Thursday, February 24, 2011
Monday, August 09, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
UFO 'Filmed for 40 Minutes' by Chinese Scientists during Solar Eclipse
UFO 'Filmed for 40 Minutes' by Chinese Scientists during Solar Eclipse
Published: Last updated at 12:25 PM on 07th September 2009
By Mail Foreign Service
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/chinaarticle1.jpg
Could this finally be it - 40 minutes of undisputed proof that we are not alone?
Scientists at the Purple Mountain Observatory in Nanjing, China believe it is a real possibility that this footage of an unidentified flying object is the evidence we have all been waiting for.
They have confirmed 40 minutes of footage of the object was captured during this summer's solar eclipse - and that research has already started on a year-long investigation to find out what it is.
Still Frame Capture, Video from China
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/chinaarticle2.jpg
Photo above: Still Frame Capture from Video. Is it what we think it might be? A still image taken during the sighting of what appears to be a UFO that appeared over China during the July 22 solar eclipse.
And the scientists were not the only ones to capture the walnut-shaped object on camera. The clear, daylight sighting occurred over Deqing in Guandong Province. Dozens of students claimed to have seen the object sailing through the air during a rooftop observation of the July 22 solar eclipse.
At least nine of the students photographed it, producing such incredible images as those seen here.
The UFO was also seen to change colour and shape, with the students claiming it initially appeared to be a glowing blue colour, but later darkened.
Chinese media outlet Sina.com reported that the Purple Mountain Observatory and Chinese Academy of Sciences claimed:
'China had discovered near the sun, by observation staff, an unidentified object. Its physical nature remains to be further studied. 'Currently manpower is being organised to deal with this data, complete the data analysis and reveal the scientific results. This will take at least one year's time to finalise.'
Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences Fellow Ji Hai-sheng said at present it is impossible to speculate what the unidentified object is.
'However research has started.'
The UFO world is already waiting for the results to come in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWRa9-9UDk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWRa9-9UDk&feature=player_embedded
permanent link: http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/chinesescientists.html
source & references:
Published: Last updated at 12:25 PM on 07th September 2009
By Mail Foreign Service
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/chinaarticle1.jpg
Could this finally be it - 40 minutes of undisputed proof that we are not alone?
Scientists at the Purple Mountain Observatory in Nanjing, China believe it is a real possibility that this footage of an unidentified flying object is the evidence we have all been waiting for.
They have confirmed 40 minutes of footage of the object was captured during this summer's solar eclipse - and that research has already started on a year-long investigation to find out what it is.
Still Frame Capture, Video from China
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/chinaarticle2.jpg
Photo above: Still Frame Capture from Video. Is it what we think it might be? A still image taken during the sighting of what appears to be a UFO that appeared over China during the July 22 solar eclipse.
And the scientists were not the only ones to capture the walnut-shaped object on camera. The clear, daylight sighting occurred over Deqing in Guandong Province. Dozens of students claimed to have seen the object sailing through the air during a rooftop observation of the July 22 solar eclipse.
At least nine of the students photographed it, producing such incredible images as those seen here.
The UFO was also seen to change colour and shape, with the students claiming it initially appeared to be a glowing blue colour, but later darkened.
Chinese media outlet Sina.com reported that the Purple Mountain Observatory and Chinese Academy of Sciences claimed:
'China had discovered near the sun, by observation staff, an unidentified object. Its physical nature remains to be further studied. 'Currently manpower is being organised to deal with this data, complete the data analysis and reveal the scientific results. This will take at least one year's time to finalise.'
Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences Fellow Ji Hai-sheng said at present it is impossible to speculate what the unidentified object is.
'However research has started.'
The UFO world is already waiting for the results to come in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWRa9-9UDk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWRa9-9UDk&feature=player_embedded
permanent link: http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/chinesescientists.html
source & references:
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 05, 2008
2012: The Year The Internet Ends
http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality
2012: The Year The Internet Ends
06/01/2008 - Every significant Internet provider around the globe is currently in talks with access and content providers to transform the internet into a television-like medium: no more freedom, you pay for a small commercial package of sites you can visit and you'll have to pay for seperate subscriptions for every site that's not in the package.
Almost all smaller websites/services will disappear over time and multinationals who are used to using big budgets to brute force their content into every media outlet will finally be able to approach the internet in the same way.
This well-known illustration of why we need net neutrality turns out to be very close to the truth:
What can we do?
Internet providers have realized that the only way to not lose massive amounts of customers over this is to make sure there are no alternatives, that's why all major Internet providers are currently making agreements and planning to switch simultaneously somewhere in the year 2012. This is currently all going on under very strict NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements) because the last thing they want is the masses speaking out against it.
We were able to uncover this information because we have been well-known net neutrality activists for longer than a year now and over time have we've gotten in contact with many high-profile industry insiders. We will continue our activism and the I Power website serves as a platform for joining forces, sharing ideas and spreading awareness.
It's our responsibility to spread the word, use any sort of political or media contacts you may know. The more awareness there is, the more impossible it'll be for Internet providers to make this switch. Let's make sure that by 2012, ISP's won't even dare think about doing anything that goes against the principles of net neutrality.
More info...
Net neutrality has been a much debated issue for several years now and there have been many lawsuits in cases where an Internet provider blocked access to a certain competitor's site or simply crippled download speeds on services that they felt were using up too much of their bandwidth. But this new information that has now been confirmed by inside sources from major ISP's and content providers gives us a far bleaker vision of what the future of Internet freedom will look like if we don't take action in every way we can.
Why is this happening? The entire media and marketing industry is losing its grip on the upcoming generations of Internet-minded consumers. Statistics show that traditional media is losing popularity as the Internet continues to grow drastically every year. And the Internet is a completely different place: consumers aren't passive any more and advertisements don't have the same psychological effect they normally have on television. Internet users are very active and focused: they only go to the sites and services they want, and with an infinite amount of alternatives, users simply switch to something else if one service becomes too commercialized with annoying advertisements.With this in mind, it's no surprise that the past 6 years the industry has secretly been planning a 'take-over' to secure the Internet as a purely commercial playground.
Spread The Word
But there is hope... More and more people are becoming aware of the importance of net neutrality and now that we have uncovered what the industries have been plotting, it's not just about big corporations forming shady agreements, it's about what they will say to their users who will demand an explanation from their providers on what will happen to their access in 2012. As long as there are alternatives, we can pressure those providers who admit to being against net neutrality and favor those who take a stand and choose to give their users their freedom even after 2012. We can keep pushing for net neutrality laws and we can start spreading awareness on a massive scale to make sure that ISP's think twice before signing anything that'll go against the freedom that made the Internet into the important open medium that it is today.
