient history. Had I thought more about it, I might have said, that all people have the potential to be bisexual, like many other primates if it was not taboo. Then, there is the inaccurate belief that homosexual people are turned on by all people of the same gender...that is no necessarily true...many times as far as I can see, the people that arouse other people, may have specific qualities. I could go on, but perhaps I should have taken the more narrow view of simply...we should tolerate bisexuality, and that we should promote sexuality....perhaps even saying that all people are potentially bisexual to a small degree...mostly prefering the opposite gender with only a very tiny amount of time spent thinking about same gender sexuality. That line certainly has not helped me, and I probably could have gotten much more of my message through without it, but I think that line will take me farther into the future.
As an alternative to a propane gas grill is the portable electric "George Foreman" grill which sells for under $15 dollars at amazon.com, and has many benefits, (I want to say now that I am opposed to boxing, although it should be legal, I try not to support such a violent sport...it's ironic to me we can pay to see consentual violence, but not consentual sex), in particular buried Carbon is not being added to the air. Some people might complain that food needs the flame (I haven't bought one yet because I don't have a lot of space, but I may soon), but I think it's mostly the heat that cooks things, and this electric grill cooks on both sides leaving the traditional black lines of the grill, for vegetarian soy meats, I can't imagine there would be much difference. But this brings me to my new cleaning regime...I bought a Hoover steam cleaning vacuum, and a eureka regular bag vacuum after reading many many reviews on amazon.com, the eureka got high ratings in consumer reports and I read that the bagless had problems when you went to empty it all the dust went everywhere. So now, once a month I clean my place. Dusting, cleaning the floors, stove, vacuum and steam clean (actually I think it's just a shampoo and hot water cleaning). Eventually I want to transition my walking robot to doing this stuff. I have yet to put my condo, house buying experience on the web and I plan on doing that soon. I also video taped my entire flooring job and may sometime edit that, or just put photos on the web, but that is really time consuming...I don't know. I never told you people that I was thinking of some way of getting my robot to clean my bathtub, and I thought...why not put a scrubber on one of these electric motors and have it clean that way? But I never got into that because ofcourse I am still trying to get my robot to balance and haven't worked on it in years while I am doing ULSF. But then, I was in a grocery store and they are selling these motorized scrub brushes and I thought that was funny...I'm not sure if it works better, but there are many things that the future will bring like that...as the planet becomes electric-ized...the robots will be the main addition, but I can see many more motorized things to come. We got the electric garage door, the electric toothbrush, many many electric things. Now we just need better batteries and a better method of getting electricity besides from buried oil, or one-time only weak batteries.
01-22-2006
I think this current group of republicans in power are not law makers as much as they are law breakers, they are not the enforcers of violent laws they are the violators of violent laws. Am I wrong? They are the ones that assault innocent people with lasers and celebrate the murders of people like JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon and many other innocent nonviolent people.
This society is completely a farse, it's a foreign object to me...I would make a government where the vast majority of the public gets to see everything, where the info spilleth over and runs like water over the planet and all it's inhabitants. Not this view now, where we don't even see the face of our assaulter, we see some story in the news about a person sentenced to 11 years in jail and can only imagine the video, the eye images, the behind the scenes events that led to that arrest...while those in the included...are closer to the society I envision for all, where they know all the intimate details about 911, see all the air port video, the gas station video, the eye images, the government employee images...all that those included do and more. That is the society and government I would build and am trying to build. we only get the crumbs of the vast ocean of information.
what I think people need to learn to say no to, is that addiction of locking drug users in prisons. I think that is a very strong addiction, and a brutal one. People love to lock other people in jail, even for reasons as petty as a person using drugs. What can make people learn to resist this temptation to lock drug users in jails for long periods of time? How can they be reached to prevent them from this inevitable addiction? I don't think a campaign of "just say no" to jailing drug users is going to be effective...people seem to just ignore such messages as propaganda, and they go right along with the knee-jerk addiction of jailing drug using people. They need to be reached with real-life stories perhaps, of people whose lives and families are ruined by imprisonment, perhaps by the comparison of drug use to violent crime. Somehow people have managed to avoid the addiction to jailing people that do not eat healthily...for example overweight people, users of tobacco, and alcohol...there has been a clear distaste for the addiction of jailing those who use alcohol, tobacco, that overeat or eat unhealthy foods...maybe the resistence to that "jail-them" addiction should be examined more closely.
I am now 37 years old since I left the womb, just under 38 from conception. To me, I care very little, each second is new. It's ridiculous to celebrate some thing annually, I have my pedal to the metal on progress. I am completely out of touch with this group of people, the majority. I can't possibly agree with their values, and they share basically none of my values...I mean they can't even bring themselves to be openly against violence, forget about being defenders of sexuality, speaking out for full democracy, teachers of evolution publically, critics of religion, exposers of seeing and hearing thought for a century...I mean...it's like night and day...oil and water...I am really an outsider watching the cast off crumbs of what the majority is doing and disgusted by their dullness, those are the dullest crumbs ever to fall off the shockingly dull table, lack of progress, supression of all ideas, the puritanical shock at the most trivial things, brutally punishing people old and young with shockingly harsh punishments, I mean....it's a disaster, I don't know where to begin or end...but the public and majority, they cannot possible do something right, they can't stumble into a forward dimension. But aside from the dullness, and lack of any kind of wisdom, there is the fear and vicious violence of the majority...when I am not bored out of my mind, I am scared out of my mind.
The Afghanistan and Iraq occupation are the major projects of this group of republicans under Bush jr. That is their main project. They are spending 2 trillion to occupy these small nations. As a person in the latimes.com pointed out, the highest grossing film, the titanic (I mean that is unusual...it did better than star wars...that tells you how stupid people are...I didn't bother to see it...its a dull remake of a dull story...of suffering, we all know the end...who gives a shit), only grossed a few billion of something...I mean this Iraq and Afghan occupation is costing 1000 times the largest grossing movie of all time. and we are paying for that....I mean it's idiocy...it's total idiocy. I think something that is obviously way beyond the grasp of the average person, since many voted to re-elect Bush jr, is where does this 2 trillion dollars go to? I mean somebody is getting 1000 times more money than the makers of "Star Wars" got. And it has to be, in a large part the defense industry. Companies like Lockheed, Haliburton, the private army/security companies, the gun manufacturers, the military suppliers...I mean that is a lot of our cash from our pocket to these people...1000x star wars...that is muchos dineros. Some people must be rich as shit because of this Iraq and Afghani bs. Rich on our credit card. No doubt some of the lowlevel pawns/privates in the US military get some of it, but they get paid half or less than the private people...and this group in power likes the private companies for various reasons, which I really don't know...I think when people are killed...it can't be related to the US army, or the private companies absorb the loss...I don't know why they prefer those companies...maybe because they are invested in all of them. I think I have to blame the public more than any body, then probably the media, then the actual leaders themselves. Here, they have every opportunity to elect somebody besides Bush jr and they didn't...even after they heard from Kerry about how Bush jr took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit of US history...I mean does that sound like a person who cares about the public? Bush jr and those people just poop all over the public...take our credit card and charge it up on frivolous bs, lie about the reasons for invasion and line their own pockets with the proceeds...look how Cheney was connected to Haliburton, and how all these military companies are getting all our money. They claim they have made the US safer, but Chomsky said it correctly, when he said that they are destabalizing the earth...now Russia, China, Europe, all these other nations are building up their military just like the US is. It's total idiocy. The US is not being attacked...there was one security lapse, 9/11 which I think because of the Pentagon hole that was a missile, the missiles on the two planes, there is definitely some suspicion, 9 months into a war loving military religious fanatic's presidency and we suffer 9/11 and are at war? It's too much of a coincidence. Those that see and hear thought must all know the truth. We in the excluded have to guess, but at a minimum 9/11 was a security lapse on the part of Bush jr, and those he appoints to head the stop violence groups in the US government. Then, you know, if we are to believe the official story which is hard to believe given no video evidence of the multitude that must exist, even if you believe the cover story...so a group of 100 of something Saudi's stole 4 planes and blew up the trade centers...killed 3000 humans...did a successful mass homicide...a group of 2 or 300 people pulled it off..20 of them were killed in the mission...they paid the ultimate price for their crime at the seen of the crime. Then the other 100 or whatever were people...like those that plotted the killing of JFK, RFK, MLK, that helped...funded it...kept it a secret...I mean it's a crime, but they didn't pull the trigger. It's like Bush Senior...he was deeply involved with the killing of JFK, he was in charge of E Howard Hunt and Sturgis in Florida, Bush senior reported to Hoover the day after the killing to make sure Hoover was going to play along, and Hoover fingered Bush Senior in a memo for history. But, you know, Bush senior, as evil as he is, didn't pull the trigger, just like, Osama Bin Laden, never flew the plane into the trade centers...hecan technically only be charged with accessory to murder (although...with this group of people on earth....anything goes). murder=drug use=sex with consent=theft=treason=plotting murder...you know...they can't distinguish between one law and the the other.
As an interesting note, this guy who is getting shuffled under the rug with 11 years in jail for selling secrets to Israel...as usual my vote is to simply let a person like that go, the treason laws are stupid and I vote against them. This is a society where we think there should be secrets, and it seems clear that there is no reason for secrets. Those people in government are no better than any body else, they are no more moral, in fact if anything they are less moral, less honest than average people. In addition, the Nazis new about hearing thought...they must have routinely heard and seen thought...they may have known about nuclear fission, Germans were the first to do uranium fission (Otto Hahn and Lise Mitner). I can see, some things like...perhaps people who do a lot of violence should not get the most recent info, but look at what has happened...the most violent people get the most recent info, and the nonviolent get it much later if ever! The violent have already won, and are in power...it's the nonviolent that have to take back the government, expose Sturgis, Cesar, all the killers. It's interesting, I see a time in the very near future where there is a big round up. I mean there are more and more cheap cameras being produced, the wireless networks are covering the earth, many more people are getting high speed connections. We are going to reach the point where many individual people can have small cameras in their cars that send images to wireless nets...cameras on their bikes no less...I mean the cameras will be that inexpensive. With all these images pouring out, first all the violent people will eventually be seen and rounded up, because somebody will have video of their crime, same for the property theft...and the best thing...people will know they are probably on camera that is an excellent deterrent...and it won't be Orwellian because the public will get to see many of those images for the first time ever. Plus walking robots, walking cameras...will be walking with people like servants...they will be recording everything and transmitting to wireless networks...the days of living without street lights, in dangerous neighborhoods will come to an end...and perhaps very soon. For each year that you can stay alive, your chances of survival get better (although we have obviosuly taken a serious step back as a planet with the election of Bush jr, and in particular the reelection of Bush jr), still that will be over in 2008, and I don't think it is possible to have a more vicious violent president, the chances are against it.
One thing that is kind of interesting is how a safe city, county, state, nation, etc...in particular like a city that wants to be violence free, probably spends time on technology that allows them to identify each human, in particular on a road that enters the city. Each car, the license plate, the humans inside, their criminal history (in particular their violence history). For some, recognizing them will be very quick...people that live in the city are very quickly identified because there is a clear record, many images of them, and to a certain extent their behavior is predictable, there is alot of information, history of them to go on...if they haven't had any violent events for 5 years, probably they won't for the next 5 years...they probably have "danger" ratings...or something in particular "violent" ratings. But it must send alarm bells off when people enter a city that don't live there....many are visiting, and can be recognized from the state databases perhaps...occassionaly there must be the rare occurance of a person from a different state, and also a different nation...for some people, in particular in nations that are not technologically advanced...the human may go completely unrecognized, not a single piece of info, no name, no date of birth...nothing...but...usually if they have been in a technical nation, the nation will have some info, but it only goes back to when they entered the nation.
One thing about the 9/11 that people have to realize is that with the people that can see and hear thought...that they have been doing this for 100 years...I mean how could they not have heard there in Florida, for example...the thoughts and images of the people who plotted the 9/11? First because they are not locals, they had to be under serious survalience (ofcourse thought hearing and cameras in their houses like all of us)...In a city of like 10,000 there probably are only a few hundred that are from a different nation and have very little history, in terms of images and info. So, it seems clear that either Bush jr allowed 9/11 to happen, or that Bush jr allowed the conservative extremist parts of the US military to do 9/11 (it appears that this is the most probable). Perhaps Bush jr and the extremist parts of the US military only wanted to have the 2 planes crash into the World Trade Centers, but the liberals and law abiding sent a missile into the Pentagon. Then the 9/11 Bush jr plotters had a problem apparantly. They had to explain the missile to the Pentagon in their cover story, perhaps even the missile was planned before hand...days before. For example, Bush jr, must have plotted 9/11, for the two military planes, months in advance...there must have been plenty of time for the liberals and law abiding to plan some course of action. The action they chose, which is kind of a mistery choice, is to missile the Pentagon, but not Rumsfeld, the other side. Which is interesting, that probably much of the Pentagon staff would have known that and not gone to work that day...but apparantly 200 died there so either they were excluded (which is possible...in the thought network no doubt there are secrets that the main customers do not get to hear...or are filtered out before the service is sent to them). Or on the other hand, perhaps the missile was a last minute thing. I kind of doubt it was last minute. If bush jr knew in advance about the missile, they then must have worked some thing into their cover story. First they knew they had to quickly identify Osama Bin Laden, that had to happen very quickly before the public and media could put forward independent theories. But with this missile, they perhaps thought that they would missile back some liberal building or leader, but that might start an open war between them and the liberals+law abiding+antimurder group so perhaps they agreed to accept the loss...it would only be a few hundred people and it would end there. But how could they explain a missile in the Pentagon? This probably perplexed them for some time. There was no way to supress the Pentagon being missiled and damaged. It would clearly be public. So, they must have had to come up with a third plane hijacking...they would direct the plane over the Atlantic Ocean, and then shoot it down...that could be covered up easily enough, because they could pressure the air trackers to be quiet...plus that info has never been public to my knwoledge. The part that most people probably can't put together is...it seems unlikely that Bush jr and the lawless killers would kill a plane just to keep the cover story of islamic terrorists, but here they killed 3000, they pulled the buildings killing many, ... it appears that killing people must not be a big deal to them...the big deal is being caught. So it shocks me and most people to think that they would shoot down a jet, and this plan must have been tenative until the very end, because they expected the Pentagon to be missiled, but it hadn't happen yet. It's tough to imagine what happened, all we have is:
"a missile hit the Pentagon", "Great Balls of fire, smoke came BILLowing out"..clearly Clinton and the liberals did the missile on the Pentagon (which is kind of symbolic in some way...like the center of the US military, the symbol of the US military was nearly destroyed, and badly damaged)...and on the other side of the equation...Flight 77 and clearly all the passangers dead (although some people rumored that they were in Guantanamo...I think probably if the Bush group killed the people in the towers they would not hesitate to kill the people on Flight 77). Still it's tough to put together....and then what about the last plane? Clearly the people are dead, but where was the reckage? If there was no plane crash there, maybe it was a missile? maybe some people just poured some gas and lit it? I can't understand why the Carlyle/Bush group had to kill the forth plane. That really is a mystery. Maybe Bush/extremist US military plan was for 4 planes from the beginning? I think it was for 2 planes, then the missile happened, and they decided to shoot down two more...I don't know but you people in the thought network must by now. Perhaps, everybody knew that this Osama group was going to hijack 4 planes, and the Bush jr group decided to let them be successful. It's interesting that maybe Bush jr, thought it would just be a small thing..they wouldn't be successful, but it would be enough to invade Afghanistan and Iraq too in the name of stopping terrorism. But the hijackers were much more successful than Bush and them thought they would be. Then in that case, the liberals missiling the Pentagon was because Bush and them allowed 9/11 to happen. Then the two last planes...I don't know...but it seems clear that if there were missiles on the two tower planes that it was all "Bush and them". And I think that those two planes were on remote control. But it seems clear that they both had missiles on them, I mean, clearly the plotters were worried about parts of the plane being found in the reckage (although they could control much of it), or worried about not being able to bring down the towers (which it appears were brought down with charges). To me, it's shocking that so many people bought the cover story...only a few of the 6 billion on earth, ever openly have raised any doubt and looking at what little physical evidence there is, the missiles on the 9/11 planes, the missile hole in the Pentagon...it looks like there are serious problems with the 9/11 cover story. I have to lean on this final guess:
1) Bush and the extremist parts of the US military (BEM for short) put missiles on the two planes, the planes were painted like American Airlines and US Air.
