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
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.

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?

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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).

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:
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.

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.

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.

Kind of an informative video about the origin of Christmas:
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.

bravo and kudos to the history channel for their history of illegal drugs:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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
"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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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
FR Greening, a Canadian chemist,
Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University
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
Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican
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:
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:
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.

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.

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

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

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:
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

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.

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
-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
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

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.

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:
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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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
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

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

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

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?
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?

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.


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."

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).

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

(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".

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?")

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.


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.

EX: Do photons change velocity around a large mass such as a star or large planet?

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.

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:
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

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.

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.


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
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.
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)

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.

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


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.

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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)

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).

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.

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.

Here is a series of videos with light beams where the mass in the center is gradually increased:





9/11 Press for Truth

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!

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.


TP Spam tip 14:
In the spambody list, you only need to put the last two parts of the URL:
is best added as simply:
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

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.

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.

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:
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.

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"
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/">
<annotation>We Need A Lot of Love </track>
<location>http://www.tedhuntington.com/Ted Huntington - Stars.mp3 <image>http://www.tedhuntington.com/generator.jpg <annotation>Stars </track>

and yo? that's it!

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:
1421 S Belt Line Rd Ste 400
Coppell TX 75019-4933

Letter to Parago, Linkyo (SupermediaStore), and Verbatim:
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.

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)

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).

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.

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?

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:
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.

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.

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.

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)
He describes in his Nobel prize lecture how they were shifting light in all kinds of mediums.
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:
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

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.

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!

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:

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.

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
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:
1) http://www.debunking911.com/
who are they? no "about us" link.
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
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.
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.

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.

some evidence from the Moussaoui trial was released recently at:
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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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:
It shows that the USA is the most sexually repressed of all nations except the arab nations.
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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

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?
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.

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 a