It's our responsibility, spread the word and use any sort of political or media contacts you may know. Let's make sure that by 2012, ISP's won't even dare think about doing anything that goes against the principles of net neutrality.
For more information:
Mail the I Power team at ipower@movielol.org
For media inquiries or urgent issues only:
Telephone: +32 (0) 496 93 90 44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns
<object width="425" height="344">&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2XPiqhN_Ns&rel=0&color1=0x000000&color2=0x222222"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="wmode" value="transparent">&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2XPiqhN_Ns&rel=0&color1=0x000000&color2=0x222222" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344">&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;
2012: The Year The Internet Ends
06/01/2008 - Every significant Internet provider around the globe is currently in talks with access and content providers to transform the internet into a television-like medium: no more freedom, you pay for a small commercial package of sites you can visit and you'll have to pay for seperate subscriptions for every site that's not in the package.
Almost all smaller websites/services will disappear over time and multinationals who are used to using big budgets to brute force their content into every media outlet will finally be able to approach the internet in the same way.
This well-known illustration of why we need net neutrality turns out to be very close to the truth:
What can we do?
Internet providers have realized that the only way to not lose massive amounts of customers over this is to make sure there are no alternatives, that's why all major Internet providers are currently making agreements and planning to switch simultaneously somewhere in the year 2012. This is currently all going on under very strict NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements) because the last thing they want is the masses speaking out against it.
We were able to uncover this information because we have been well-known net neutrality activists for longer than a year now and over time have we've gotten in contact with many high-profile industry insiders. We will continue our activism and the I Power website serves as a platform for joining forces, sharing ideas and spreading awareness.
It's our responsibility to spread the word, use any sort of political or media contacts you may know. The more awareness there is, the more impossible it'll be for Internet providers to make this switch. Let's make sure that by 2012, ISP's won't even dare think about doing anything that goes against the principles of net neutrality.
More info...
Net neutrality has been a much debated issue for several years now and there have been many lawsuits in cases where an Internet provider blocked access to a certain competitor's site or simply crippled download speeds on services that they felt were using up too much of their bandwidth. But this new information that has now been confirmed by inside sources from major ISP's and content providers gives us a far bleaker vision of what the future of Internet freedom will look like if we don't take action in every way we can.
Why is this happening? The entire media and marketing industry is losing its grip on the upcoming generations of Internet-minded consumers. Statistics show that traditional media is losing popularity as the Internet continues to grow drastically every year. And the Internet is a completely different place: consumers aren't passive any more and advertisements don't have the same psychological effect they normally have on television. Internet users are very active and focused: they only go to the sites and services they want, and with an infinite amount of alternatives, users simply switch to something else if one service becomes too commercialized with annoying advertisements.With this in mind, it's no surprise that the past 6 years the industry has secretly been planning a 'take-over' to secure the Internet as a purely commercial playground.
Spread The Word
But there is hope... More and more people are becoming aware of the importance of net neutrality and now that we have uncovered what the industries have been plotting, it's not just about big corporations forming shady agreements, it's about what they will say to their users who will demand an explanation from their providers on what will happen to their access in 2012. As long as there are alternatives, we can pressure those providers who admit to being against net neutrality and favor those who take a stand and choose to give their users their freedom even after 2012. We can keep pushing for net neutrality laws and we can start spreading awareness on a massive scale to make sure that ISP's think twice before signing anything that'll go against the freedom that made the Internet into the important open medium that it is today.
It's our responsibility, spread the word and use any sort of political or media contacts you may know. Let's make sure that by 2012, ISP's won't even dare think about doing anything that goes against the principles of net neutrality.
For more information:
Mail the I Power team at ipower@movielol.org
For media inquiries or urgent issues only:
Telephone: +32 (0) 496 93 90 44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns
<object width="425" height="344">&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2XPiqhN_Ns&rel=0&color1=0x000000&color2=0x222222"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="wmode" value="transparent">&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2XPiqhN_Ns&rel=0&color1=0x000000&color2=0x222222" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344">&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Psychiatrist: 'Demon possession is real'
Psychiatrist: 'Demon possession is real'
ReligionAndSpirituality.com
March 12, 2008
A board-certified psychiatrist documents a case of demonic possession that offers hard evidence the phenomenon is real. Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College, presents the evidence in a lengthy article in the February issue of New Oxford Review, SpiritDaily.com reported Wednesday.
Dr. Gallagher is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is the only U.S. psychiatrist to have been a consistent delegate to the International Association of Exorcists and has addressed its plenary session.
In the article, entitled "A Case of Demonic Possession," he documents the case of a former satanist who had an exorcism performed by four priests, a deacon and two nuns. He details bizarre voices issuing from the woman hurling vicious epithets and vulgarity, her violent reaction to holy water but not to regular water introduced surreptitiously, and paranormal phenomena, such as objects flying off shelves around her.
There were also instances when the demonic voice interrupted phone conversations even though the woman was nowhere around. She also levitated half a foot in the air for 30 minutes and knew intimate personal details of those around her that she could not have known, Gallagher writes.
Dr. Gallagher's full paper on his study:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0308-gallagher
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
United Press International, UPI, the UPI logo, and other trademarks and service marks, are registered or unregistered trademarks of United Press International, Inc. in the United States and in other countries.
ReligionAndSpirituality.com
March 12, 2008
A board-certified psychiatrist documents a case of demonic possession that offers hard evidence the phenomenon is real. Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College, presents the evidence in a lengthy article in the February issue of New Oxford Review, SpiritDaily.com reported Wednesday.
Dr. Gallagher is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is the only U.S. psychiatrist to have been a consistent delegate to the International Association of Exorcists and has addressed its plenary session.
In the article, entitled "A Case of Demonic Possession," he documents the case of a former satanist who had an exorcism performed by four priests, a deacon and two nuns. He details bizarre voices issuing from the woman hurling vicious epithets and vulgarity, her violent reaction to holy water but not to regular water introduced surreptitiously, and paranormal phenomena, such as objects flying off shelves around her.
There were also instances when the demonic voice interrupted phone conversations even though the woman was nowhere around. She also levitated half a foot in the air for 30 minutes and knew intimate personal details of those around her that she could not have known, Gallagher writes.