2) BEM made up the terrorists, whose names do not appear on any public list (why didn't they bother to make up some aliases? I think because it is a lack of cooperation between the airlines and BEM). In addition some of those named are alive and not connected, even the BBC revealed that.
3) liberals missiled the Pentagon
The last two planes, I don't know. I think they were shot down, or landed and the people taken prisoner. There was one story about one of the planes landing in Ohio and that probably was true, so that would indicate that the people were taken prisoner...it is really a mystery. If BEM could kill the people in the towers BEM could easily kill the people in 2 planes, but what it the point? Maybe somebody on board BEM did not like. That is probably the biggest part of the mystery. 1) and 3) appear like solid truths if you believe the photos and videos that escaped to the public.
science: I wonder if people have started colliding larger atoms (perhaps as ions, so that atoms have a charge and can be accelerated) into other larger atoms. There could be a large number of new atoms formed potentially if they collide and fuse/bond. The number of combinations are many. But I am not sure how people can make many atoms that are normally solids ionized and in gas form, maybe scrape them? scrape them, but good?
One thing that I found interesting in this Chemistry book "Chemistry", is that not all atoms have the same number of protons electrons and neutrons, for some reason I thought the neutrons had to be the same number as the protons, but they have, for example: Iron with 26 protons 30 neutrons (26 electrons). and gold with 79 protons and 118 neutrons (79 electrons). So I think that all those extra masses must simply be isotopes that result when a neutron is added. But it is interesting that, I never knew that there can be many neutrons in some of these atoms, and in fact, as the number of protons goes up, the number of neutrons goes up more so that by the time of gold, there are already 39 more neutrons than protons in each atom.
There is also positron decay. Supposedly a positron is made when a proton changes into a neutron. I have some doubts, I see the neutron as being a proton and electron, I don't see the proton as being a positron and neutron, but if that is true, that is certainly interesting. Perhaps the positron is the only thing that makes a proton (or any particle) positive. They have a positron quickly colliding with an electron to produce two gamma rays, which is interesting because a gamma ray implies more than one photon, and probably a few thousand photons...but how many? the gamma ray must eventually end.
ex: The length of that ray can be used to determine how many photons are in a positron and electron.
Like the combustion equation, there is an error also with the Uranium fission equation and diagrame. Which raises again the point, that if we can show the planet how uranium fission works, can't we show them that thought can be heard?! I think, like the combustion equations, either an entire uranium is separated, or maybe only 1 neutron is used to make all that heat...it is a simple set of ideas, and I am surprised that people that are in this field could not put it together from the data available. To their credit the authors echo what must be an age old line: "If we could weigh these products with great accuracy, we would find that their total mass is slightly less than the mass of the starting materials". But there is a problem then, because where did the mass come from then? What particles were converted to "energy" (I realize now that this is nothing more than the source photons that were in the matter, and photons are a form of matter, and potentially the only form of matter, and the basis of all matter, and even so-called anti-matter)? I guess the current view is just that they were particles, perhaps photons, very low mass, that happened to be in the Uranium atoms, but not in the form of neutrons, protons, or electrons. That's a lot of energy, and the equivalent mass must be significant.
In this chemistry book they mention many "transmutation" of atoms that occur regularly and are basically public: for example this one: "The source of technetium-99m is molybdenum-99, which is produced in a nuclear reactor by neutron bombardment of molybdenum-98." They add neutrons to the Mo atoms. "Many radiation laboratories have a small generator containing the radioactive molybdenum-99, which decays to give the technetium-99m radioisotope." by beta decay, a neutron emits an electron and is therefore a proton changing the atomic number. The list at least 10 of these basic transmutations. I had read that the problem was that the collisions were very rare, but clearly in 50+ years, people have improved the science of transmutation secretly, but ofcourse, the public cares nothing for science anyway so it probably was not difficult to keep secret. But clearly, here if they are obtaining enough technetium to use, clearly the science has come a long way. So my next advice would be to focus in on these neutron conversion process for Mo to Te since it is public. There are different ways, sending neutrons, protons are two ways, alpha "particles" (helium nuceli), and from there...any ionized atoms...the number of possibilities are many. THe most useful combos are going to be those that turn common atoms like Si, Fe into needed atoms like O2, H2...to be able to convert moon rock to oxygen for human stations and cities.
01-20-2006
1/20/06: yesterday a person took an old bicycle of mine that was not locked in the parking garage where I live in Irvine, and it raises a point in my mind. I was talking earlier about how, when I was younger we stole some materials from new house construction sites, perhaps amounting to under $100, in college I idiotically stole a few computer games. I am not sure what was going through my mind, it was stupid, but you know...they amounted to <$200 which I would gladly pay back if ever all the money for my stolen property is returned and a major reckoning happens by way of the camera thought network. The point that was raised in my mind is this: cameras on the street available to the public is not Orwellian, but cameras on the street available only to the government police, or any elite priviledged group is Orwellian. It really hindges on the issue of does the public get to see or not in my mind. If the public (and police too of course) do get access to those images, then I don't think it is a dangerous system. And I think people should obviously not expect privacy in terms of cameras on public streets, because any number of people can see you, your car, your license plate, any person could be filming you (and I don't think it is illegal to film people, like the Rodney King video...I think that is completely legal) or even just watching you in your car. I think when we talk about traditional privacy, we should mainly focus on filming a person inside their house where most people expect privacy. But there is another important point about privacy and that is that, no person should be jailed or fined for simply owning an image that violates a person's privacy in my opinion (of course once the initial fines and penalties for those in the eye network for copyrights they were paid for and those they violated are voted on and hopefully passed). Just owning an image is no reason to be locked in a jail. The actual physical crime is the breaking in to a person's house in my opinion. Even though, again that is a nonviolent crime, as long as no property is damaged. But still, that is trespassing, breaking and entering, still a relatively low level crime. The battle in my view is really, for those who want privacy to use their freedom of movement to remove cameras, to prevent people from entering their house, etc. and that has opened complex issues of ethics...in particular for those who kill people who broke into their house, which most people agree is acceptible. I think we are reaching an age where people may be able to afford minature and low cost video cameras...and they will start to put them, in their car, on their bikes, in the neighborhood, and that will help tremendously. It would be nice if the public worked together and made a concerted effort to make a public street camera system they and everybody can access, in the interest of stopping violence and theft. It is amazing that some people's need for secrecy, for example for their spouses to not know where they are, fuels the protection of murderers, assaulters and abducters, that is so selfish, but beyond that it's stupid, because, violence might happen to somebody they care about, and then as usual the killers are never caught. Putting public cameras on the streets is the next step to bringing the thought hearing machines to the public for public consumption. This is happening, but not the way I would like to see, and it's worrisome. The cameras are there alright, but the images are not being made available to the public. That is a dangerous trend in my view.
It seems like we have a planet of assaulters and those that fear them, and so we basically rely on the self-policing of the assaulters...their fear of damnation for over-assaulting with lasers, for example, their own internal controls, and clearly that is no where near sufficient. What we need is a planet of people that bravely stand up to, stop, expose and jail assaulters.
I have some interesting comments on the forum, or open ended chat on the wgbh free video series on the origins of the universe, galaxies and stars. The commentator, who appeared to me to be very progressive asked the question about the dream of a unified theory, ... string theory, etc... and the disappointement of there not being any unified theory as of yet, and I thought out my comments on that topic. and here they are:
The popular view is that we will have some theory that will answer every question about the universe we could ever have, but it seems clear to me that there is a fundamental reality that is never addressed, and that is that there is an enormous amount of matter in the universe, an uncountable number of photons, electrons, protons...we can't possibly hope to calculate the movement of all those atoms and so there is a fundamnetal limit on what we can ever know. And this is something many people fail to mention. Maybe I am wrong, and we should keep an open mind, but I think to estiamte the future location of 1 atom for even 1 nanosecond, if dependent on the rest of the atoms in the universe, would take a computer the size of the universe to calculate using either the equation of Newton, or Einstein. What we do is basically generalize all that matter into single points. The Newton equation works very well for estimating the future location of the planets, but we constantly have to re-check and re-adjust those positions and the reason is that we don't include the movement of every atom of water in the oceans of earth, and every particle of sand on Mars which have tiny effects on the location of each planet. So we can basically have good estimates on the movement of large pieces of matter in the universe, but no where near exact, and this will continue I really think forever, to model the universe, you need a computer the size of the universe. Heisenberg described the uncertainly of knowing the exact location of a particle on the small scale, and I want to add the impossibility of knowing the exact future locations of any matter because of the sheer quantity of matter whose influence on a single particle would have to be known. Perhaps there is a physics where we can calculate the movement of a particle without regard to all the other particles, but it seems clear that, for example, photons change direction around stars, there really is an effect of matter on other matter, and so it would seem impossible to do anything other than estimate large scale generalized movement of planets, particles, etc.
That is one important point, but another point that comes to mind is also rarely if even mentioned and that is this: I think science will continue to develop as the centuries continue. As we move our to other stars like Alpha Centauri, Sirius, Procyon, etc...we will, no doubt, learn more about the universe, which will contribute to our science; basically our understanding of the universe and how it works. So, I don't think science will ever be complete...we will always be learning new things...how to build stars for example...how to build very large star ships...things we don't have the size to do now, but may in the future. As time continues, I don't doubt that humans and any advanced life reach a point where contributions to science becomes less and less, because they have uncovered many of the secrets of the universe over millions of years, but still I can imagine there would always be surprises upon finding other galaxies, and advanced life evolved over millions of years on planets of other stars...because there are almost infinite possibilities, and we probably will never have the time to explore all those infinite possibilities, we will always be surprised when we see some of the paths that evolved over millions of galactic years.
This is shocking and I am quoting the AP:
about Mehmet Ali Agca:
"He served 19 years in prison in Italy for shooting the pope on May 13, 1981, and 5 1/2 years of a 10-year sentence in Turkey for the murder of journalist Abdi Ipekci in 1979."
19 years for shooting the pope, but only 10 for murder?! what the...
For me, first degree murder should always be life in jail, ... there is not much thought involved...it's seems clear that murder of this journalist was probably completely first degree, just like the shooting of the pope. People are idiots when it comes to violence and then also when it comes to sexuality.
It's an interesting phenomenon how, to be a CEO or executive you have to wear a neck tie, and for a female cosmetics. There are small businesses, universities, where the CEO or President goes without a neck-tie, but they are clearly in the minority, but it's changing. At the lower levels you will see people who are willing to pay the price, to sacrifice money and great wealth to go without cosmetics or neck-ties, but just not at the highest paying and highest resposibility levels. But I think eventually, we will get to CEOs and university presidents going without neck ties and cosmetics...first it will be some rebels, and they will serve, and the next will have the neck tie and cosmetics, but eventually over 100 years or more...the non neck-ties will have the majority, and then even the blazer will vanish to the past.
Cyril Wecht was indicted under Federal charges, it seems like people involved in the JFK killing want to punish him, and that they had to dig and dig to find some way to do it. The charges are ridiculously petty, and none of them should result in jail time even if true. This is one of fifty or more mainstream problems, it's on the list...where nonviolent petty crimes can result in jail time. For me, jail should only be used for violent crime mainly, and then nonviolent prisons for nonviolent people who repeatedly touch without consent (like the laser people that make you scratch, etc), who repeatedly steal without consent, etc. and then for shorter periods of time. But ofcourse, that is a subtlety that next to the brutally harsh drug war, for example, and even more brutal freedom of Thane Cesar, Frank Sturgis, and a million other murders takes a lower priority. I think in some way, it's evil trying to scare anybody else, like Wecht that wants the truth told about Sturgis, Cesar and other homicides. It reminds me of how Thomas Noguchi was harrassed by the evil liars and conservative criminals who want to protect homicidal humans like Thane Cesar. For me, I am not really scared, because the truth is the most important thing...if we don't speak up we will be sent to prisons, hospitals and our deaths even faster.
What? There is a canadian election on Monday? I only found out from michaelmoore.com. I hope they vote for liberals, we need to uncover what violence the conservatives in power have done in the last 100 years, and to do that we should not elect conservatives until we know all the truth about Franks Sturgis and Thane Cesar, hearing thought, free info, true democracy, the drug war, etc. until we see it all or enough to be satisfied that justice is being done. Here again is another example of why there needs to be a top two runoff, because the conservatives conform to one platform too easily! Looking at the polls on http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10619, how could people change their allegiance so quickly from liberal to conservative? As if the values of those people changed radically overnight, I wish people would focus on some major issues like violence, the drug war, evolution, free info, and work on steady leadership and constant values instead of flip flopping all over the place, for example, I was against the drug war 10 years ago and still am today, the same for stopping violence, legal prostitution, full democracy, jailing Sturgis, Cesar, the murderers...I am only improving the finer points on my values, not radically flopping around.
01-19-2006
I just saw an interesting and informative free video on wgbh on the origin of stars part 1, and the person talked about a star that is not spherical and that was very interesting, I couldn't figure out if that was an actual photo or not and I am going to try and watch that again. It is interesting that a star might be very ellipsoid as this one alpha leonis looked, I doubt it's a double-star that is causing the change in appearance. Anwyay, the person talked about globular clusters and said that there was one study that found no changes in brightness that would be expected from orbiting planets around the stars of globular clusters. It is interesting to me that people never refer to the theory that some ameteurs believe that globular clusters might be made by advanced life and how wrong that theory is...they appear never to even want to mention that theory as being an example of an interesting theory, even if wrong. I find it hard to believe that no planets would be detected around stars of globular clusters, perhaps doppler shift will reveal some star oscillations. Perhaps advanced life has found some reason to hold planets in specific orbits, or somehow, maybe they have done away with planets altogether, that is believable, and they simply have many ships...but still...it would seem to me that even the ships would be orbiting stars. It is really an interesting phenomenon that if the planets were stopped, they would fall into the sun...it is the x and y components of their velocity that delays (and always had...it's the main reason they survived the origin of the star system...because they had good x and y components) they're eventual fall into the sun. One cool video was the model of two stars colliding and merging. The claim was that the globular clusters are very dense, and stars collide and form more massive blue stars. I have doubts, but I know there are blue stars in some globular clusters. I think if advanced life makes globular clusters, and I think that is probably true, then I doubt they would collide stars, and I doubt there would be any steller collisions by accident. It is interesting that, there are other options for advanced life in a galaxy, they could take off to explore the universe in ships, and leave stars behind, but it is a long distance to even the nearest galaxy M31...full of empty space. Perhaps there is enough matter in between, but I have my doubts...it would be a dangerous journey. My guess is that advanced life of the Milky Way, which I think we are examples of how easy that may be to evolve, would stay around the galaxy. It seems clear they would grow out from their initial planet, to planets of neighboring stars. It seems clear that they would understand the simple ways of moving their stars with planets (and ships). It may not be clear that there would be any real advantage to pulling down or up out of the plane of the Milky Way, but in some way, perhaps one advantage is to see the rest of the galaxy, ... the better vantage point, is probably a better, more informed position (similar to the way tribes that lived on the hill could dominate those below). In addition, moving out of the plane puts some distance between you and the next advanced civilization (but at the same time, your prospects for comquering new stars is lowered). Perhaps some of the civilization stars remain in the plane to continue growing, or from simply choosing not to go into a globular cluster, perhaps out of fear of the enormous change that a globular cluster would present. I was thinking that some globular clusters may:
1) be built of only 1 advanced life form
2) be built by 2 or more merged advanced life forms
3) maybe 2 globular clusters are made from the descendents of the same advanced life forms.
One claim is that the globular cluster stars are mostly hydrogen and helium and appear to lack heavier elements, but the spectrum of light, as far as I understand, does not tell us what is inside the stars, although we can see this from exploded stars (presuming all parts emit light). One claim was that the heaviest elements go to the center, and the lightest star outside in a star system. If that is true than the inside of stars should be heavy dense atoms like platinum, uranium, iron, etc. I am not sure that is what is seen in nova remnants. There is a possibility that advanced life made custom made stars to improve the stability and purity of the star (although that would be a massive effort). Here I finally found something: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~bmochejska/PISCES/overview.html "A recent search for planetary transits in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae, conducted with the Hubble Space Telescope, revealed a lack of planets there (Gilliland et al. 2000)." That is fine, but I read that Doppler shift is the best method, and one study is not going to be the final answer, there needs to ofcourse, be many more, and how difficult could measure the Doppler shift wobbles of many globular cluster stars be?
So does our sun show this doppler shift wobble? We should be able to detect it, and what does strictly looking at that doppler shift wobble tell us about the fequency of wobble, and how many planets would be estimated are around this star? Where is that simple experimental data? I have a hard time understanding why this doppler shift could not be observed at the distance of the earth...according to the modern theory distance should have nothing to do with doppler shift. doppler shift indicates velocity only, is the theory as I understand it. So why would the light from our sun, not show this wobble doppler shift even as close as the earth? http://wwww.niburu.nl/index.php?showarticle.php?articleID=6293 has: "since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. "
Somebody was telling me that humans might live in water or some other very thick liquid in a ship that needs to accelerate very quickly. That is really a very interesting idea. Maybe that would allow humans to reach very fast accelerations, being suspended in a thick liquid. It is a simple experiment to see what happens to objects suspending in water under high acceleration. I tried putting a piece of cardboard in a cup of water and moving it rapidly back and forth. The paper definitely showed some movement, but no where near as much as if it was in an empty cup or just in air. So that is a good idea, I think there probably is some truth to that...that humans could fill a ship full of liquid in order to withstand the high acceleration and decelleration parts of the journey to other stars (and maybe even planets). THat would mean that they would constantly need to have air tanks to breathe from, perhaps they could live in a big tank suspended in liquid...or a main central part of the ship would be surrounded by a liquid. I am not sure how much of a buffer from acceleration can be achieved from this method.
Hey, the first Roberts decision is in, and holy shit, no surprise, that bastard voted with Scalia, on the brutal conservative side. In addition, Scalia sez for the minority statement, "intelligent. Design", that is scary because I was asking that the judicial candidates (and presiedntial and congressional candidates for that matter) be asked their belief in evolution or not. But that issue about doctors prescribing suicide drugs, I support, because I am for a free market for all drugs, but in addition, I am for a person's right to end their own life, that we own our own body. To deny somebody the right to die is to reject their natural right of ownership and control over their own body. But, it is interesting that I am against a doctor being able to end the life of a human without the human's consent, I mean, I think that is simply murder (if the person is brain dead, I think that is a different story). I can't understand why the bush conservatives don't favor a doctor's right to end the life of people, that could open the door for them to murder political opponents...currently they only use jail, hospitals, etc...in Iraq they can use torture, guns and murder, but yet they appear to be against that. It was interesting that California had a similar proposition, but somehow they fucked it up because they couldn't separate between a person's right to die and a doctor's right to end the life of a person. Somehow probably conservatives would only agree to fund the signature collecting of the proposition by requiring it to be ruined. It seems clear to me that a person that wants to end their own life should be able to. In fact, I think people in science and engineering should help by devising devices where a person can inject themselves by pushing a button. The doctor can set up the aparatus, and the person can make the final decision...and basically that is what is happening when somebody takes drugs to end their life, ultimately the person ending their own life is making the final decision. I was thinking that people could make one of those choke devices to let people safely experience that (what seems to me idiotic) choking "high" that was bravely talked about at latimes.com a few months ago. I can't believe some cute young female would be hanging herself for a cheap high...I mean...what's about sexual and even nonsexual physical pleasure with a variety of people? That's right, I guess that isn't a legal option, in particular for a human under age 18, or even over 18 for money. The choke device could have an electronic safety, or defribulator...I don't know...but I am sure it could be made safer...the problem with the rope is that people go unconscious and the rope or belt is still tied there stopping air. The entire thing is nasty, and I highly encourange people not to even try such a stupid thing...I tell people to search for physical pleasure...that is what we really want I think we would all admit if we were honest with ourselves. Maybe the so-called "whip-its" or CO2 or NO2 cartridges might pose a safer alternative for those interested in a temporary high. It's clear that Alito would have made this last right to die decision 5 to 4. Ultimately we need to make a public override on supreme court decisions, like a 2/3, 6/10, 51/100 majority vote of those that take the time to vote to override a supreme court decision. That 9 people should determine such important decisions for 300 million is absolutely unfair and undemocratic.
I was thinking of some things that may be future markets:
1) certainly seeing and hearing thought devices. Just like "THe Thought-Reading Machine" 1937 book describes, eventually like the telephone, and cameras, there will be a big market in these devices once they are released for the public.
2) hand held lasers. This will be very interesting, because, perhaps even more dangerous than hand metal bullet guns, no doubt people will own these devices, but like hand guns, probably public carrying of a hand laser will be outlawed except for people in various governments police.
3) drugs. probably like tobacoo and alcohol, all popular drugs will be bought and sold on the open market (despite the majority of people's warning against using most of them).
4) prostitution. No doubt prostitution will be decriminalized and then all together legal, perhaps even very soon. There is a clear trend of sexualizing and the antisexuality passing, because of the passage of legal anal sex laws, legal bisexuality, etc.
5) walking robots (and walking cameras) will be the next big market, bigger than the PC probably.
6) rocket planes, tickets to orbit is an up and coming trend for the future
7) flying cars, portable low noise helicopters in the price range of average people.
8) alternative fuel, could be Hydrogen fuel cell, biofuel, nuclear clean atomic separation
I feel about this current group of Bush family conservatives like that quote from the Texas Governor John Connolly as summarized by Costner in JFK: "They're going to kill us all!" I mean, why would they stop at JFK, RFK, and 20,000 people in Afghan and Iraq? And then, the worst part, that the killers like Frank Sturgis and Thane Cesar get some kind of government pension.
Have you ever seen other people get zapped? That is interesting, because I realize that I am not the only person that is the victim of the criminal laser group in power. I was eating yesterday, and some 80 year old lady said "thespie" and then she got the old windpipe zap and started choking and coughing, and I thought...holy shit...they zapped an 80 year old lady...that is low. What kind of a guy is that...I am sure some 20 or 30 years old white guy with short hair. But that shows you what they people are like, and they do this regularly, they will zap the young, old, every body and any body. It seems to me, in my amateur view to be some kind of lawless religious conservative like-minded ideal of assaulting any person that expresses a view contrary to the majority of those criminal conservatives in power.
jever notice, they never pull out that psycho bable jargon hooha when it comes to those with the lasers, no they are never paranoid, schitzo, psycho, neurotic, experiencing a break-down when they zap people all the sudden out of nowhere, or when they order the zapping of somebody out of nowhere. It is my experience that the zappings will just start up, then the good law abiding people who suffer daily under this idiocy, will I suppose zap back or defend themselves, many simply endure it, but then just like a rain storm, the zapping eventually stops...like what happened...somehow the assaulters and laser molestors where distracted or just lost interest. But ofcourse, when do the psychology people come out and start to 72 hour them, 4 pt them, and experiment with new drugs on them? Somehow I doubt they get that rigamaroll...that's only for the excluded public....the non law "enforcement". It's as if only liberals and the excluded can be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders.
The Nigeria outrage about bi and homosexuality (I mean bisexuality as a concept is not something most antisexual people can reach) is worth talking about, because it brought out to the planet's attention the fact that in the northern islamic part of Nigeria people are killed by stoning (which ofcourse is a brutal and painful method of homicide), in the southern Christian part, they only want to jail people they determine are involved in some kind of homosexual activity. It is amazing that most of that backwards antisexual homophobic view comes from religion, and here is a nation of mostly black people that live under a religion that grew from a religion of Jewish people, and the other half a religion that started with arab people, that they have no sense of history for their own traditions. I have to wonder what the old tribal views of bisexuality (and adultery: having sex with somebody while married to somebody else) were. But it got me thinking about how, homosexuality is viewed as bad by most idiots in the USA, but yet, it's not a big enough deal to be jailed for in the USA and most european nations. In the last century anal sex was made legal, and the process of thugs breaking into people's houses and jailing them for anal (and even oral) sex was stopped in the USA and other nations.
But the point that was raised in my mind, is how clear the spectrum is on these killing people with stone for homosexuality...the sharia/extreme religious islamic people say kill the gay people, the christian extremists only want to jail them, ... you can see that the religious zelots like Bush jr and those who voted for him, Reagan, Nixon, etc... they are just a tiny bit in front of the extrme islamic people by not wanting publically to kill gay people, but simply wanting to publically restrict their rights, to ban their option of marriage, to speak out against their way of life. On the other end of the spectrum are people like me that view homosexuality as the tiniest issue...a fluff nothing issue...who cares who is or is not gay? I am not gay (other than gay defined as happy), I mean I think all people are bi to some degree, but the vast majority lean heavily to the opposite gender, as do I. I like big breasts more than most other males...they want to remove breasts from sight! not me buddy, keep those tits where we can see them, is my belief. It's like black and women voting rights, I don't have to be black or a woman to support their right to vote, to equality, etc. It has nothing to do with me, it doesn't affect my life, let homosexual people do what ever they want to do, as long as it is nonviolent, and consentual. It seems obvious to me...I couldn't care less, violence is what worries me the most, violence and jailing [and hospitalizing] of the nonviolent (in particular for trivial reasons and lengthy sentences). So here people like me are at the opposite end of the spectrum...but it seems clear to me that this current group, the dynasty of LBJ, Dulles, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. is really a lot like those rabid homicidal fanatical islamic people that throw stones and murder people that experienced love with, or touched the genital of the same gender, etc. but like fanatical Islam light is a fair description.
I think that, just like the drug users and sellers that are being murdered in Singapore, the murderers who directly do the murder have to be jailed from Nigeria and other nations that murder people (with ofcourse good physical evidence and a full public trial) for adultery, homosexuality, etc. Anything other than the murder of somebody for first degree murder (and potentially, initially even any violent crime, but it should be voted on), the murderers (many times paid for with government money) should be identified, tried, and jailed for first degree murder (perhaps with a recognition of coercion that may lighten the sentence), at any time such a human is recognized in any democratic nation that democratically has voted for a homicide law. To make it simple, we have to capture, try, and jail those who kill people for nonviolent "crimes"/reasons like homosexuality, adultery, drug possession, prostitution.
01-17-2006
everybody has their calling, their set of instructions. Mine is currently to do ULSF (to tell the story of evolution, science and the future), speak out against violence, free the nonviolent, build robots, reproduce, find pleasure, play guitar, etc. but it's shocking to me, the calling and set of instructions of other people...their instruction book reads "hang out", or "tell lies to the public for 80 years", or "put out powder puff stuff and follow the trends", etc. nobody out there with the instructions to end the drug war, to end 200 years of representative democracy replacing it with true democracy, ie. rule by the public, etc. Just not a lot of decent "callings" out there.
As a basic vote guide. My current vote is:
1) small muscle twitches that are annoying but do not result in pain (classic is eye lid muscle, and vocal muscle changes [if the vocal muscle change results in a funny sound, then perhaps I will make an exception to this jail time vote in my thoughts]):
1 hour per 1 second (or less) event in jail (so repeat offenders will spend more time in jail).
This is also the sentence for:
a) any itches including itches that force gestures.
b) swallow into wind pipe (trachea) [1 day per]
2) any assaults (including by laser, electron beam, etc.) that result in minor pain: 1 week per occurance (going back for all of the piece of shit assaulter's life).
examples:
a) making a person bite own inner cheek (muscle move on jaw muscle) 1 week
b) small burn with laser
c) stubbed toe
d) microwave/xray cancer beam
e) headache beam
f) testicle, rectum pain
3) any assault that results in medium pain 1 month per
a) car accident impact (for this 6 months)
b) resulted in bruise
c) resulted in open wound
4) any assault that results in major pain 1 year per
a) bone fracture, broken bone
b) gun shot or equivalent (no loss of function of any organ)
5) serious assault that results in loss of use of organ 5 years per
6) serious assault that results in loss of life (life in jail)
These remain my current votes for all events.
These votes may not cause those assaulters to be jailed, but at least it will show that democracy and the majority vote is being ignored, and the laws that protect people from violence are currently being ignored.
Late questions for supreme court and candidates:
1) evolutionist or creationist?
2) used weed?
3) drug war for/against?
4) public nudity ok?
5) decrim on the prostitution?
6) for total free info?
7) what is worse, violent crime or molestation?
I wish ebay had a way of searching for the last sales of some item, to see what the average going price is for some object is.
bim: I found an excellent book "The Thought-Reading Machine" written in 1937 (in French) and translated to English, published by the Harper Brothers in 1938. I usually don't like fiction, but this book relates actual facts in a fictional setting. The author, Andre Maurois, died in the 1960s, what a hero he was. I bought a copy of the book for myself and my excluded mom. The author is very smart, he talks about transmutation, because there has been a lot found that is secret there. He hints that people might buy up every copy of the book and destroy it. The Harper Brothers were notorious for being smart, honest, decent people, which most people would think not a big deal, but in this century, it is a very big deal, since decent people (as I define decent) are very very rare. Harper Brothers was eventually bought by Rupert Murdoch the ultra conservative media magnate, so obviously that put an end to there ever being a clear unblocked pipe to the public, but Harper was bought again by Arco and a different person...see wiki for details. But I bought this book for $10 and it is like Fahrenheit 451...I think the book has historical significance. I want to get the Frech version just to see if there is more good info that was lost in the translation. This book is definitely known to those in the included, one person I work with months ago asked "can you sing a note in your mind higher than you can actually sing?", and that question is asked in this book. There are many interesting references in the book, references to them burning all their "psychograms" (which are thought recordings...probably a play on "marconi-grams" which is what the first wireless telegraph messages were called). One of the most amazing sentences is when Maurois says that one thing he learned from hearing many psychograms (thought recordings) was that most people believe that they are meant (or perhaps fated) to a more noble position (or something similar), (I would add...the feeling of self sympathy for being martyrs and for self sacrifice...it's a phenomenon of Christianity), and the second thing he learned was how many potential murderers there are, which I thought was very revealing and I can relate to that too...it's amazing to me how violent many people are...look at the people who they elected...people that care nothing about casual murder, who have protected Thane Cesar, Frank Sturgis, the killer of Bonnie Bakely, Jam Jay, I mean the list is long. Where can you go when the president and those who elect him are cold blooded criminal killers? It's beyond a police problem it's a massive 40% escaped violent criminals, and they own the government, including the courts, the media, the military and police.
bim: there are finer points to the technology, like there is a difference between seeing an image in your head and in your eyes (ie out where you see the universe...like you are looking at a computer screen. imagine if text was projected onto your eyes outside of the computer monitor. like a big word appears with the word "monitor" and an arrow pointing to your monitor...that is actually possible with this technology...in fact, probably a large amount of the interface is out there in front of your eyes...I kind of noticed people looking around with their eyes .. just into empty space...they were probably looking at text on the desktop of their eyes...but I can't explain clearly enough that the text could be in your mind, or out where you see everything.
I am glad to say that I have lived a nonviolent life, for the most part. Can other people say that? I only have a few minor tiny scrapes I have ever given...nothing that would amount to even a cut....a bruise, a break in the skin, certainly not any serious or lasting pain. Mainly one bite which I idiotically gave a person in a drunken sexual encounter, a poke, an elbow, never even a punch. So, for all my bad decisions, using tobacco, alcohol, poking a person, I never did and never could embrace first (or any) degree violence, and am a person who seeks to avoid even violence in self defense if possible.