Dr. Gallagher's full paper on his study:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0308-gallagher
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
United Press International, UPI, the UPI logo, and other trademarks and service marks, are registered or unregistered trademarks of United Press International, Inc. in the United States and in other countries.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Could Our Universe Be A Virtual Reality
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1381&category=Science
Could Our Universe Be A Virtual Reality
Processed By Other Intelligence?
© 2008 Linda Moulton Howe
“If I’m in a virtual reality, the graphics are great, but the plot sucks.”
- Student of Prof. Brian Whitworth
January 25, 2008 Auckland, New Zealand - A professor in Auckland, New Zealand, published a paper in December that seriously raises the question: could we be in a virtual reality world and universe where the “computer” behind-the-scenes has a processing speed of 186,282.397 miles per second - the maximum speed of light? The professor is Brian Whitworth, Ph.D., in Information Systems and now Senior Lecturer at the Institute for Information and Mathematical Sciences at Massey University in Auckland.
In his paper, he quotes from a 2005 book entitled, The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems edited by John Vacca: “Quantum physicists who work with quantum theory every day don’t really know quite what to make of it. They fill blackboards with quantum calculations and acknowledge that it is probably the most powerful, accurate and predictive scientific theory ever developed, but the very suggestion that it might be literally true as a description of Nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.”
Professor Whitworth’s goal is to provide another model in which cosmologists might look at our universe that is not hamstrung by the paradoxes in trying to make sense of a physically objective universe in which all the underlying processing creating the universe is defined by quantum mechanics in which not even an atom can be directly measured in time and space because quantum mechanics says it is in all places at once.
Professor Whitworth has worked for decades in mathematics and information systems and finds many analogies in the computer world to how quantum mechanics says this universe actually works.
I talked with him this week and began by asking him what the reaction has been from his academic colleagues.
Brian Whitworth, Ph.D., Information Systems, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Information and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand: “The most common comment you would expect is, ‘You can’t prove it.’ But if you think about it, let’s suppose that everybody thought the world was a virtual reality. They were brought up from childhood to believe this. And you one day had the idea that it was an objective reality – that it was not created by computer processing, that it was just actually there in existence. And I said to you, ‘OK, why don’t you prove it?’ I think you would have a bit of trouble proving it.
You could say, ‘Well, I know the world is objective because I experience it.’
People would reply, ‘But you only experience your input.’
And someone might say, ‘Well, I have lots of mathematical laws that can predict things.’
And the other says, ‘Well, of course you do because it’s all based on mathematics.’
Then you say, ‘Look, the universe is enormous! It’s huge!! How can it possibly be a virtual reality to be so big?’
And the other would say, ‘It’s only big to you. It’s only big to people inside it.’
And you might say, ‘But it’s been going for billions of years!’
And the other might say, ‘Well, that might be just a few seconds of processing. Nobody really knows.’
And so on. You would actually find it quite difficult to prove your case. So, I guess the point is that people assume that objective reality is a proven theory, but it is not. It’s an axiom just as unproven as virtual reality theory.
So from a scientific perspective, neither objective reality nor virtual reality is proven. And what is happening is that modern physics with things like time dilation and space contraction, teleportation, multi-existence and so on, seem actually more supportive of a virtual reality universe than an objective reality one.
Mass Increasing Toward Speed of Light
THE STRONGEST PIECE THAT SUPPORTS THE VIRTUAL REALITY FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW IS WHAT?
There are a lot. For example, as objects go faster and faster, their mass increases. They get heavier and heavier. As they approach the speed of light, their mass increases to infinity, in theory. So, how come? If the world is physically objective, how can mass just get bigger and bigger and bigger just because a thing goes faster and faster?
HOW DOES VIRTUAL REALITY ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
There is a fixed amount of processing available, let’s say, in space. So, if an object is being passed from point to point in space, there’s only a certain amount of processing available to each point in space, OK? And if that processing is involved in the calculation of movement, that changes the processing. The smaller and smaller amount that is left makes the mass seem greater and greater.
MEANING THAT THE PROCESSING ABILITY IS BEING USED UP?
Being used up in the movement, and that leaves a smaller and smaller amount left over to do the mass, which then changes the mass. In other words, the processing takes longer to do what it has to do. The idea is that each part of space is like a network. None of these are new ideas and each network is like a mini-processor.
BUT THEY HAVE TO BE COORDINATED BY SOME BIG PROCESSOR WITH A CAPITAL ‘P’?
Well, that’s one of the questions, isn’t it?
Speed of Light Is Virtual Reality Processing Speed
YES, AND THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY IN A VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE THERE IS A SPEED OF LIGHT?
Yes, it’s just like a screen. Your screen has a certain rate with which it refreshes, which depends upon the little points that make up the screen. And each of these points can only flash on and off at a certain rate. So when a pixel moves across the screen, what it means is that it starts off and one point flashes. Then that point turns off and the next point flashes and so on. So, the rate of movement depends on the rate of flashing of the screen. It’s the refresh rate and it might be 70 megahertz; it might be 80 megahertz ... But whatever it is, it doesn’t matter. That’s going to mean that a dot can move across your screen so fast and no faster.
THAT WOULD BE THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN THIS UNIVERSE.
That would be the speed of light that we see, yes.
THAT WOULD EXPLAIN THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY WOULD THERE BE A MAXIMUM SPEED OF LIGHT.
Yes, it explains that question in relationship to space. Each point of space has a fixed amount of processing – a finite amount of allocation. So things that are moving point-to-point in space can only be processed at a certain rate. Then, the speed of light is the refresh rate of space.
Big Bang = “Computer” Turns On
WHAT THEN IS THE BIG BANG?
The Big Bang is when the simulation was started, when the virtual processing began.
WHEN THE COMPUTER IS TURNED ON, RIGHT?
Well, we don’t know it’s a computer. We only know it’s processing and the theory does not postulate any hardware or any machines running in another world or so. It just keeps away from that.
A lot of people have trouble with the idea that Time began at the Big Bang. I know I certainly did – and that space began. How can Time begin? Surely something must have caused Time to begin, but how can you cause anything if there is no Time to have a prior event?
But if you say we’re in a virtual reality, or local reality, then the Big Bang is when our Time began and our Space began. That is perfectly reasonable. So, if you go online to Second Life or something, when you switch on your computer and enter the reality. That’s when that Time - or perhaps when Second Life was created – that’s when its Time began.