Some pieces of shit humans are sending "clicking" sounds to my ears, initialy both ears, but most recently just my left ear. I vote for those people to receive 10 times the same clicking noises in their ears, and in addition to 1 day of jail for each click. It's unbelievably distracting and annoying. It's nonviolent, but it is torturous. It is almost impossible to think with these idiotic "click" in my ear, that lo and behold as I type this has magically stopped for the time being. But this is what innocent people get from idiotic idiots like Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the violent lawless, shockingly uneducated criminals with shockingly advanced technology that only the most absolutely evil people have kept secret for nearly a century. Here there is some more clicking now, they embrace torture for others, but can you imagine the whimpers and cries that would eminate out of those like Wolfowitz, Gonazales, Bush jr, Rumsfeld, and the others that support torture if they are the tortured? They would be whimpering like babies for the torture to stop, screaming how it was a violation of their human rights, etc. But that is the type of shockingly criminal idiots the US public has elected to power and supervision and abuse of all the secret technology we, the uninformed public technically own. It's like a 4 year old to support torture, and sending "clicks" to people's ears...only an absolutely couldn't get thru high school math drop out group like our modern police, military, and executive branch would advocate and find the time for such absolute backwards activity. Because, ultimately, the stick they wield always comes tumbling back at them, for each "click" in my ear, ofcourse, they are going to be getting "clicks" in their ears...but since these are people that can sit thru things like sports and church, how could they not endure an endless headful of clicks? They are typical christian-islamic-judeo humans...ready to sacrifice their comfort...their lives on a whim...for the pretend heaven to appease their divine reich wing criminal leaders, that in any law abiding society would be in jail for all their crimes.
I saw a free video by WGBH where Noam Chomsky gave a talk, and hinted that in Iraq they probably will be required to erect a Bush jr. statue where the old Saddam statue was. That was smart, Chomsky had a number of very good points, I encourage people to check out the WGBH web site and see those free videos. There is one with Amy Goodman and her brother, both very smart and knowledgable people.
As I leave this post, the clicking in my left ear periodically clicks on and off...and probably will until November 8, 2008, when hopefully, the people in the USA stumble into a different direction which could only be forward.
new video on web starting to increase. google now is showing free and pay per view videos (but no porn), while yahoo really led the way (of the search engines) allowing people to search for videos (including wonderful porn) (I mean I can't believe that google does not yet offer a video search of the web even to this day). In my view, violence is the upsetting thing to see, not consentual sex and sexual loving, but even so, violence is something people need to get to see in order to figure out who is doing the violence to stop it. It really is a wonderful thing...this increase in web videos...and it's happening before our eyes.
4 or 5 years ago, I asked if oxygen was the only gas that material burns in, and I found out last night that, no there are other gases that can "support combustion", clorine is one of those gases, this was found in the 1800s by an English chemist named "Davy". It must be amazing to see Hydrogen, paper, any object that can be burned. burning only in some other gas like Chlorine (although chlorine is green and it would look different, but still, I think that what is clear is that gases like propane, methane or hydrogen would burn as a flame. It shows that there is nothing special about oxygen combustion, that there are other gases that when added to a spark (or focused photons) can cause a flame-chain-reaction. Flourine is another, but I have yet to find any others. There is some profound truth as to why Nitrogen and Oxygen are gases at room temperature and Carbon and Sulfur are solids at room temperature...I mean, there has to be some atomic structural reason for that. It has to do with how close the atoms are to each other, but why would some atoms get closer and other stay apart? I mean these are simple questions, but I haven't been told the answers, and so probably millions of other people haven't either.
The jury is still out on whether a propane lighter is in fact doing nuclear reactions. I still firmly believe that it is, but a new twist was added by some people that claim the possibility that only the electrons are being converted from mass to "energy" (obviously photons). To me, that is a large amount of heat and light...all photons...I mean that is all coming from the electrons? not one neutron or proton is missing? And clearly there are no lingering protons, or neutrons to my knowledge...missing electrons means ions, and that is not observed. Then I thought of something that really breaks apart a serious part of accepted chemisty (that perhaps others have already secretly uncovered, but are keeping some kind of public lie cover story, although why I would have to think about), and here it is: A simple equation like the burning of propane gas in oxygen:
"C3H8 + 5O2 ? 3CO2 + 4H2O" (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion)
ok there is a problem, because on the left there is a spark (or focused photons), and on the right there is heat and light. So this equation is more like:
1) C3H8 + 5O2 + some initial photons -> 3CO2 + 4H2O + "energy" (light+heat)
I think most people would accept that. But then there is this classic and clear problem:
where is the energy (the light and heat) coming from? We can count 3 Carbons, 8 Hydrogens, 10 Oxygens on the the left and on the right...so clearly all the atoms are accounted for...where does the extra mass converted into energy (to talk in the language of the "mass=energy-ists") come from? To me, the equation has to be more like:
2) 5,000C3H8 + 25,000O2 + some initial photons -> 300CO2 + 400H2O + the rest in photons
or even:
3) C3H8 + 5O2 + some initial photons -> simply photons (no atoms remain)
perhaps:
4) two reactions:
reaction 1) and reaction 3) in equal (or some ratio of) amounts.
I find it hard to believe that 200 years of chemistry would have resulted in such an erronius claim...I mean there had to be CO2 and H2O detected as combustion products of propane...so presuming that to be the case...the ratio is probably wrong, in other words 4) is probably the correct explanation...some of the atoms are separated into photons, and others are combined to form CO2 and H2O.
Here is an interesting fact after some searching:
"A mixture of Chlorine and Hydrogen explodes when exposed to sunlight to give Hydrogen Chloride. In the dark, no reaction occurs, so activation of the reaction by light energy is required.
Cl2 + H2 ==> 2 HCl "
"Chlorine combines directly with most non-metals (except with Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon, C)."
Why not N if it combines with P? I guess N is a gas, and usually N2. Interesting that P is not P2 too. The same is true for H2 but not Li2 or Na2.
More questions:
10) Do you believe the claim that a machine that can hear thought was invented years ago and is secretly being kept from public use? (as described in the 1937 book "THe Thought-Reading Machine)
So far combustion supporting gases:
oxygen, chlorine, flourine
With the election of Michelle Bachelet, the first female to be elected president of Chile (a milestone yet to be reached by the even older USA representative democracy). I am really happy for the people in Chile. This is really amazing, that Bachelet is not only a woman, but a doctor, and not only that, an openly agnostic person. I am really looking forward to seeing the progress that happens in Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, all of South America. I hope that new wisdom enters North America and truth, wisdom and justice can prevail here. It seems clear that there is a new found wisdom being born in South America. It is really amazing. There is a very interesting phenomenon happening in South America, that is not happening in the USA. The people are taking control of their governments, they are electing popular liberal leaders of the people, people that are connected to the public, not connected to the elite wealthy power structure. In some way, they are ignoring the multimillion dollar propaganda paid for by the establishment and thinking independently. I think that the science in South America is behind most of the rest of North America, Europe and Asia, and I think that is from the imposed European Christian indifference and open contempt for science, but this new direction clearly appears to be questioning the traditional way, and may be the beginning of a new path to South America leading the way in science, technology, human rights, democracy, agriculture, tourism, stopping violence, who knows?...
You know, I was thinking, some nation has to be the first to go fully democratic, fully run by the people, without representatives, a nation of people living under the laws that they themselves have voted on. I feel strongly that this will happen. I am not as sure about a planetary government anymore, I don't know about that, but I feel pretty sure that some independent nations will eventually go full democracy. Which country will be the first to make that change? I think it could be France, or maybe the USA...the USA led the first democracy, it would seem natural that they would be first to lead into a full democracy.
It is interesting to me, an interesting phenomenon, that I think people, in voting for Bush family members, are really saying that they are more comfortable with a monarchy, with royalty than with popular leaders that rise up, somebody not connected to vast wealth and traditional royal families. Look at the way members of one family hold so many high positions in US governments, Bush senior US Vice President, US President, Bush jr, Governor of Texas, 2 term US President, Jeb Bush Governor of Florida...it's like Henry the 8th, and he passes the torch down to his son Henry the 9th, etc... I can't understand that feeling of comfort with monarchy. I guess, it is steeped in tradition. People think that it results in the least amount of change. Perhaps people feel that a wealthy ruling family of kings, really (oops somebody just assaulted me, by electronically moving my jaw muscle to bite on my cheek, but that is minor, a week of jail per by my vote, we can not even describe our opinions of this anal shit-hole government without being assaulted with a laser), really, really does have a divine mandate to rule the people...that was the belief only a few centuries ago. I think we need to drop the monarchy-type family based thinking, and go with people based on their promises, their promises of how they are going to make our lives better, of how they are going to work for us, to end violence, to jail the violent, to stop the drug war, the arrests of people for prostitution, to secure free info, and true democracy, to promote evolution, to promote science and history, etc.
It is an interesting thing, that the USA founders decided to go with a representative democracy, and so instead of 300 million people deciding what laws they have to abide by, only 300 people get to decide. And there is an interesting phenomenon that happens when 300 people make decisions instead of 300 million. That phenomenon even has a name, it's called "lobbying". Because, it is easier to bribe 300 people than it is to bribe 300 million people. If this was a true democracy, those people would have to bring their message to the public, to try and win the votes of all 300 million people, to try and to convince them even just to vote.
It is an interesting phenomenon (this is clearly how I start 9 or 10 sentences), how, in my novice view, the liberal intellectuals are always absolute about peace, about stopping violence, about not starting violence, and conservatives are really the opposite way, ready to start a fight, looking to start violence. The liberals are like the brainy kid in a public school, just wants to avoid the bullies, to write a computer program, to have the milk with the straw, the read a book, listen to a tune, etc...the conservatives are like the bullies that for no reason surround and start pushing the brainy kid (perhaps this doesn't happen, I certainly hope not, but I am sure the sentiment is still there...now it's done with secret cameras and lasers). It is really an amazing phenomenon, most liberals want to live in peace, to do their projects, they are not even the brainy kid, they are just the "regular" person...that eats, poops, sleeps, has that weekly orgasm hopefully, exercises, watches tv, whatever... only when they are attacked do they put on the helmet, get into the bunker, load up the laser or whatever...they never would be in that bunker if they were never attacked. But to attack is the mind set of this current group of conservatives, and it is terrible, lawless, reckless. Listening to Chomsky got me thinking that, really what is happening here in the USA, is that the people voted for Bush jr, or he found a way to squeek into power thru the supreme court, and then he promptly, true to form, started building up the military, then invaded and took over two nations. I mean Bush jr, is probably the single most responsible person for the murder of 40,000 humans who never would be murdered (and 10,000 more murderes who never would be murderers) if not for his decisions and those of the majority of the US senate. So, Bush jr is militarizing the USA, and so many other nations are building up their military to defend themselves. It's really a terrible thing that has happened in this bloody 5 years, and no doubt will be a very bloody 8 years. It is the militarization of the earth, the Spartanization, and it didn't have to be that way, it doesn't have to happen...we can continue on policing, stopping violence, like we always have, doing the best we can to identify and stop violence. If radical change was necessary, let's start to preach against religion and for science and agnosticism...you know, that is radical and might have a good effect...let's open up freedom of information, let's drop the drug war and focus on explosives, hijackings, and other violent crime, let's focus, on violence like 9/11 hijackings and mass destruction, where it really counts, where our job really is very important, not on drugs and prostitution where it really isn't.
Another brilliant point by Chomsky made me think how Bush jr holds up the "democracy" banner and then does mass murder. The point Chomsky made was how Bush claims he is the champion of democracy, but the vast majority of people in Spain, Italy, and Poland, for example were against the invasion of Iraq, but their elected leaders followed Bush jr into war. Surprisingly, the people of Spain voted out Asnar, and decency prevailed for the first time this century.
One thing that will be shocking to many people is how, free information, making public seeing and hearing thought (like the way the telephone, xray, television, radio, automobile, airplane was made public, and people didn't trample it or ban it), even simple cameras the public can access on the streets and databases on people...do you honestly think they would have sat by and watched the human in Florida abduct, rape and kill that young girl, like those in the eye net must have? I doubt it. I think somebody would have been anal enough and antisexual enough to watch that guy's every move, they would have made computer programs to track the person from camera to camera, then when the girl was abducted against her will, they would have moved to free her or gotten help, but certainly after the female was being raped, they would have done something, and ofcourse after the female was murdered they would have by then surrounded the person...it wouldn't take them several months to even publically figure out what happened. So, in many ways, the continuing of secrecy, and keeping the public in the dark, opposing free information, is directly resulting in the thousands of murders the public doesn't ever see, but are watched many times while happening, before during and after by those in the eye net, who for some reason...reasons of perhaps national security...one can only guess...choose to do nothing to stop all the violence they see. They know who killed Bonnie Lee Bakely, they know who killed Jam Jay, who killed RFK, they know who killed a million people, but those cold blooded killers are still out there somewhere, and they refuse to arrest them.
01-12-2006
Some reported 50 others 100 dead at Islamic stoning ceremony. I think that is evidence of the callousness and fanaticism of Islam, where Christian fanaticism is still strong, it has weakened over the years...that they could trampled people in religious intoxication. Religion is stupid. I respect Isaac Newton, Edison, Swan Levitt, etc. but I don't belong to a cult formed around them with regular rituals. I think that, ofcourse, nonviolent religious activity and beliefs must be tolerated, as all delusions must be tolerated. I wish the religious, who have the majority, could show that same tolerance to those with nonreligious nonviolent delusions.
I have been thinking more about the two slit and diffraction grating and I have made some progress. I think that if the photons are showing off to the side, that has to mean that they are being reflected...it's the same phenomenon I have claimed for the double slit. With the diffraction grating, I thin kthe reflection is off the very tiny atoms at the top of the groove. But the question still remains...why is the direction of each photon beam different for each frequency? That really is an interesting question, and I don't think that "wave theory" explains it correctly. I have put forward the possibility that an atom hold a photon for a certain amount of time until the next photon in the beam collides with it, at which time, the atom releases the photon, but in a different direction, because the photon has orbited the atom a small amount. Maybe there are other explanations. I think that it is clear that photons in discrete beams are being held together, in other words, there is not a single beam of white light...there is no one frequency which has white light, whit is not a part of the spectrum, and this is simple, but nobody ever says that each beam of light for some vector is one and only one frequency. But there is another interesting phenomenon, and that is if, for example, two beams had only a few degrees of separation, for some detector object moving at an angle in between both beams, the frequency of photons detected would be a combination of the two beams as far as I can see. So I think that there is a possibility that the distance between photons determines the direction of "reflection" (which may be, as a said, a quick absorption and emission). We basically recognize that the large scale shape of a plane, basically reflects light in a predicatable way, when we turn, for example, a mirror, the light reflects in a different direction but always related to the angle of incidence according to Snell's law. But at the atomic level is where the phenomenon is happening, which is unintuitive for bodies as large as humans. We view the mirror and light as like the "pong" game, but the pong game is happening at a much smaller level. So, I wonder if there is some atomic surface that appears to not obey snell's law...for a rough diffuse surface it is clear that light takes many different reflection angles because the surface is rough, or diffuse. One experiment is to cover the sides of the double slit with a diffuse material, then a black material...I think that the slits have to be very specular/reflective for the phenomenon to work. One aside, I think that we should do an experiment to see if a single slit shows any spectrum phenomenon, I think that maybe the rainbow colors of the spectrum are too dim to see perhaps, and I think the second slit enhances this...maybe I am wrong. Because, it's the same principle with the diffraction grating, no doubt one grating produces a spectrum, but many adds to the intensity of the effect, because more of the original light is being separated and sent into the same direction.