[ Editor’s Note: “Second Life is an online, 3D virtual world imagined and created entirely by its Residents online.” See: http://secondlife.com/ ]
THEN A SINGULARITY, A BIG BANG, WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF TURNING ON THE COMPUTER.
Correct. And that always – because it’s digital – it has to start at a particular point and a particular Time and that Time is when your operating system – let’s say it’s Windows or a Mac – at that specific time, the clock of that session has started up.
NOW, IN THESE ANALOGIES BETWEEN THE COMPUTER WORLD’S VIRTUAL REALITY AND THIS UNIVERSE WE’RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, HOW WOULD YOUR AXIOM OR HYPOTHESIS EXPLAIN WHY THIS VIRTUAL UNIVERSE WOULD SEEM NOW TO BE EXPANDING AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE INTO SOME INFINITY?
That’s one of the questions that I’m thinking about! (laughs) So, if anyone has any ideas, including you, let me know! I guess the alternative would be that it starts at a particular size and particular dimension. In that case, you would have to decide how big it was going to be, wouldn’t you?
Pixels
Further, if you are playing a game in a virtual world on a computer, are you the pixels?
I’M HEARING YOUR QUESTION, I’M WATCHING THE COMPUTER SCREEN THAT I’M IN FRONT OF THAT HAS PIXELS. BUT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I AM OUTSIDE THE SCREEN AND I'M CONTROLLING WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF SELECTING THE PROGRAMS I’M USING AND HOW I’M GOING TO EDIT. THEREFORE, I WOULD SAY THAT ‘I,’ THE INTELLIGENCE OUTSIDE MY COMPUTER SCREEN, AM NOT APART OF THE PIXELS I AM WATCHING.
Yes, and your avatar (body-mind-spirit representative) is like the little moving arrow that your mouse generates on the screen, correct? That’s what acts for you.
YES.
That’s your little hand or sort of like your body.
RIGHT.
Now, if the physical world is a virtual reality that does not necessarily imply that our consciousness is in the virtual reality. It could be exactly the same as your playing an avatar in a game. It’s conceivable that while everything you see and hear is definitely part of the pixels – or certainly, part of the virtual reality – it’s possible that you are not looking from inside the virtual reality.
This relates to very deep questions about whether a mechanical universe could create consciousness. I must admit I haven’t worked through all these things yet, but it’s certainly something that has concerned a lot of people from Descartes on.
[ Editor’s Note: Wikipedia - René Descartes (March 31, 1596 - February 11, 1650) was a highly influential French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer. He has been dubbed the Father of Modern Philosophy and the Father of Modern Mathematics. Much of subsequent Western philosophy is a reaction to his writings, which continue to be studied closely, even to the present day. The Cartesian coordinate system that is used in plane geometry and algebra was named for him.
Initially, Descartes arrived at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (Latin: “I think, therefore, I am.” Or, Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (Latin: “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.”) Descartes concluded that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. ]
ALL OF THIS KEEPS LEADING TO THE QUESTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITH A CAPITAL ‘C,’ OR INTELLIGENCE WITH A CAPITAL ‘I,’ THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE.
You want to step out of this world and see what is going on elsewhere. And that’s not really possible. But the second question is whether the interface of pixels is everything there is. That is a different question.
BUT THE PIXELS WOULD NOT BE THE PRIME INTELLIGENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS THAT CREATED THE PIXELS.
The postulate is that the physical universe – if indeed it is a virtual reality – cannot create itself out of itself. It’s just not possible. So, there must be Something outside of it. Therefore, quantum mechanics is describing that Something. The equations of quantum mechanics, which are quite different from our concepts of physical reality, are describing this Something. The idea is that what we are seeing as we walk around is just an interface which is calculated at the moment when we look, sort of an on-demand thing.
Now, we’re just working from analogies here. If we compare to a person playing a computer game and they are running around in the forest on the screen gathering things and fighting monsters and exploring, then their body would correspond to the avatar, the pixels that are running around. But in that particular case, we can see that they themselves are not actually in the interface. They are outside the interface. But they might become completely identified with the interface. They might get to such a point that they don’t hear anyone around them talking to them and all they can see is the interface. But whether that is true in our case, I don’t know. That’s a question.
Intelligence Behind Virtual Reality -
Mechanical? Or God?
YOUR HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THIS BEING A VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE WOULD IMPLY A KIND OF PROOF OF INTELLIGENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS ON THE OUTSIDE THAT CAN CREATE THE VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE. MANY PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT IS GOD OR ALLAH OR WHATEVER THE WORDS ARE FOR THE FORCE BEHIND ALL LIFE.
I think if you are looking for a final definitive, it’s this. I know if I was creating the universe, I wouldn’t leave that as an option. I’d leave them guessing. (laughs)
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHERE EVERYBODY IS!
Yes, and I don’t think we need to know everything. The number one thing we’re looking at at this point is whether this theory is useful. Physics is really in a bind at the moment. It’s got a whole lot of problems created by quantum mechanics effects. Physics – objective realism – are facing these paradoxes that it probably will never solve. There’s no possible solution.
String theory was supposed to come running to the rescue, but string theory seems bogged down at the moment in a mire of complexity that is not coming out. There are more versions of string theory than there are atoms in the world or universe! (laughter)
Quantum Physics "Is In A Bind"
Quantum physics is in a bind. What I am suggesting is that this particular (virtual reality) approach might be useful because it frees up the options for people to think about different types of processing and how it might work.
The problem is that a lot of people bring very fixed ideas to this. They have their idea of God or thinking there is a computer in the sky, or thinking there is a Matrix and we’re all being harvested, or the world is a dream and so on.
BUT YOU CAN’T HAVE INTELLIGENCE AND THOUGHT AND BE DISCUSSING WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AND NOT IMMEDIATELY GO IN YOUR MIND TO THE QUESTION: WHAT WOULD BE THE INTELLIGENCE THAT WOULD CREATE THE VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE? IT’S LIKE TWO SIDES OF A COIN. IF YOU HAVE A VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE, SOMETHING HAD TO MAKE IT.
Some processing, not just some thing. Some processing has to make it, yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s a man with a beard in the sky, or it doesn’t even mean it’s only one god. It could be many gods. I mean this whole thing could be some kid playing in their room at night when dad is not looking.
IN ANOTHER REALITY.