scienceme: Here is a very interesting idea that I thought of: Since simple combustion is a nuclear reaction for many atoms (like H2, propane), are there some atoms that only partially separate in combustion and transmute to a different atom? I kind of doubt it, but perhaps when we stop a flame of some larger atom, we may measure a tiny portion of only partially separated atoms...since there is no doubt at all, that hydrogen, for example, and many other materials are being completely separated into photons, neutrons, protons and all. Then this initial idea got me thinking about a second idea, that maybe when we burn a log or a match, only the Hydrogen and Oxygen (but not the Nitrogen or Carbon) are being separated...separated right out of the hydrocarbon molecules. It is an amazing idea...that the photon chain reaction only separated certain atoms that are configured in a way that photons in a flame will separate them. Clearly, for example, iron is different, almost all the metal are different...they don't separate (as far as I know...maybe a tiny portion of the atoms do) by a simple flame...it takes a long time with a flame to get them even red hot. But back to certain selective atoms being burned...it might be very useful for chemistry, and I think perhaps people ahve already know this but haven't really done a good job of informing the public. Simple combustion might be useful for separating atoms, that are mixed with these combustable atoms like Hygrogen, Oxygen (and I can only guess what others). Probably many atoms have various combustion temperatures, I don't know. But it reminds me of one thing I read in the Asimov book on scientists that inspires a lot of these ideas. The experiment done where mercury was "burnt", and when mercury is heated with a flame (again I am a novice at this so maybe the details are wrong), it oxidizes and forms a solid...in other words oxygen bonds with the mercury, but then when the mercury is heated again turns back into a liquid and oxygen is released. here is the info from http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~eps2/wisc/hg.html: "When heated to near its boiling point (346.72 deg C/675 deg F), mercury oxidizes in air, and mercuric oxide is formed. At 500 deg C, mercuric oxide decomposes into mercury and oxygen, a phenomenon that led to the discovery of oxygen by Joseph Priestley and Karl Scheele". I think that to get the oxygen the mercury was heated in a so-called vacuum or in a tube without any air. So here, as in many occurances oxygen is combining with atoms during heating, so it is different than what I am saying, but it is similar. So, I kind of wonder if atoms like carbon can be separated by flame...I think that I find it hard to believe that any atom cannot be separated with enough heat...probably heat is what ultimately separates atoms (in addition to things like neutrons, helium nucleii, etc). I think I am mainly talking about a flame. A flame, for example of butane, from a simple lighter is a chain reaction where millions of atomic nucleii are being completely separated. The chemical formula for Propane is C3H8, and methane is a similar flamable gas CH4, so this clearly shows that both carbon and hydrogen are being completely separated. So the third part of this thinking is: in what order does this chain reaction occur? What are the individual steps in the nuclear separation of propane in a simple hand lighter? Which is the first atom to separate, O2 C or H? I have to think that it is either H or C. I think that perhaps the Hydrogen separates from the photons in a spark, or at the focus of a big concave mirror, and that starts a chain reaction. It is then no wonder that Hydrogen mixed with oxygen is very volatile, because a few photons (like a spark or focus of a concave mirror) can separate a Hydrogen atom (perhaps, I am still guessing here), where Carbon and Oxygen are not that volatile. So then the photons from the separated Hydrogen atom (a proton, and perhaps an electron) separate other Hydrogen atoms...when enough Hydrogen atoms separate, maybe they have the quantity necessary to separate a propane carbon atom...or perhaps the loss of one H in (for simplicity sake) CH4, turns it to CH3 and that is unstable and falls apart, I don't know, but here is something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion has this: "In complete combustion, the reactant will burn in oxygen, producing a limited number of products. When a hydrocarbon burns in oxygen, the reaction will only yield carbon dioxide and water. When elements such as carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron are burned, they will yield the most common oxides." "Complete combustion is generally impossible to achieve unless the reaction occurs where conditions are carefully controlled (e.g. in a lab environment)." But what about combustion of Hydrogen, methane or propane gas? Isn't that a simple complete combustion? What remains after that combustion? I think it is obvious that nothing but photons remain after those combustions. So this human concept of combustion is not complete. Here there actually is more:
"For example, the burning of propane is:
C3H8 + 5O2 ? 3CO2 + 4H2O"
I find it very hard to believe that no matter is lost in the burning of propane. I think that people need to carefully do more experimenting:
ex: does the mass of burnt objects become less after combustion? I am sure that people have done this before, and it is clear that giving away the answer here: we see photons exit the glass experimenter's vessel...unless the same amount of photons are being put back in, it is very likely that those atoms have lost mass. And this is the root of the question of is a photon mass?, and is a photon matter? Because, if a piece of matter, which we all except is matter, like propane, or methane, or wood, loses mass in combustion, there is only one place that mass could be, and that is in the photons of light that are seen (and unseen) leaving the matter. So, I seriously question the above equation. For each molecule of propane we are getting 4 molecules of water? I mean...that is a lot of steam, 4 times the amount of propane. I think the most simple experiment I am calling for is to burn a large log in a chamber on a scale with a finite amount of oxygen in the vessel, enough to burn a significant portion of the wood....because photons are so small and light (yes, the light is light), a large portion of wood needs to be burned. I am not sure how gas is weighed, but perhaps that is more simple. I saw a video...with an old guy from MIT that basically showed a similar experiment in the San Francisco museum of science, they only hinted that light enters and leaves the box, they didn't equate light and mass publically as I am doing here.
Here is something interesting: what is the number of orbits in 1 second at various radii (radiuses) for photons at constant velocity stuck in an atom if they rotate in circles.
For a circle (it could be an ellipse or who knows what but just for the sake of argument I will use a circle) of:
radius orbits in a second
1 pm 4.7e19 (this is the scale of atoms, a huge number of rotations/second)
1 nm 4.7e16 (a very large number of rotations in one second)
1 um 4.7e13 (still a very large number of rotations/sec)
1 mm 4.7e10 (47 billion rotations every second)
circumferance = 2PI*r
velocity of light=3e8m/s (186,282 miles per second...since I grew up with miles I understand this figure more than meters...it is amazingly fast...the USA is only 3 or 4,000 miles long, that is going from NY to LA (The straight line distance between New York and Los Angeles is approximately 2448 miles or 3940 kilometers) and back again 38 times in one second...I mean that is unthinkably fast).
number of times=velocity/circumference
It's difficult to imagine that in each atom, there is a photon zooming (or whizzing if you will) around 4.7e19 times every second. I guess that is 47 billion times every nanosecond, perhaps that is a better way to understand the phenomenon. Think of the force that must hold those photons in each atom...I don't understand what keeps them in such a small space. Maybe the effect of gravity is very strong when photons are very close together. This is a classic question:
Classic question 1: If photons are effected by each other's gravitational influence, at what photon density does a beam of photons turn into an atom (or proton or electron...it is not clear what is the first step)? Clearly, at xray frequency, 10nm to 100pm apart, the photons do not bind together. Even for gamma rays (which I think are an interesting, all be they dangerous, thing to experiment with...can gamma be changed to visible with a filter? Is gamma also detected as visible at lower multiples? why don't our eyes see it then?). People claim that xrays frequency is so small it goes through dense objects, but I claim that there are so many photons in an xray beam that they go thru dense objects.
Classic question 2: There is a second classic question about a possible delay in the transmission of light thru materials....if no detectible delay (and I mean it may be very very small, at the atomic scale)...then maybe the photons are passing through untouched, but if there is a delay, then maybe the photons are from the atoms and not the original beam, although they look identical to the detectors.
So again, it is hard to imagine what might hold a photon in a proton or electron. Clearly photons and electrons are very closely related, and I think that radio reception is actually the photoelectric effect (but I have never heard it described as such). So photons in gamma rays hold together at 124pm distance (124e-12m). I wonder what the highest frequency of light ever recorded is, and why there cannot be higher. I guess the only way to get a gamma beam is from radioactive materials...I don't think we have ever created a gamma beam electronically...that would take a transmitter with a frequency of 2.4Ehtz exahertz 10e18 hertz, I have only ever heard of GigaHertz 10e9 cycles/second being generated, maybe terahertz 10e12, but certainly not even petahertz 10e15 being generated electronically. I wonder if at higher frequencies, photons would stick together gravitationally (or by some other force).
One thing people do not talk about is that the location of the distant galaxies we see may not be their true positions (I mean there is some talk about the dual quasars, etc, but not the other galaxies). How do we know that the light from the galaxy that we see in our tiny direction is not a Raman effected beam? I think that we would need some other measuring tool, like magnitude/intensity ... actually I think even that will not work and we may never know until actually going there...because ...actually by perhaps looking at the light from various locations we might be able to determine which is Raman (or Bragg) effect and which is not....but then we are talking about being relatively close to the object emitting the light. I guess the change in location might not be very large, only for the farthest galaxies would there be room for large error. I don't know this leans toward just brain storming....I need to think about it more.
classic question 3: Do photons collide with each other? What happens when two photons would occupy the same space?
experiment: focusing beams together...does that create protons, electrons, anything in empty space (or even in space with gases, etc)? Is there any interaction at all?
Photons and electrons are clearly closely related. Clearly, since a metal does not retain a positive charge in the photoelectric effect, the electrons are being replaced, or new electrons are being formed by the photons going in the metal.
experiment: Since the photons release from uranium/plutonium fission are only from left-over matter, perhaps there are other atoms that separate (fission or even just simple separation) in a way that leaves even more left-over matter. This might be useful for propulsion of ships to other stars. I have doubts, because uranium is such a large atom, but it seems possible that there could be a similar reaction in other atoms. I don't doubt that there has been a large amount of secret research done in this area (bombarding atoms with neutrons, ala Enrico Fermi). Clearly, the missing mass is from protons, electrons, neutrons...some separated matter in the reduction of plutonium into the two smaller atoms.
This is interesting maybe the 1916 Nobel prize for physics was secretly given to Pupin. It's a minor point, but even so Pupin was given a totaly bad deal to be unknown and unrecognized for what he was first to do. In 1910 Van Der Waals won and in his first paragraph he states: "Yet the
thought that you are entitled to expect that of me leads me to hope that you
will forgive me if I state my views in this field with utter conviction, even
in regard to aspects which are not yet universally known and which have
so far not achieved universal recognition."
In 1911, Willhelm Wien:
"The kind recognition which my work on thermal radiation has received in the views of your ancient and famous Academy of Sciences gives me particular pleasure to speak to you about this subject which is again attracting the attention of all physicists because of the difficulty of the problems involved."
This seems clear: "me particular pleasure" MPP Michael Pupin. Wien being a German citizen, working under Helmholtz, it seems clear that the scientists and leaders in Germany knew what Pupin had done by 1911, which means the leaders of the Nazis were secretly seeing and hearing thought too. It was a case where the nation probably to blame the most was the USA, here Edison's inventions were public, the xray and Hertz's inventions were all made public within days, but not Pupin's? I am guessing that perhaps it was October 1910 that Pupin saw behind the head.
No Lecture was delivered by Mr. N.G. Dalén in 1912. azzhole.
let's see what the person says in 1913.
Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, Nederlander.
Onnes has some interesting words. He starts with:
"Since you have done me the honour of describing to you my investigations
into the properties of substances at low temperatures, which have also led
me, amongst other things, to the preparation of liquid helium, I must first of
all express my deepest thanks to your old and famous Academy for distinguishing
me in this manner."
"properties" and "preparation"...perhaps it's a stretch, but I think it's a play on "Pupin" and that hints that Pupin also was involved in hearing thought.
It seems clear that some of these science people are hinting that women are the most upset with the new technology. Onnes concludes with:
"In the future I see all over the Leyden laboratory measurements being made
in cryostats, to which liquid helium is transported just as the other liquid
gases now are, and in which this gas also, one might say, will be as freely
available as water.
In the meantime there is plenty of work which can already be done, albeit
with difficulty (as when we began to use liquid oxygen), in the neighbourhood
of the liquefying apparatus, and which can contribute towards lifting
the veil which thermal motion at normal temperature spreads over the inner
world of atoms and electrons."
Again, you have to get through the other stuff, but it's his concluding remarks...there is a lot of focus on the first and last remarks. Here he is perhaps hinting that his view is that of probably many science people that seeing and hearing thought should flow like water, and the women should lift the veil already. But I have to believe that behind the log jam are a bunch of brutal violent males, but I can only guess, whoever they are they are a greedy powerhungry stupid immoral group.
It is interesting here, where i work, that when the nazi antiscientists all wear white, [to express the displeasure of having to work with a "black" person like me, many times they wear a white coat like "why do we have to be the psychiatric doctors?!", it's that view of total arrogance that they do not poop, and equally, if they did poop that their poop would not emit any kind of odor. Then some of them all wear black, and then other colors...the color thing is ridiculous and shows how petty the majority of people on earth are. I wouldn't mention it but it is an interesting phenomenon. In someway it is nice for me to know who people are...who are the antiscience, antisexuals, religious, the psychology believers, etc. who never to hire, who to be careful around, who not to talk too much to, etc. I saw a frontline clip where a female got to Welsley College, saw that there were black girls there, became very upset and called home to ask to change schools...I mean that shocked me...think of what those black people must have felt and many still experience. It's a similar expression that I get with the white shirts and coats...can you imagine a person becoming upset simply because a black person was existing? was trying to pay for an education? It's stomach turning to think people think that way. ] Some aspect of this dressing the same, is the idea of conformity. For the most part I am frightened by conformity, where everybody dresses the same, talks the same, believes the same things, but I suppose if everybody conformed to my way of thinking I would be a supporter of conformity in that instance. In terms of dressing the same, I don't think I would ever support that on a planet-wide basis.
I am for full equality and am a strong supporter of women's liberation, but I think that the traditions may be against many females receiving and participating in education and this may have an effect...it is wrong in my opinion, but traditionally the role of females has been not to learn and be educated. For centuries women were not allowed into universities, many of us never learned that or may have forgotten it. We also still live under the tradition of a sexual female being labeled a slut but a sexual male is not a concern...so the view is that females are the goalies...not the males, but yet it takes two to tango, both female and male must consent to sex, kissing, and everything else...so why is kissing, or sex the fault or resposibility only of the female?......it's completely wrong...and this is a common view...the view that the male should pay for the female....it is changing but not fast enough for me. I can see some offsets for the pregnancy term and time to recover, because that really is a physical anatomical difference. In some way, I don't doubt that people argue that the nature of sexuality is of a dominator and a domainated, but I think that sex may be enjoyed without that aspect, in an aspect of open appreciation of physical beauty...I accept that an aspect of physical domination and submission exists; it can't be ignored,...even in same gender relationships. So I think people might argue that this aspect that women are not the dominant (although there are exceptions), but I think that in many realms...of science, of philosphy, government, education, (perhaps not athletics as seems clear), computers, almost every field (and there are definitely exceptions of females being stronger physically than males, but currently that is only an exception on average, but someday the anatomies may even out...it's an emotional topic), females can perform equally with males. Most people that know me know my opinions on equality and variety of gender and race. In terms of science, I see no anatomical reason why a female could not do equally as well as a male. The effect of lack of education and understanding of history is similar to non-white people...they have been cheated for so many years in the USA, it's tough to reverse the traditions, but it is happening, but slowly, unfortunately. It's tough to measure for me, but clearly a plethora of both females and males are rude to me, of every race (but I think perhaps most are white, because perhaps people of other races understand persecution, have experienced persecution, and don't like it even for others) and are equally idiotic in my experience. Probably the less religious, the more educated are the least rude to me. There are empty headed elitists in every form, idiotically following religion and trend no matter how terrible and illogical the trend. It's amazing to me, that I am labeled insane, but they claim that Jesus rose from the dead, god was talking from the toaster, a potato chip was a sign from the virgin Mary, and swear to that, and other unbelievable idiocy. The view of what is sane, is a person who wears a neck-tie, is married only once, does reproduce and only through that marriage, believes Jesus is the savior of all humans, that a god created adam and eve out of clay, much of consentual sex should be illegal (public sex, and sex for money, for example) and similar such delusion and illogical behavior. If that is sanity, then by all means insanity is where truth and justice must lie. But then, that they cannot bring themselves to doubt their "world" view is the height of arrogance. Then, I tolerate their religious delusions, not castigating them by saying "fanatic!" and "Jesus cult! hello godder"...I vote to allow their delusion (this is a point I have made many times), about Jesus, Muhommed, Vishnu, Buddha, horoscopes, luck, magic, etc. as long as it is a nonviolent delusion, and then when it is violent, I don't vote to punish them because of their delusion, I vote to punish them for their acts of violence.
I saw a relatively good video on the JFK killing from 1992 hosted by James Earl Jones "final analysis". There are some good quotes from Oliver Stone and from a friend of Oswalds. They never do finger Sturgis as the gun-man, and they appear to cover up for Nixon, and no mention of Bush is made. but they do finger the basic assassination group of E Howard Hunt and Operation Mongoose...basically the CIA group training to fight Castro. It is interesting that they call Castro "left" and the anticastros "right", but in reality, I don't think that Castro is "left"...he is a monarch, and a general, a person that does not speak out against violence, is not in favor of science, is not for power by the people, in other words full and total constant democracy, Castro took over in a violent military coup, ....Castro is not "left" in my view...Castro's basically a monarch and a military leader. For example, I view "left" as being for full democracy, against representative democracy, etc... or leaning in that direction, and also ofcourse against monarchy more so than the traditional "right". In addition, I view left-wing as the scientists, intellectuals, sexuals...it's clear by the exodus of Nazi Germany... the majority of opposition was liberals, scientists, artists.
The amount of secrecy is terrible, for example, some unnamed, unseen people bombed a house or two in Pakistan. Some witnesses claim it was a US ship and US people, but the news was only front page on a few web sources. Did these ultra militant extremists in the Bush jr administration bomb and murder some people in Pakistan? Was it some rogue US humans that did not have a specific order to bomb and kill innocent people in Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear weapons...they are not like Iraq and some of these other push-over nations that the Christian militant power structure likes to conquer. Can you imagine if Pakistan felt threatened and felt the need to use that fission technology on Europe or the US? Just because these war hungry US, UK and Australian idiots want to play with their military toys? I was thinking more about it, and I think the reason Blair and Howard follow Bush jr, is that it is clear that Bush jr is the evilist leader of all the nations, Bush jr is the most violent, agressive, clearly the leader of the violent...they all follow Bush jr, Bush jr doesn't follow them...they are like 3 star Generals to Bush jr the 4 star General. You know Britain has not invaded a nation in a long time, nor has Australia to my knowledge.
Can you imagine the idiocy that they want to take over Iraq, or Pakistan, and then as a result of their aggressive machoism (I don't know what else to call it bravado or whatever...the feeling by many males that violence is not illegal, but that the most violent is to be respected)...as a result of that idiotic love of violence they cause the death of millions of innocent people, and throw our civilation back to before the stone age as a result of nuclear war.
As an aside, look at the latest from Pat Robertson, he says that demons or the devil caused the stroke in Sharon, I kind of think evil humans did with xrays or a voltage differential only the included know for sure and they aren't telling, but I don't know. But what a stupid hypothesis, and then, Robertson apologized...I hate when people flip flop all over the place with their major values...we all feel regret and make mistakes, but why do the religious appear to flip flop the most...the reason I think they do is because when you are willing to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and similar such stories, you will believe many things, and so they constantly have to adjust when the reality of those things not being true happens. For me, for example, I have been growing more and more against first degree violence with each passing year, more against the drug war than ever, against arresting people for prostitution, each year I learn more ways of reaching people to make it clear that people using drugs and sex for money are only hurting themselves, etc. Each year I learn more about the history of religion, psychology, etc...the picture in my mind is getting larger, not smaller...I am learning more not less as time continues. I was for exposing Fiorini, Thane Cesar, and the Bush Nixon and every other connection in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and now continuing in 2006...that is a pretty clear track record...it never changed in those 6 years...but for example, you can see the popularity rating of Bush jr go up and down all the time...as if somehow he was a different person.
01-11-2006
I am interested in the vehicle that is going to hover over the ground traffic when we are out of space for land vehicles. I think it will be a compact helicopter, but there are probably a number of options. It could have:
1) airbags to sustain a fall of 30 feet or more without any injury to people inside
2) auto landing when nearly out of fuel
3) auto balance for a level ride
4) a propellor in each dimension x,y,z for lift, side to side, and thrust
5) brakes on the propellors for quick entrance and exit.
6) has to be as quiet as a car (if possible)
perhaps minimized to only need to lift 30 feet or more. What ever people do finally build the vehicle, get the vehicle price to the comsumer level, and then get the vehicle allowed over highways, I think will be an amazing group of people. It will probably only be third to the walking robot, and rocket planes.
We could have a US city on the moon by now had JFK not been killed and we had subsequent science leadership in government. Even now, the US, and even the democrat nations united could be dominating ownership of property on the moon, but they are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan, spending billions of dollars on that effort instead of developing walking robots, rocket planes, and US moon cities. There are plenty of good reasons to start building on the moon, one because it is there, ok a little humor, but seriously, because we need to secure life living independently on a different body besides earth in the event of some kind of catastrophe on earth, we need to have a place to continue growing life, and the moon will probably be the most populated body of this star system after the earth for a long time, third, we need to advance there first, to start developing the necessary technology to propel us to the other planets and stars; we know that ships going in between the planets, smart walking robots that can build, and converting matter from one form to another are all important future technologies, and we need to get going in the front of that path, before other nations do. Already, by the time we finally get to vacation on the moon, we may have to speak Chinese, we may have to live under Communism where we visit the moon, because we were asleep at the wheel of technology and science, lost in a Jesus haze of Godism.
UN income tax. I think eventually, the UN may operate on an income tax, I don't know. But I feel strongly that the key requirement of charging an income tax is that the public, or at least those that pay, need to be able to have a vote in what the UN does. And for the UN to have public voting, it would need to have identity recognition, which it could outsource to many companies that do that, but I think it might be better for them to do that themselves...to keep and make public identity records on all people, just like the phone book. It's better to be public, because then there is no question that the data is accurate, and that there is no secret corruption, in addition, secrecy is impossible with the camera network and hearing thought, so why not accept the modern reality and move forward? 6 billion people is not many to indentify or even to track, that is really a tiny number in computer terms...if each human has a byte of info, that is only 6GB. We need to store good current images of all each person, have good info on their main locations, addresses, phone numbers, in addition I would add violent history or lack there of. What ever people want most, what ever people need most to know that a vote from a person is really from that person.
We are now looking not at "taxation without representation", but I think the big problem is "taxation without participation". In other words, we are not allowed to vote directly on laws and government decisions.
One thing that is kind of interesting with the camera network is following the public knowledge: early on was Hertz in the late 1800s finding that he could get a spark from across the room, then Marconi optimized this and radio was born but only for dots and dash code, then AM, a continuous signal was invented in the early 1900s...coming up to the alleged date 1910 for seeing eyes...so it does fit together like a puzzle. With AM music could be sent thru space. But to amplify it the triode (and before that the rectifier) were invented around the same early 1900 time frame. But one thing that is interesting is trying to add up all the cameras and recording devices through the secretive 1900s and beyond to now. There is a limitation in filming people (before digital which is relatively recent). So there must be room after room after room of tapes, probably big reels of tapes with survalience video and audio, but there just is a real limit on storage of images and data. I know from experience in having two cameras that film in my condo all day and night. They only capture changes in the image and yet, I still must backup 4 gigabytes of images (not even sound), twice a month to DVD. And then there is no guarantee that the DVD will be written correctly and the disk will not have errors for 100 years...I have found many disks that have failed or have errors from the past. If you think of a camera in each house, only in one room, that at 1 DVD/month, that is 12DVDs/year * 300 million people for the US alone, that is 3.6 billion DVDs (or the equivalent that can store 14 billion GB of data) and that is just for 1 year of very limited viewing. I have to think, with numbers like that, that the vast majority of eye images, and thought images are not recorded, but simply seen once if at all. We could look at the number of DVDs sold, and number of tapes sold and add up the upper limit of how much data is being stored, and I think we would find that it is relatively small compared to the amount needed to record the every thought of all humans on earth, or even the humans of developed nations.
With the Alito nomination, as I said before, I vote no for all 3 candidates, I can't possibly condone those kind of values. And with Alito, why oh why do I know if he is appointed he will make every decision, just like Scalia or worse, completely and 100% against any and all abortion rights, and similar type backwards 1400's decisions, and then people will forget every lie from his confirmation hearing? He is gunna fill 1 million more drug yuzas and sex workaz in brand new lawless prisons. Here he is saying he supports the right of privacy, and precedent, and that is exactly what "liberals" (again since with this group look at how Hillary and Kerry voted for war...I mean hello where is the other side?) want to hear, but what is the reality? He sees and hears thoughts, caring only for privacy of those in the eye net that already have violated any shred of privacy the outsiders/excluded think they may have, and he will end all abortion precedents...that is obvious. I hope the nation turns around g'dam fast, screw this old bible school crap and let's get going with the good consentual science times, we have to go to the moon and we must learn chinese for when we get there, because this group is lost in a religious haze and cannot function according to the laws of truth and logic. I am looking forward to a "liberal" to clean up this mess that the extreme fanatical christians have left the USA in. We must learn to drop our understanding of the current dishonest secret bloody christian rule and seek to understand truly free, full and enlightened democracy, and probably to understand the customs of chinese communism, because when we get to the moon, that is probably who will own it all and we will have to adapt to their communist ways, all because the majority of the US chose the bloodiest most violent form of "Christianity" instead of science. This is the truth about religion, the religious run the gamut...you get peaceful preachers like Bill Clinton (or perhaps "one-missile Bill")and then you get violent scoundrels like Bush jr...I mean it runs the gamut because if you are willing to believe Jesus rose from the dead and flys around on a carpet, you are willing to believe anything. What we need is a science teacher not a religious preacher.
01-10-2006
Most people may not have recognized that of all the "kinks" the voyeurs have passed everybody to the top...leaving the young people fetish, the homo and bisexual, fat fetish, old people fetish, foot fetish, s&m (although depending on your interpretation of modern religion), far behind. It was the voyeurs of all "kinks" that have clearly prevailed and proliferated.
It's interesting the phenomenon of my liking to say out loud what I think because there are a few points:
1) I don't get to see and hear other people, I am not in the eye net so in my head is only me. THe included all have my thoughts, the thoughts of many people in their head, and their own thoughts are a small portion. In my head I only hear me...I don't have a desktop with many searching options or whatever the included have.
I think the phrase "they are still talking about it" applies to a lot of people...because after 100 years...isn't it time to take it public? I mean, they are still talking about this uncovery to hear thought? after all this time...that is just dense. They are still shocked by it 100 years later. What is more, the included still have to repeat what they think to talk to the excluded, and also to other included in order to keep the "appearance" that they don't communicate through thought.
law: while we are stuck with a representative democracy: have a runoff vote between the two highest vote getters. (This way a person can not win if they are not the overall most popular...for example a less popular person wins, but only because liberals were split between a variety of different candidates. It should be like a playoffs, where the decision ultimately comes down to the two most popular people so, for example, liberals votes are not diluted by a large field of candidates. And it still gives every person an equal opportunity to be the representative, it just removes the back door entrance of less popular people.)
Some of the reasons why my judgement has been so inaccurate in the past have to do with some interesting points:
1) within the included, I am one of the most watched people, I have to rank near the top of the most watched on the planet earth, but for the excluded, I am one of the least watched...they care very little for what I am saying and/or simply know very little about me.
So it throws me (and no doubt many people) off. Here millions of people recognize my talent, but they are all included, and so I don't get any money from that popularity. Where people get money is when the excluded watch you (when your fame is public) because they have to pay, and the excluded have absolutely rejected what I am saying (probably like most athesists). So as a result, people like me, think we are much more popular than we actually are. We think we can get away with a lot more than we actually can. I think it says something for the included...it says perhaps that they recognize smart people and good ideas more than the excluded. No doubt because they have access to all the best minds, where the excluded do not. In addition, they see everything...all the bribes...all the deception so they are not easily fooled by lies, where the public (excluded) is. Opinions like atheism, sexuality, science are probably a lot more common and more understood because of all the info the included get to see...inside houses and heads, even into the houses and heads of history etc.
01-09-2006
I was thinking that the Internet and my web page, email, and telephone is the only way the excluded can communicate, since we don't have access to the massive thought and hidden camera network. But the excluded have not been doing a good job of pulling together. I was thinking that the population distribution is probably:
excluded:
conservative: 30%
liberal: 40%
included:
conservative: 20%
liberal: 10%
Really, the web is the only way I can reach the excluded, the included can casually watch me, my eyes, hear my every thought and words, but the excluded only get the web version...think of the difference between the news available to the public, and the news the included must get...it must be like night and day. For pouring out all this info to the excluded (public) I really have gotten nothing and worse in return. Not one person has contacted me to work together. The cause of the excluded is beyond pathetic, it is like the seeing versus the blind but perhaps worse. But there is no reason the excluded couldn't connect, rise up and exert the power of their majority.
I think one of the worst mistakes I ever made was getting addicted to smoking tobacco. Smoking is like taking the life of a monk because you never get sex or even a kiss. I am glad I finally quit at age 30, but by then, my sexual prime was behind me. I should have been trying to find love with many different females and pursuing science, walking robots, etc.
I was reading a book written around 1900 by Augusto Righi (translated to english), and it is interesting about the idea that is such a basic part of relativity, that 100 year old theory, that an electron gains mass when it is accelerated by an electromagnetic field when it approached the velocity of free photons. I think there are some interesting ideas:
1) Rhigi and most others dismiss the idea that the charge of the electron changes as it moves faster. We can't rule out that the mass is staying the same and that the charge is changing.
but more probable in my mind is:
2) The nature of electromagnetic fields is such that particles are not accelerated with constant acceleration, but accelerated according to a formula where acceleration depends on their current velocity: Ae=Em/Ve (Ae= acceleration of electron, Em=electromagnetic field strength, Ve=velocity of electron)
I think, if anything, electrons (and protons, etc...particles that exhibit the property of charge) are losing mass when they move fast, that they are becoming more and more like a single photon. Since it is shockingly clear and obvious that electrons are made of photons...electrons and posititrons collide and separate into: photons, hydron with an electron burns and no electrons remain, they are emitted as light. So this idea of the complete atom, nucleus and all being separated into light is a basic thorn and fatal (or certainly serious) flaw in the current view of modern science. But people will continue to ignore what I am saying, and it is entirely possible that they already know and are consciously lying to the public about electrons changing orbits being responsible for the photons emitted when we know the entire atom is destroyed emitting those photons. So getting back to the idea that charged particles may lose mass (I am not ruling out that they gain mass...they may gain mass from particles (photons) in the inside of the accelerator. I think there are some interesting experiments that arise from this thinking.
experiment: How many photons are emitted when an electron and positron collide at 9/10 speed of light and how many photons are emitted when an electron and positron collide at 1/10 the speed of light? If there are less photons emitted at the 9/10c collision then that is evidence that the electron and positron are losing mass, if more photons, then that is evidence that they are gaining mass. If the same, then it is evidence of 1) and/or 2) that they are losing charge, or that it is the nature of electromagnetic fields to accelerate less and less, until the accelerated matter reaches the speed of light, and only a single photon (of what was an electron or positron) remains. It is revealing about the nature of electromagnetic fields. It is interesting that, perhaps magnetic fields are not made of particles, (but maybe they are...it is still unsolved in my opinion), but is an effect of the organization of matter on other matter, a way that amplifies the effect of gravity because of some larger scale organization of atoms. It's just interesting to me that there might be a limit on how much an em field can accelerate a charged particle...and when a charged particle loses the "charge" characteristic or property. I mean, can we take away a few photons, and the electron is still showing a charge? Is charge a phenomenon that a few missing photons will not effet? Is it a messy phenomenon that can have a few missing or extra photons? or is it a neat and precise phenomenon where 1000 and exactly 1000 photons are needed or else there is no charge effect on the particle. Part of the flawed idea in thinking that the electron gained matter going to infinity, was the belief that an electron is a solid singular particle, which clearly it is not...electrons are made of photons. I think that the effect of "charge" must be "messy" in other words, it is a phenomenon that can involve a variable number of photons...perhaps the effect is when the photons are rotating, as opposed to some non organized motion, because there are other charged particles with more and less mass than electrons.