BUT WHAT YOU MEAN IS THERE COULD BE SO MANY PARALLEL DIMENSIONS OF REALITIES IN WHICH WE COULD BE THE SCREEN IN THE ROOM OF A CHILD OF ANOTHER DIMENSION OR ANOTHER UNIVERSE.
We don’t know, that’s the point. Like one of the people who emailed about the paper said, ‘If I’m in a virtual reality, the graphics are great, but the plot sucks.’ (laughter) I wouldn’t argue with that.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLOTS THAT SUCK?
We all want to know everything, what’s running it. But maybe that’s not the deal. Maybe that’s just not how it works.”
Copyright © 1999 - 2008 by Linda Moulton Howe.
All Rights Reserved.
www.earthfiles.com
earthfiles@earthfiles.com
Could Our Universe Be A Virtual Reality
Processed By Other Intelligence?
© 2008 Linda Moulton Howe
“If I’m in a virtual reality, the graphics are great, but the plot sucks.”
- Student of Prof. Brian Whitworth
January 25, 2008 Auckland, New Zealand - A professor in Auckland, New Zealand, published a paper in December that seriously raises the question: could we be in a virtual reality world and universe where the “computer” behind-the-scenes has a processing speed of 186,282.397 miles per second - the maximum speed of light? The professor is Brian Whitworth, Ph.D., in Information Systems and now Senior Lecturer at the Institute for Information and Mathematical Sciences at Massey University in Auckland.
In his paper, he quotes from a 2005 book entitled, The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems edited by John Vacca: “Quantum physicists who work with quantum theory every day don’t really know quite what to make of it. They fill blackboards with quantum calculations and acknowledge that it is probably the most powerful, accurate and predictive scientific theory ever developed, but the very suggestion that it might be literally true as a description of Nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.”
Professor Whitworth’s goal is to provide another model in which cosmologists might look at our universe that is not hamstrung by the paradoxes in trying to make sense of a physically objective universe in which all the underlying processing creating the universe is defined by quantum mechanics in which not even an atom can be directly measured in time and space because quantum mechanics says it is in all places at once.
Professor Whitworth has worked for decades in mathematics and information systems and finds many analogies in the computer world to how quantum mechanics says this universe actually works.
I talked with him this week and began by asking him what the reaction has been from his academic colleagues.
Brian Whitworth, Ph.D., Information Systems, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Information and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand: “The most common comment you would expect is, ‘You can’t prove it.’ But if you think about it, let’s suppose that everybody thought the world was a virtual reality. They were brought up from childhood to believe this. And you one day had the idea that it was an objective reality – that it was not created by computer processing, that it was just actually there in existence. And I said to you, ‘OK, why don’t you prove it?’ I think you would have a bit of trouble proving it.
You could say, ‘Well, I know the world is objective because I experience it.’
People would reply, ‘But you only experience your input.’
And someone might say, ‘Well, I have lots of mathematical laws that can predict things.’
And the other says, ‘Well, of course you do because it’s all based on mathematics.’
Then you say, ‘Look, the universe is enormous! It’s huge!! How can it possibly be a virtual reality to be so big?’
And the other would say, ‘It’s only big to you. It’s only big to people inside it.’
And you might say, ‘But it’s been going for billions of years!’
And the other might say, ‘Well, that might be just a few seconds of processing. Nobody really knows.’
And so on. You would actually find it quite difficult to prove your case. So, I guess the point is that people assume that objective reality is a proven theory, but it is not. It’s an axiom just as unproven as virtual reality theory.
So from a scientific perspective, neither objective reality nor virtual reality is proven. And what is happening is that modern physics with things like time dilation and space contraction, teleportation, multi-existence and so on, seem actually more supportive of a virtual reality universe than an objective reality one.
Mass Increasing Toward Speed of Light
THE STRONGEST PIECE THAT SUPPORTS THE VIRTUAL REALITY FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW IS WHAT?
There are a lot. For example, as objects go faster and faster, their mass increases. They get heavier and heavier. As they approach the speed of light, their mass increases to infinity, in theory. So, how come? If the world is physically objective, how can mass just get bigger and bigger and bigger just because a thing goes faster and faster?
HOW DOES VIRTUAL REALITY ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
There is a fixed amount of processing available, let’s say, in space. So, if an object is being passed from point to point in space, there’s only a certain amount of processing available to each point in space, OK? And if that processing is involved in the calculation of movement, that changes the processing. The smaller and smaller amount that is left makes the mass seem greater and greater.
MEANING THAT THE PROCESSING ABILITY IS BEING USED UP?
Being used up in the movement, and that leaves a smaller and smaller amount left over to do the mass, which then changes the mass. In other words, the processing takes longer to do what it has to do. The idea is that each part of space is like a network. None of these are new ideas and each network is like a mini-processor.
BUT THEY HAVE TO BE COORDINATED BY SOME BIG PROCESSOR WITH A CAPITAL ‘P’?
Well, that’s one of the questions, isn’t it?
Speed of Light Is Virtual Reality Processing Speed
YES, AND THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY IN A VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE THERE IS A SPEED OF LIGHT?
Yes, it’s just like a screen. Your screen has a certain rate with which it refreshes, which depends upon the little points that make up the screen. And each of these points can only flash on and off at a certain rate. So when a pixel moves across the screen, what it means is that it starts off and one point flashes. Then that point turns off and the next point flashes and so on. So, the rate of movement depends on the rate of flashing of the screen. It’s the refresh rate and it might be 70 megahertz; it might be 80 megahertz ... But whatever it is, it doesn’t matter. That’s going to mean that a dot can move across your screen so fast and no faster.
THAT WOULD BE THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN THIS UNIVERSE.
That would be the speed of light that we see, yes.
THAT WOULD EXPLAIN THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY WOULD THERE BE A MAXIMUM SPEED OF LIGHT.
Yes, it explains that question in relationship to space. Each point of space has a fixed amount of processing – a finite amount of allocation. So things that are moving point-to-point in space can only be processed at a certain rate. Then, the speed of light is the refresh rate of space.
Big Bang = “Computer” Turns On
WHAT THEN IS THE BIG BANG?
The Big Bang is when the simulation was started, when the virtual processing began.
WHEN THE COMPUTER IS TURNED ON, RIGHT?
Well, we don’t know it’s a computer. We only know it’s processing and the theory does not postulate any hardware or any machines running in another world or so. It just keeps away from that.
A lot of people have trouble with the idea that Time began at the Big Bang. I know I certainly did – and that space began. How can Time begin? Surely something must have caused Time to begin, but how can you cause anything if there is no Time to have a prior event?
But if you say we’re in a virtual reality, or local reality, then the Big Bang is when our Time began and our Space began. That is perfectly reasonable. So, if you go online to Second Life or something, when you switch on your computer and enter the reality. That’s when that Time - or perhaps when Second Life was created – that’s when its Time began.
[ Editor’s Note: “Second Life is an online, 3D virtual world imagined and created entirely by its Residents online.” See: http://secondlife.com/ ]
THEN A SINGULARITY, A BIG BANG, WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF TURNING ON THE COMPUTER.
Correct. And that always – because it’s digital – it has to start at a particular point and a particular Time and that Time is when your operating system – let’s say it’s Windows or a Mac – at that specific time, the clock of that session has started up.
NOW, IN THESE ANALOGIES BETWEEN THE COMPUTER WORLD’S VIRTUAL REALITY AND THIS UNIVERSE WE’RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, HOW WOULD YOUR AXIOM OR HYPOTHESIS EXPLAIN WHY THIS VIRTUAL UNIVERSE WOULD SEEM NOW TO BE EXPANDING AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE INTO SOME INFINITY?
That’s one of the questions that I’m thinking about! (laughs) So, if anyone has any ideas, including you, let me know! I guess the alternative would be that it starts at a particular size and particular dimension. In that case, you would have to decide how big it was going to be, wouldn’t you?
Pixels
Further, if you are playing a game in a virtual world on a computer, are you the pixels?
I’M HEARING YOUR QUESTION, I’M WATCHING THE COMPUTER SCREEN THAT I’M IN FRONT OF THAT HAS PIXELS. BUT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I AM OUTSIDE THE SCREEN AND I'M CONTROLLING WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF SELECTING THE PROGRAMS I’M USING AND HOW I’M GOING TO EDIT. THEREFORE, I WOULD SAY THAT ‘I,’ THE INTELLIGENCE OUTSIDE MY COMPUTER SCREEN, AM NOT APART OF THE PIXELS I AM WATCHING.
Yes, and your avatar (body-mind-spirit representative) is like the little moving arrow that your mouse generates on the screen, correct? That’s what acts for you.
YES.
That’s your little hand or sort of like your body.
RIGHT.
Now, if the physical world is a virtual reality that does not necessarily imply that our consciousness is in the virtual reality. It could be exactly the same as your playing an avatar in a game. It’s conceivable that while everything you see and hear is definitely part of the pixels – or certainly, part of the virtual reality – it’s possible that you are not looking from inside the virtual reality.
This relates to very deep questions about whether a mechanical universe could create consciousness. I must admit I haven’t worked through all these things yet, but it’s certainly something that has concerned a lot of people from Descartes on.
[ Editor’s Note: Wikipedia - René Descartes (March 31, 1596 - February 11, 1650) was a highly influential French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer. He has been dubbed the Father of Modern Philosophy and the Father of Modern Mathematics. Much of subsequent Western philosophy is a reaction to his writings, which continue to be studied closely, even to the present day. The Cartesian coordinate system that is used in plane geometry and algebra was named for him.
Initially, Descartes arrived at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (Latin: “I think, therefore, I am.” Or, Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (Latin: “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.”) Descartes concluded that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. ]
ALL OF THIS KEEPS LEADING TO THE QUESTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITH A CAPITAL ‘C,’ OR INTELLIGENCE WITH A CAPITAL ‘I,’ THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE.
You want to step out of this world and see what is going on elsewhere. And that’s not really possible. But the second question is whether the interface of pixels is everything there is. That is a different question.
BUT THE PIXELS WOULD NOT BE THE PRIME INTELLIGENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS THAT CREATED THE PIXELS.
The postulate is that the physical universe – if indeed it is a virtual reality – cannot create itself out of itself. It’s just not possible. So, there must be Something outside of it. Therefore, quantum mechanics is describing that Something. The equations of quantum mechanics, which are quite different from our concepts of physical reality, are describing this Something. The idea is that what we are seeing as we walk around is just an interface which is calculated at the moment when we look, sort of an on-demand thing.
Now, we’re just working from analogies here. If we compare to a person playing a computer game and they are running around in the forest on the screen gathering things and fighting monsters and exploring, then their body would correspond to the avatar, the pixels that are running around. But in that particular case, we can see that they themselves are not actually in the interface. They are outside the interface. But they might become completely identified with the interface. They might get to such a point that they don’t hear anyone around them talking to them and all they can see is the interface. But whether that is true in our case, I don’t know. That’s a question.
Intelligence Behind Virtual Reality -
Mechanical? Or God?
YOUR HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THIS BEING A VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE WOULD IMPLY A KIND OF PROOF OF INTELLIGENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS ON THE OUTSIDE THAT CAN CREATE THE VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE. MANY PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT IS GOD OR ALLAH OR WHATEVER THE WORDS ARE FOR THE FORCE BEHIND ALL LIFE.
I think if you are looking for a final definitive, it’s this. I know if I was creating the universe, I wouldn’t leave that as an option. I’d leave them guessing. (laughs)
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHERE EVERYBODY IS!
Yes, and I don’t think we need to know everything. The number one thing we’re looking at at this point is whether this theory is useful. Physics is really in a bind at the moment. It’s got a whole lot of problems created by quantum mechanics effects. Physics – objective realism – are facing these paradoxes that it probably will never solve. There’s no possible solution.
String theory was supposed to come running to the rescue, but string theory seems bogged down at the moment in a mire of complexity that is not coming out. There are more versions of string theory than there are atoms in the world or universe! (laughter)
Quantum Physics "Is In A Bind"
Quantum physics is in a bind. What I am suggesting is that this particular (virtual reality) approach might be useful because it frees up the options for people to think about different types of processing and how it might work.
The problem is that a lot of people bring very fixed ideas to this. They have their idea of God or thinking there is a computer in the sky, or thinking there is a Matrix and we’re all being harvested, or the world is a dream and so on.
BUT YOU CAN’T HAVE INTELLIGENCE AND THOUGHT AND BE DISCUSSING WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AND NOT IMMEDIATELY GO IN YOUR MIND TO THE QUESTION: WHAT WOULD BE THE INTELLIGENCE THAT WOULD CREATE THE VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE? IT’S LIKE TWO SIDES OF A COIN. IF YOU HAVE A VIRTUAL REALITY UNIVERSE, SOMETHING HAD TO MAKE IT.