In particlizing science, there are the major so-called proofs or evidence of light as a transverse wave (in other words where the particles move in a 90 degree angle to the direction of the beam):
(in fact one intersting thing that righi explains that few do, is that the view is that the particles in a light beam move in every angle around the beam ... like a 3 dimensional lathe effect...the particle move at 90 degrees to the direction of the wave, but the particles supposedly form all around the beam...I had never heard that before to my knowledge).
1) polarization of light
a) explained as a wave by saying that part of the wave is reflected or is not transmitted...only the particles moving at a certain angle are transmitted thru a first "polarizing" material, and then when a second "polarizing" material turned at 90 degrees blocks the waves that remain from the first (I am not doing a good job explaining this...but you have to vision a line with a wave (like a spindle on a stairway...that gets thinner and then thicker like a sine wave. but then only a tiny part of the spindle is transmitted and it looks like a rod with a mohawk hair cut on each side...then going thru the second polarized material, it looks like just a rod...actually..that would remove any translational wave aspect...the entire point is that this theory is wrong anyway).
b) but the never before explained particle view, which apparently no body could come up with publically before now is this: basically polarization is filtering of the direction of light, not any filtering of translational waves connected to a light beam. And here is what I think might be happening:
theory 1) the first polarized material stops any light beams coming from a range of vectors with a z component of 90 degrees (perpendicular). Any light with x not = 0 will be reflected. This means that light from many different angles is transmitted coming from above and below, but not from the sides (all beams with z=0,x=0,y=anything are transmitted, any beams where x is not 0 and z not equal to 0 are reflected...that is a lot of light).
experiment: (and this can be tested experimentally...by measuring the amount of light transmitted at each angle to see if light is being filtered by direction)
So then, when the second filter is turned 90 degrees, that transmits only light in the y plane, in other words light whose direction is x=anything, y=0,z=0. (there is also the theory where in the first firlter z=anything,x=0,y=anything, that is another possibility).
theory 2) It is some combination of the change in direction...perhaps the atoms in the polarized material change the direction of light very slightly (unnoticably...but experiment: perhaps could be measure at the atomic level...to see how much light is changed direction/refracted). The first filter only allows light of a certain angle (determined by the atomic shape of the filter material) say for example light with the vector (0.61,0.61,-0.5), and the second filter turned at 90 degrees changes that certain angle, now the vector of light allowed is rotated 90 degrees in the z: (-0.61,0.61,-0.5), but the only light that was transmitted through the first filter was in the first vector direction, and is therefore reflected by the atoms in the second filter.
Even if both theories are proven wrong, I am not giving up on the particle theory of light...there is a particle explanation. I think the phenomenon has to do with the atomic shape of the polarizer material. And this is shown again in the particle explanation for "double-refraction"
2) double refraction (iceland spar): light through a crystal makes two images of some object when it is looked through. When the crystal is turned, one object rotates the other object.
a) the wave theory says that different parts of the wave reflect at different angles. (as far as I know...it's very difficult to picture what a wave might look like, and again, in the time of Thomas Young who championed the wave theory of light...the absolutely believed that ether was the medium in which light and everything moved...just to show that the basis of the idea has since been proven false.)
b) but consider the particle picture. I think this is done at the atomic or crystal level. picture a crystal with a flat part and then a diagonal part, and this shape is repeated for the entire rock. So light beams that reach the flat part are transmitted through straight, but just a few nanometers away, light beams are reaching a diagonal surface and that are refracted (or maybe reflected...there are a number of possibilities)...in any event light that gets the diagonal surface has it's direction changed to 45 degrees or something. So two images are produced, the image from light that got the striaght part of the crystal (or atom), and the second image that got the diagonal surface of the crystal (or again atom). One image is the image we see when we look through glass, and the second image is an image refracted (or reflected) at 45 degrees (or some angle). The key proof of this is if the two images add up to produce the total light input to the crystal originally (perhaps that doesn't prove the particle light theory, but it is useful). In addition, these measurements could tell us, how much of the light is going thru and how much is being refracted...in other words, how much of the crystal is parallel, and how much is angeled? If more light was refracted, it means that the diagonal surface is larger than the flat surface. Then, so when a person turns the crystal rock, the atomic diagonal surface is moving in a circle, which moves the second image in a circle around the straight image. The diagonal surface refracts (or reflects) light in a distinct direction and that direction changes depending on the orientation of the crystal, but the flat surface transmits light in the same direction, no matter what the orientation of the crystal.
Much of this must have already been figured out but secrectly. For example, it is very similar to what the Braggs and Raman were doing...clearly light interacts with atoms in crystals, and those reflections help determine the shape of the atoms...this is how the shape of proteins like DNA were figured out. It's similar to the simplicity of burning Hydrogen gas being a nuclear reaction...it's so simple...how could mainstream people in science missed it? Didn't somebody say to Bohr...you know...the electron orbit idea is fine, but what about the photons that originate from the protons and neutrons that are destroyed...what do they contribute to the spectral lines? How could they miss such a simple thing?
Also the question remains...did Righi successfully focus infrared light to a focus thru a lens? Has anybody done that? If they have, then they should have realized that that is one of the best pieces of evidence against the idea of light as a translational wave. I reject the longitudinal wave too, light is simple a "point" wave made of particles with no translational (x or y) or longitudinal (z) oscillation. I think since, anybody can focus visible light through a lens to burn paper, for example... it is clear that the amplitude of the light wave must be changing (if there was an amplitude, which I am claiming there is not)...and if the amplitude is changing, doesn't the frequency have to be changing too? It is hard to imagine a wave of light who amplitude is directly related to it's frequency, changing amplitude but not frequency.
3) diffraction grating, double-slit experiment
a) wave theories have light construction and destruction, light area and dark areas are because waves cancel or add.
b) particle theories have:
1) light reflecting off of sides of slits
2) particles of light do do add together where the frequency of individual beams intersect. The result is light beams of more intensity.
It is interesting to me that a beam of photons 1 nm apart will refract in one direction, and a beam of identical photons that are 10nm apart will refract in a different direction. I think it has to do with the properties of the atoms (perhaps even just the shape the atoms are arranged in). For example, an atom will absorb the first photon, and rotate that photon (the photon falls into orbit around the atom, or is attached to the spinning atom), but then the next photon reaches that same atom and the atom is forced to release a photon to accept the new photon, and so it let's the first photon go, but by now, the first photon has rotated and is going in a different direction. Something like that, where the space between the photons determines the direction of the photons.
I am still brainstorming on 3) because I have not duplicated the double-slit...I need to construct or buy one and I plan on doing that. It is hard for me to believe that light does not go straight thru the slit and project onto the distant surface. There has to be a light particle explanation for everything in the universe as far as I can see. It is a disgrace, disaster, shame, etc that we don't know more about all the advances and technology in science, this is truly idiocy on the part of the public. You can see this effect from the groves on a CD. A CD is a kind of diffraction grating. Why most of us have never seen a diffraction grating demonstrated, and all those interesting experiments duplicated, is bad news.
This explains it well, where would we be without wikipedia?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating
In fact, what is happening to light in a diffraction grating is probably similar to what is happening to light that goes thru a double-refraction crystal (lke iceland spar). some light goes straight thru and some is refracted creating 2 images (of half or some fraction intensity).
01-06-2006
When everybody gets to see eyes and hear thought, there will probably be little effort to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying, but still if there are questions, who will the public believe, the camera network people who never told them about hearing and seeing thought, or those like me that told them the truth?
I have to hand it to those people that have the same popularity numbers that I have (perhaps even being more watched than me), but still have to do their own shopping like I do, now those are some amazing people.
People like a large force of evil, it's like the popularity of good stories like Star Wars, where the evil force is large and powerful. Here on earth at this time, there really is an evil empire, there really are forces of evil operating. The sides seems clear to me, but others probably would differ. It's the people who are for science, sexuality, truth, freedom of info, law, order, no religion, not racists, democracy versus those that are opposed to science, are very religious, antisexual, racists, elitists, for secrecy, for the selective use of law. I guess at some level there is a battle between nonconformity versus conformity, those that want people to be free thinking, open minded and independent versus those that want everybody to think and dress the same, etc. But I am amazed at how large the forces of evil are, and I think that much of it comes from the power of the secret camera network. That is what gives those people that feeling that their fecies doesn't smell, that they are somehow much better than the excluded. It's the feeling of those that believe others are insane, but they are sane, and the problem with that when they are claiming that a requirement of sanity is to join the cult of a dead 2000 year old preacher who rose from the dead, and to fear a place people have come to call "hell", etc. But that feeling of sparkly white sanity, is very prevalent, it's still very popular. That was a key point of nazism, that the art of Jewish people was insane, that many people were insane, and that this insanity was a real problem, and that it had to be dealt with. If you look now, there is a very similar relation, many people deemed insane can be jailed in a hospital without a trial, indefinitely without a sentence, and it does happen, but not as often as it did in Nazi Germany. And again, these are people that are nonviolent...it could easily be you if you are nonviolent. Once the beaurocracy and society has established the rumor, or some shred of evidence about your insanity, you can be jailed indefinitely and worse, you can be drugged, restrained, tortured (by those two methods). It sounds like a fantasy land, but it is the truth.
I think the sick secret society that has formed over the last hundred years with the secret cameras and microphones, etc...the eye network people are going to be in for a surprise when the public gets to see. I think they are living in an elfen fantasy land, because the public is not going to protect people like Thane Cesar, and let the killer of Bonnie Bakely, Jam Jay, Nicole Simpson, etc just walk free, and then the millions of other laser assaulters...I think a very different society is going to penetrate the eye net, one of law and order, of democracy, of truth, etc. Their lawless wild west fascist jessie james ways are going to come to a quick stop.
I was thinking that much of the equipment that makes up the secret camera network may be owned by the public, the taxpayers. We may own, perhaps the vast majority of the equipment, the cameras, microphones, eye images, lasers, etc that are now functioning secretly. And I think it's not too far of a stretch to imagine a time when the taxpayers, the public, take control of that equipment, and open it up for use by the rest of the public, and not byb the elite in the government that are keeping it all to themselves. In fact, it's part of a large job that needs to be done. To open up the non-weapon technology to the public. To open up the 911 calls, to list what the people in police are doing at all times, so the public knows what is going on in their neighborhoods. It's past time, for us to know what all our money is being spent on. It's our money, we own all that equipment, we are the supervisors, we pay their salaries. The idea that they should be our supervisors is a remnant of monarchy when the government ruled over people, and people had no power. Now things are different, they are employed for us, we pay their salaries and we ultimately should be decided what they are going to do and buy with our money.
Many people learn at a young age that sexuality is a bad thing. They learn to say what most people publically claim "I am not sexual.". Most people publically put out that claim that they are not sexual, that they are not aroused, but rather that they are offended by images of nude humans. But there is a problem in that claim, which is so fervently claimed, and that is the evidence of millions of years of sexual reproduction, and the evidence of the true function, purpose and effect of having genitals. The biological evidence indicates that those people are really lying! The evidence points to them being actually sexual.
I keep thinking that eventually we will have a sexual population of humans, because sexuality is a requirement of reproduction, so antisexual people would not reproduce and pass on their DNA, but surprisingly, the antisexual have worked out a higly rigid scheme of reproduction that allows a tiny crack of light for large numbers of antisexuals to reproduce, by submitting to a process they call "marriage" and then participating in secret sex.
Antisexuality is really an interesting phenomenon. How children learn to be antisexual. I would like to see the gallup or ipsos, some people ask people if they are sexual, in other words if they occassionally experience sexuality. Are there truly asexual humans alive? It would be surprising because the public claim by the majority is that humans are not sexual...that is why they cover breasts, and outlaw pornography...they don't like sexuality. The really interesting phenomenon to me is "when do children turn against sex?". When do young humans understand fully that sex is a bad thing? For me, and I think for many, young humans first learn about "gays" and "lezzies", it appears to be the most interesting aspect of sexuality for young humans new to sexuality. I think "kissing" has to be in there eventually, it should, but I kind of doubt that this group is that advanced to recognize that kissing, touching and hugging are good things even for young people. But they have to encounter at some point the overwhelming negative societal view of sex. For many people, the popularity of violence is an early introduction to modern society, and the lawless adults who have not taken any time or put any thought into stopping violence, and punishing the violent. But aside from that, I don't doubt that many young humans pursue some kind of sexuality and quickly learn that they are not to touch buttocks, etc. They learn that the planet is not lovey dovey, the lovey dovey maybe their homes are. They learn that, the "grown-ups" are quite cold, that to be an adult, "growing up" is to be cold, distant and unfeeling. But a real interesting phenomenon I see is the rabid antisexuality of teens and 20 year olds...I think the reason for this, the violent embarassment...is because they have been denied sexuality for a long enough time, for the sexual frustration to become a serious problem, or certainly they have been denied love and affection (from people other than their parents, siblings and or pets), and that denied love has turned them against sexuality...they have for the most part...given up...given up the possibility of them being sexually and physically fullfilled. Or maybe, it seems, like to me, that the natural sexuality which is supressed by religion tradition, morphs or becomes scewed...into sexual jelousy...the feeling that other people are getting sex, and you are being excluded and left out (which really is probably not very true, because everybody is in the same antisexual boat). The amazing thing to me, is, just as an aside, I wish I had never picked up smoking, and had better guidance to try and kiss many females, and to speak out against the antisexuality of society, something, anything, other than what I did which was mostly shrink and die. Now almost 37, I feel like, I can still have sex, but my sexual prime was 12 to 30, (for a female that sexual prime may be from age 16 to 50...so a wider range, but a later start), I wish I had lived it up...hired women to pose nude...to film them...asked to touch their boobs...it would have been money better spent than on weed, tobacco and alcohol...all those things I think in some way are to compensate for not getting sex and physical love. But, it is interesting that many people, young people turn against sex, and ride the "pervert", "pedo-molesto", "slut" massive bandwagon with others...or the "I'm not sexual" liars. Maybe some males desire less sexually experienced females more, but I honestly think that not many males would not want to love a beautiful female who had sex even every day or only once a week...after all, there is no way a female will ever have sex with more than a few hundred different males in her lifetime...even if a female tried, I doubt they would reach 10,000 different males, and the same is true for males...most probably will not have sex with more than 10 different women, some women and men will only ever have sex with 1 other person...that to me seems very unadventurous. I think pregnancy is the only major issue that separates sex (and there are many forms of sex), from something like eating or deficating...in other words as something that is routine, natural...not a big deal. And now, with plan b and other morning before and morning after pills, having pregnancy-free sex is only 1 liberal law maker away. In addition, through the eye network and massive databases, I think it would not be too difficult to know what sex might result in pregnancy. But ofcourse, planned pregnancy is a wonderful thing, and there is no reason that two people cannot raise and care for a human and still reproduce with other people...it's all a matter of money.
Pupin tiny protons: You know as an interesting more info about Pupin: Pupin says that protons are smaller than electrons, they are 1000x more massive, but because of the way mass is related to charge, they must be 1000x smaller than electrons, which I found an interesting theory ... to see the way a person in science viewed things in the early 1900s. I have never heard a person say what size a proton is...and Pupin called them positive electrons...they didn't even call them protons yet. And, Pupin says there are electrons in the nucleus...which I found very interesting. I think we will find that, this claim is actually true, believe it or not, and maybe Pupin was hinting that there was an entire school of thought that had already reached this conclusion and many others, and the public line was all a lie, but I don't know...maybe it was just an early guess. Because, the reason I know electrons are in the nucleus is because a neutron decays into an electron and proton (and potentially an antinutrino or photons...in any event there is other matter in there which could be a nutrino or could just be photons). So a neutron is basically a proton and an electron, a very simple idea. So it was interesting that Pupin was saying something that goes against modern theory, but nonetheless appears to be true.