Some processing, not just some thing. Some processing has to make it, yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s a man with a beard in the sky, or it doesn’t even mean it’s only one god. It could be many gods. I mean this whole thing could be some kid playing in their room at night when dad is not looking.
IN ANOTHER REALITY.
BUT WHAT YOU MEAN IS THERE COULD BE SO MANY PARALLEL DIMENSIONS OF REALITIES IN WHICH WE COULD BE THE SCREEN IN THE ROOM OF A CHILD OF ANOTHER DIMENSION OR ANOTHER UNIVERSE.
We don’t know, that’s the point. Like one of the people who emailed about the paper said, ‘If I’m in a virtual reality, the graphics are great, but the plot sucks.’ (laughter) I wouldn’t argue with that.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLOTS THAT SUCK?
We all want to know everything, what’s running it. But maybe that’s not the deal. Maybe that’s just not how it works.”
Copyright © 1999 - 2008 by Linda Moulton Howe.
All Rights Reserved.
www.earthfiles.com
earthfiles@earthfiles.com
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Human Species 'may split in two'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
Human species 'may split in two'
Human species 'may split in two'
Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Race 'ironed out'
But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.
Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.
However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.
Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
Receding chins
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.
Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.
There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.
Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.
The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.
"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.
He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
Published: 2006/10/17 08:47:57 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Human species 'may split in two'
Human species 'may split in two'
Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Race 'ironed out'
But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.
Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.
However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.
Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
Receding chins
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.
Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.
There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.
Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.
The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.
"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.
He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
Published: 2006/10/17 08:47:57 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
http://spiritof.info/discovery/articles/cnnmoney/discovery.cnnmoney.story3.html
The Smartest Futurist On Earth
If legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil is right, the future will be a lot brighter - and weirder - than you think.
By Brian O'Keefe
(Fortune Magazine) -- If you went around saying that in a couple of decades we'll have cell-sized, brain-enhancing robots circulating through our bloodstream, or that we'll be able to upload a person's consciousness into a computer, people would probably question your sanity.
But if you say things like that and you're Ray Kurzweil, you get invited to dinner at Bill Gates' house - twice - so he can pick your brain for insights on the future of technology. The Microsoft chairman calls him a "visionary thinker and futurist."
Kurzweil is an inventor whose work in artificial intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades. He invented the flatbed scanner, the first true electric piano, and large-vocabulary speech-recognition software; he's launched ten companies and sold five, and has written five books; he has a BS in computer science from MIT and 13 honorary doctorates (but no real one); he's been inducted into the Inventor's Hall of Fame and charges $25,000 every time he gives a speech - 40 times last year.
24 Innovators at the gate
And now, if anything, he's gaining momentum as a cultural force: He has not one but two movies in the works - one a documentary about his career and ideas and the other an adaptation of his recent bestseller, The Singularity Is Near, which he's writing and co-producing (he's talking about a distribution deal with the people who brought you The Day After Tomorrow).
When Kurzweil isn't giving keynote addresses or reading obscure peer-review journals, he's raising money for his new hedge fund, FatKat (Financial Accelerating Transactions from Kurzweil Adaptive Technologies). He's already attracted a roster of blue-ribbon investors that includes venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, former Microsoft CFO Mike Brown, and former Flextronics CEO-turned-KKR-partner Michael Marks.
Being a hedge fund manager may seem an odd pursuit for an expert in artificial intelligence, but to Kurzweil it's perfectly natural. The magic that has enabled all his innovations has been the science of pattern recognition - and what is the financial market, he postulates, but a series of patterns?
Kurzweil, however, has something bigger on his mind than just making money -after half a lifetime studying trends in technological change, he believes he's found a pattern that allows him to see into the future with a high degree of accuracy. The secret is something he calls the Law of Accelerating Returns, and the basic idea is that the power of technology is expanding at an exponential rate. Mankind is on the cusp of a radically accelerating era of change unlike anything we have ever seen, he says, and almost more extreme than we can imagine.
The fate of the $16B Walton estate
Everything will be subject to his Law of Accelerating Returns, Kurzweil says, because "everything is ultimately becoming information technology." As we are able to reverse-engineer and decode our own DNA, for instance, medical technology can be converted to bits and bytes and zoom along at the same fantastic rate. That will enable overlapping revolutions in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Which is how you end up with nanobots living in your brain.
And if you're a Baby Boomer with the right fitness plan (for Kurzweil that involves over 200 supplement pills a day plus intravenous treatments once a week), you may just live long enough to live forever.
By the time a child born today graduates from college, Kurzweil believes, poverty, disease, and reliance on fossil fuels should be a thing of the past. Speaking of which, don't get him started on global-warming hype.
"These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous," says the man who once delivered a tech conference presentation as a singing computer avatar named Ramona. (That stunt was the inspiration for the 2002 Al Pacino movie Simone.) "They don't account for anything like the technological progress we're going to experience."
Kurzweil's crusade, if you will, is to get across that most of us (even most of his fellow scientists) fail to see the world changing exponentially because we are "stuck in the intuitive linear view." To hammer home his point, Kurzweil packs his presentations with charts that show, for instance, supercomputer power doubling consistently over time.
He explains that Moore's Law - the number of transistors on a chip will double every two years - is but one excellent example of the Law of Accelerating Returns. One of Kurzweil's favorite illustrations of exponential growth is the Human Genome Project. "It was scheduled to be a 15-year project," he says. "After seven years only 1% of it was done, and the critics said it would be impossible. But if you double from 1% every year over seven years, you get 100%. It was right on schedule."
Ask Bing: My boss is a slacker
He believes humanity is near that 1% moment in technological growth. By 2027, he predicts, computers will surpass humans in intelligence; by 2045 or so, we will reach the Singularity, a moment when technology is advancing so rapidly that "strictly biological" humans will be unable to comprehend it.
He has plenty more ideas that may seem Woody Allen - wacky in a Sleeper kind of way (virtual sex as good as or better than the real thing) and occasionally downright disturbing à la 2001: A Space Odyssey (computers will achieve consciousness in about 20 years). But a number of his predictions have had a funny way of coming true.
Back in the 1980s he predicted that a computer would beat the world chess champion in 1998 (it happened in 1997) and that some kind of worldwide computer network would arise and facilitate communication and entertainment (still happening).
His current vision goes way, way past the web, of course. But at least give the guy a hearing. "We are the species that goes beyond our potential," he says. "Merging with our technology is the next stage in our evolution."