Spectra still occupying my thoughts. This idea that when we simply click on a butane lighter that we are "destroying" (separating) neutrons and protons in addition to electrons (if all those things really do exist) into photons puzzles me. I can add that I read more about Bunsen and Kirchkoff, and that they did infact take the spectral lines from "anhilated" (separated, but saying "anhilated" is more funny and seems to make the point better) sodium. What is rarely said is that Buns and Kirch lit various thing over the Bunsen burner....and also used various metals to between high voltages as electrodes and in both cases they ran the light thru prisms and/or slits and looked at the solored lines in the visible portion of the spectrum. So, ... it puzzles me that such a simple thing as...hey you are completely destroying the sodium here...doesn't that include the neutrons and protons? not just the electrons as Bohr and many others claimed were resposible for the (photons) lines in the spectrum. So there is an:
experiment: make sure there are no protons or neutrons that remain from burning, for example sodium. This is obvious, I seriously doubt that any protons or neutrons remain.
So we are left with the fact that sodium, for example, is disintegrating/emitting photons from not only it's destroyed/separated electrons but also its protons and neutrons are destroyed into photons...so those spectral lines have to describe the composition of the entire atom of sodium, not just the electrons...I mean this is simple. So what do the spectral lines mean? Do they describe not only electron orbits, but also neutron and proton orbits? I don't know...and I am just starting on this path of thought, but I think, maybe those lines represent how the atom falls apart...maybe the distance between individual atoms. Somehow there is a very orderly way in which photons exit as atoms are being destroyed. I am keeping an open mind, because I really haven't seen much of those experiments, but my feeling is that they should be shown to all and really explained in terms of experiment and less in terms of existing theory.
This got me thinking about the claim that atoms absorb the same frequency of photon beams that they emit...and I took that as an absolute truth, but...now I kind of question. I read that Bunsen and Kirchkoff let light from the sun pass through light from burning (against completely separated/destroyed) sodium and to their surprise found that the black sodium line was not there...now I have my doubts...I mean the sodium light was burning...but the sodium lines were not there...and all because the sun light was behind the sodium light? I have my doubts. Maybe the description is inaccurate and they did something else. There was the "infrared catastrophy" and "black body" idea where a black body would in theory emit every frequency, but Plank and others found that in fact, a black body emits mostly infrared frequencies. So I thought about that, and ... so what about that theory that atoms absorb the same frequency of photons that they emit? If they absorb a high frequency, clearly they don't emit that high frequency...they emit in the infrared...according to Plank's findings. So, that is never said...that not all frequencies of light are emitted from atoms which may absorb those frequencies. To me, this really says that a light needs to be shown on the claim that atoms absorb only the frequencies of light they emit, and that it needs to be shown to the public experimentally and for many atoms. But also the issue of why atoms may absorb high frequencies of light, but not emit them needs to be explained...clearly this is a violation of the idea that all atoms absorb and emit light in only certain frequencies.
Also in my mind, is the idea of what a prism, and diffration grating actually are doing, because clearly photons in a gamma beam does not bend into the other frequencies. In a gamma beam, you could pick out photons to form many other frequencies...any color, etc...but all those photons enter a prism, and follow a less bent path than a beam directly next to them with, for example, a blue beam of light. I think that this has to do with the pull of the photons on each other...or something because why would one photon continue on straight, and a photon right next to it bend? They both are going thru the same atoms in the prism, or reflecting off the diffraction grating. The diffraction grating still needs to be explained correctly according to the photon explanation...I put forward that the photons reflect off of the side of the slits, and this is so far the only photon explanation I have seen. It really is an interesting phenomenon. It could possibly be the interaction of photons after they have reflected (changed directions) and they may be interacting with each other and maybe that is a useful thing to find. The current "wave" explanation, I think, has to be false, and the debate goes back to old Biot and Thomas Young in the 1800s.
There is some evidence that we as a planet are slipping back into a darker and darker age as time continues. I don't know if this is true, but I think there is evidence. Because, no progress has been publically made since Einstein, and I think Einstein today would not be welcomed or published. But, in the 1940s they had WW2, so we must be better off than then. We must be better people that those that brought in Hitler and the Nazis. We must be more educated than then. But still, all the secret technology, thing appear to be going backwards, the rise and rebirth of religions...it seems like evil is winning at every turn. But, I think there is an escape hatch, I think there is a possible escape for us, and that is through the Internet, and free information...if the truth reaches the public, there is a good chance that they will see where they are going wrong and put us back on the course of truth, honestly, and science. I think it may happen, and I hope it happens soon, in my life time, but there is nothing but work and cleaning up to do...all the killers, all the assaulters, to expose all the liars and lies, freeing the drug users, prostitutes, the wrongly convicted...just nothing but work work work, and this group is not even starting.
experiment: do gamma beams of light actually get detected on the extreme of the spectrum? Perhaps somebody did this, but they never made a video the public has access to.
Re-solving many past science, but only publically for everybody. Some people are using the word "resolve" in the "press" (now the "compute" or whatever) and I think this means that I and perhaps others are "re-solving" much of the science that went before, but has been kept secret from the public for no good reason, and only dirty low-down reasons, by evil cubed or whatever their name is. The public could get to the bottom of all this if they simply voted for decent people...ayyiyi. People that are going to hand over the government to the public in spades, electronically, or at least that move in that direction...people should want to help themselves...why elect people that are going to restrict our rights, spend our money and only hurt us?
01-05-2006
what we need are (not in order of importance):
1) movies of microscopic objects in real-time. I think that means exploring smaller photon detectors, maybe lens arrays to track a larger surface.
2) rocket planes into orbit
3) walking robots
4) history of evolution video
5) history of science video
6) cameras on the streets available to public
7) full democracy, voting on the laws and court decisions
8) full freedom of information, or at least no body fined or jailed for any image owned. At a minimum a lowering of copyright years, and privacy penalties.
9) a real kick-ass planetary stop violence movement, and public violent database
10) to legalize up prostitution and drugs, freeing those people from jails, etc.
11) to legalize up the psychiatric hospitals, making voluntary only, moving into prisons, allowing trials, sentences, etc.
12) history of future video
01-04-2006
Living forever by changing our genome to grow to age 20 and then stay that way forever (providing there is food, etc). This is a fascinating topic to me. It seems that a good place to start experimenting is trying to get protists to live forever like prokaryotes. In addition, the physics and reality of "living forever" is fascinating to me. Because, death by aging is removed, which no human has ever escaped from, but still death by physical destruction, by gun, knife, explosives, burned in half by a simple cutting laser etc. all those possibilities still exist. But in any event, isn't it exciting to think about the possibility of a human being 1000 years old but being physically identical to the way they were when they were 20?
Ofcourse, people would abandon marriage, I think, with all that time (I think they will eventually any way, marriage is no requirement for a happy responsible reproducing people), only a fool would be monogomous with only one friend, but more importantly, there is a physics that is very similar to the physics of bacteria, where there is only so much food, water, etc...since the rate of death of humans would be drastically lowered, new born humans would either have to be carefully regulated, or it would be (I suppose brutally) determined simply by who has access to the food, water, air, etc. We are in the process, like bacteria of converted matter into more humans.
I think it is important and fun to understand how DNA and genomes function. One idea I threw out there is that DNA is like a program, and a protein (basically DNA polymerase) follows the long DNA chain (at various starting points, depending on the cell being grown) until the end of the chain and then simply stops...there is no more code and no more cells are made...the existing cells fall apart, and major organs like the heart, etc. fail eventually because they are not being replaced, but in addition, I think part of aging may be programmed in our DNA, how our later cells might not be as good. I don't know, but for example, hair turns gray because a protein is no longer made by our cells. Why isn't that protein made? Are the most recent copies of cells missing that code? Are cell being produced after a while that have that code deactivated? Did mutations in the original cells ruin the DNA so that the protein cannot be made correctly? This last idea is a major theory, that aging is nothing more than genetic mutation catching up with us...eventually our cells our so mutated, so different from the original DNA, and unlike some bacteria (for example radiodurans), the DNA is not repaired, so that eventually we are missing so many critical proteins that our body, all the complex systems cannot function anymore.
But back to the idea that DNA is a program and a protein follows the program until the end. Maybe this idea is not true, I wouldn't doubt it...it's a very simple idea and DNA and molecular proteins are very complex with many minute details.
Ex: But, I think one good experiment is to try and make protists, the most simple eukaryotes have the same DNA, but not in chromosome form, but in a circular ring of DNA like a prokaryote. I seriously doubt these experiments would work, maybe there is something very important about chromosomes. Maybe chromosomes were an important evolutionary requirement, but maybe they were just a random change that was of no importance.
Probably the first steps in this type of thing are being done, unfortunately secretly. Like transmutation of atoms, which I can only imagine has progressed with many stunning finds, none of which are public. The first steps are simply to understand the genome and much of this is being done publically. What is each protein for? What does each prokaryote need to live, exactly? What DNA is required, which DNA is not required? etc. All these questions, but I think there is a simple idea, like a protein that simply reaches the end of the chain...some simple idea, perhaps that the polymerase falls off and connects again at the beginning thanks to some protein, who knows...the one question that amazes me is: How does a cell in my arm, which has the full 46 chromosomes, know only to work with a tiny portion needed that describe the architecture of the skin cell, for example? How does it know only to function in that one tiny segment of DNA? Each one of our cells is like a tiny amoeba, or bacteria...a single cell, on a mission, taking things in and putting things out.
01-03-2006
James Haught is awesome. You know, he is an unsung hero is the USA. Now he is in his 60s or 70s, I mean, we won't even know when the man dies, nobody is going to tell us.
"Holy Horrors" is one of my favorite books, although I have abandoned the word "horror" as a negative connotation because of the stigma that "whore" is some how bad, but I think this is a perfect example of where the word "horror" really is exemplified by terrible actions, maybe there is no better word. You know in pornography, many an add uses "whore" and every other misconception about sex to try and sexually arouse people, so in some way stereotypes about too much sex with too many people being bad may actually serve to stimulate sexuality.
It's interesting that Penthouse was brave enough to publish Haught's writing, I think it shows what may not be said explicitly, that many liberals and intellectuals seem to gravitate around the same principles of science, evolution, sexuality, atheism, pleasure, anti-violence, pro-fairness, pro-democracy, pro-justice, etc. while the opposite side focuses on the opposite values.
I completed record "Journey to Centauri" and am glad to have it done and recorded. I think it came out ok, only time will tell what my final opinions are, usually it takes a month or two for me to really finalize my opinions of a song's placement compared to the rest of my work. I think I am going to go back and change one line in one of the versions tonight. It's a rough draft and I think the harmonies on the chorus sound good, and the verse sounds good. It's nice the way the synth and vocals mix together, I think that is what makes ELO sound so nice.
01-02-2006
I think people will say about this century what is clear to me, that liberals are far more punished than conservatives. A classic example is how JFK and RFK were killed, but people did nothing to investigate Frank Sturgis, Nixon, Thane Cesar, the CIA, E Howard Hunt, ... similarly, look at the way Bill Clinton lied about getting oral sex, to me, it's not a big deal, these people today live a lie, they lie about hearing thought and seeing eyes, lying is a nuisance, but it's hardly a serious crime. But then, look at the Bush family, here the guy starts a war based on a lie, lied about the reason to invade Iraq, and that is not a decision that resulted in oral sex, but a decision that resulted in the muder of 2,000 US citizens and more than 10,000 Iraqi citizens, those people aren't coming back, they are completely dead. But Bush jr, does not get so much as a warning, not impeached, not even criticized. Then what about trashing our economy and charging up our credit card to an all time high? Is there so much as a warning? no. The US appears to be dominated by conservatives on both sides, or somehow the liberals just live in fear and catatonic inactivity. I think we can blame the popularity of religion and the backwards views of religion. Basically conservatives can kill, beat, cheat, lie, break laws left and right...then rubber stamp "god" on every thing...they have no need for laws, they can simply explain "god" when ever, as usual, they violate law after law after law, in particular the violent laws. That is one danger of religion, religion is a threat to our secular laws, and always has been. What good was the homicide law for Jesus? for Giordano Bruno? for the millions killed because of religious ferver? It seems clear that laws (in particular the laws against violence) are on the opposite end of the spectrum from most religions and religious supporters. The religious view has consentual sex as being much more evil than homicide, and even mass homicide. It's shocking, but true. People are more outraged by Bill Clinton having extramarrital oral sex, than Bush jr, ordering the homicide of thousands of innocent people. Is it a fact? yes, ofcourse. Is it going to change? Not anytime soon.
It is similar to what happened to me...the people I work with insult me and put me down with jeer after jeer...calling me ped, psycho, going "kookoo! kookoo!", etc...all day, and they don't get so much as a warning, but the second I say "hey I don't like being called freak", I am hauled up for violating the code of conduct (which must be some kind of orwellian nazi document to be enforced in this way) and fined $500. They all see and hear those insults and put-downs to me all day, but they didn't do a thing about it...it's just like this good-old boys network..they sit there and watch this shit all day. It's exactly as I described it before, like a black person in south africa or in the south east of the USA...they are held to a bizarre standard of behaviour while the whites get away with murder without so much as even a societal warning. I hope the tables are turned some day, but I think with a few exceptions history has shown us that the persecutors rarely become the persecuted...take for example the south east of the USA, did those black people say..."ok, now the slave owners must serve as our slaves for the period of their slave ownership.", no, they take the much more passive view of "it's ok, we forgive...and let's move forward with all of us having equal rights...". I kind of feel like those that see eyes ought to be put in our places, and certainly they should be sent to the bottom of the economic ladder where we are, but I can see potentially making exceptions for those that clearly were for the excluded getting to see, like those slave owners that were against slavory.
It is amazing to me that people are willing to throw a person like me away, and it happens to millions of similar people. They can throw away all my contributions to science and wisdom on the topic of all matter being made of particles of light, even if I am not the first, I think I have at least independently reached a conclusion that people still do not even publically endorse, but yet appears simple and true, they can throw away all the music I have ever made...I mean I have learned to play guitar, piano, sing...can presidents and senators do that? All my computer skills, how I made a moving robot...can elected and television leaders program computers and make moving robots?...all of no value...and why? because they have labeled me a molestor or pedophile, which in fact I am not...but even if there are people that are...should we reject and supress all their other skills and contributions simply because they are? The same is true for actual violent offenders, we ought to allow the truth to be published, printed, etc...even if the source is a scoundral (although most first degree violent people do not make contributions to science...it's tough to be sure, but there are many violent people out there, and no doubt some of them are involved in science). Simply because I think molestation, of itself, is not a serious crime, although I can see abduction being a serious crime (and then that includes restraining a child in any way, even locking a child in their room...it is when it is not the legal parents abducting the child that appears to matter most), but simply because I think, for example, what happened to this young male in Irvine that found sucking children's toes erotic...that is not a serious crime...that is when you let the person go from their day care job, you describe the activity in some public database, and you are done with it, no jail time, no fine, etc...not a big deal...sucking toes may be ok for some families and not for others, it's like religion, in any event toe sucking is a nonviolent activity, no body feals any pain, etc. But simply because I speak out against this antisexual ferver and injustice, I am then labeled a molestor and pedophile, which I am not. I know much much better than to ever touch or hug a child, or even to look at a child for too long...it's shocking...even looking at a child for too much time and people get angry...people cannot even appreciate the beauty and curiosity of what a child looks like and how a child moves like anymore. I am one of the few people publically warning others to watch out for the pedo molesto hysteria...don't get hard...don't poke any body...don't touch any butts....be careful playing games like "this little piggy..."...you know be very aware that people are being locked in jail for life just for rumors about molesto pedo (ironically while people spank and beat their children without so much as a warning). So it's amazing, just the rumor that a person is a molestor is enough for the stupid majority...in particular the puritanical..the more conservative, the less likely the truth will make any difference. Words, for example, like "violenter" have not entered common language yet, because not many people care about "violenters"...those people appear to be acceptable to a community of parents with children. It's just is and always will be shocking to me, the way young people are held to be more precious than anything, but then they are suited up and thrown into the combat of sports and war without even a second thought. They are forbidden from kissing, but it's ok for them to kill. I mean it's upside down at this time and will be for a long time to come.