The Smartest Futurist On Earth
If legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil is right, the future will be a lot brighter - and weirder - than you think.
By Brian O'Keefe
(Fortune Magazine) -- If you went around saying that in a couple of decades we'll have cell-sized, brain-enhancing robots circulating through our bloodstream, or that we'll be able to upload a person's consciousness into a computer, people would probably question your sanity.
But if you say things like that and you're Ray Kurzweil, you get invited to dinner at Bill Gates' house - twice - so he can pick your brain for insights on the future of technology. The Microsoft chairman calls him a "visionary thinker and futurist."
Kurzweil is an inventor whose work in artificial intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades. He invented the flatbed scanner, the first true electric piano, and large-vocabulary speech-recognition software; he's launched ten companies and sold five, and has written five books; he has a BS in computer science from MIT and 13 honorary doctorates (but no real one); he's been inducted into the Inventor's Hall of Fame and charges $25,000 every time he gives a speech - 40 times last year.
24 Innovators at the gate
And now, if anything, he's gaining momentum as a cultural force: He has not one but two movies in the works - one a documentary about his career and ideas and the other an adaptation of his recent bestseller, The Singularity Is Near, which he's writing and co-producing (he's talking about a distribution deal with the people who brought you The Day After Tomorrow).
When Kurzweil isn't giving keynote addresses or reading obscure peer-review journals, he's raising money for his new hedge fund, FatKat (Financial Accelerating Transactions from Kurzweil Adaptive Technologies). He's already attracted a roster of blue-ribbon investors that includes venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, former Microsoft CFO Mike Brown, and former Flextronics CEO-turned-KKR-partner Michael Marks.
Being a hedge fund manager may seem an odd pursuit for an expert in artificial intelligence, but to Kurzweil it's perfectly natural. The magic that has enabled all his innovations has been the science of pattern recognition - and what is the financial market, he postulates, but a series of patterns?
Kurzweil, however, has something bigger on his mind than just making money -after half a lifetime studying trends in technological change, he believes he's found a pattern that allows him to see into the future with a high degree of accuracy. The secret is something he calls the Law of Accelerating Returns, and the basic idea is that the power of technology is expanding at an exponential rate. Mankind is on the cusp of a radically accelerating era of change unlike anything we have ever seen, he says, and almost more extreme than we can imagine.
The fate of the $16B Walton estate
Everything will be subject to his Law of Accelerating Returns, Kurzweil says, because "everything is ultimately becoming information technology." As we are able to reverse-engineer and decode our own DNA, for instance, medical technology can be converted to bits and bytes and zoom along at the same fantastic rate. That will enable overlapping revolutions in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Which is how you end up with nanobots living in your brain.
And if you're a Baby Boomer with the right fitness plan (for Kurzweil that involves over 200 supplement pills a day plus intravenous treatments once a week), you may just live long enough to live forever.
By the time a child born today graduates from college, Kurzweil believes, poverty, disease, and reliance on fossil fuels should be a thing of the past. Speaking of which, don't get him started on global-warming hype.
"These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous," says the man who once delivered a tech conference presentation as a singing computer avatar named Ramona. (That stunt was the inspiration for the 2002 Al Pacino movie Simone.) "They don't account for anything like the technological progress we're going to experience."
Kurzweil's crusade, if you will, is to get across that most of us (even most of his fellow scientists) fail to see the world changing exponentially because we are "stuck in the intuitive linear view." To hammer home his point, Kurzweil packs his presentations with charts that show, for instance, supercomputer power doubling consistently over time.
He explains that Moore's Law - the number of transistors on a chip will double every two years - is but one excellent example of the Law of Accelerating Returns. One of Kurzweil's favorite illustrations of exponential growth is the Human Genome Project. "It was scheduled to be a 15-year project," he says. "After seven years only 1% of it was done, and the critics said it would be impossible. But if you double from 1% every year over seven years, you get 100%. It was right on schedule."
Ask Bing: My boss is a slacker
He believes humanity is near that 1% moment in technological growth. By 2027, he predicts, computers will surpass humans in intelligence; by 2045 or so, we will reach the Singularity, a moment when technology is advancing so rapidly that "strictly biological" humans will be unable to comprehend it.
He has plenty more ideas that may seem Woody Allen - wacky in a Sleeper kind of way (virtual sex as good as or better than the real thing) and occasionally downright disturbing à la 2001: A Space Odyssey (computers will achieve consciousness in about 20 years). But a number of his predictions have had a funny way of coming true.
Back in the 1980s he predicted that a computer would beat the world chess champion in 1998 (it happened in 1997) and that some kind of worldwide computer network would arise and facilitate communication and entertainment (still happening).
His current vision goes way, way past the web, of course. But at least give the guy a hearing. "We are the species that goes beyond our potential," he says. "Merging with our technology is the next stage in our evolution."
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Butterfly Effect and the Environment: How Tiny Actions Can Save the World
http://www.copyblogger.com/butterfly-effect-environment/
[quote]The Butterfly Effect and the Environment: How Tiny Actions Can Save the World
by Brian Clark
Blog Action Day
This post is my contribution to Blog Action Day, joining thousands of other bloggers to write about one topic for a single day. This year’s topic is the environment.
The acre of land my family and I live on rests on a heavily-wooded elevation, which provides a panoramic view of a sparkling lake to the south. It’s quite a departure from the suburban tract home I grew up in, and I’m hoping my kids end up with fond childhood memories of frolicking in a beautiful natural setting.
One remarkable thing about the property is the amount of butterflies it attracts, no doubt due to the variety of plant species that are permitted to grow undisturbed. My 5-year-old daughter and her little brother spend large chunks of time hopelessly chasing after scores of Monarchs and other brightly-colored, flitting butterflies.
And all I can think about is the havoc these little critters are having on the weather in China. Not the kids… the butterflies.
The Butterfly Effect
The Butterfly Effect is a term that has leaked into popular culture thanks to time-travel stories, but its actual meaning is steeped in no-nonsense science. From a technical standpoint, it refers to the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory.
In plain language, tiny changes within a complex system lead to results that are impossible to predict. For example, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings could create tiny changes in the atmosphere that lead to violent weather conditions elsewhere on the planet.
Although the concept has been around since 1890, the Butterfly Effect gained popular acceptance in 1961 due to weather prediction modeling performed by meteorologist Edward Lorenz. He found that changes that should have been statistically insignificant led to completely different weather scenarios. The butterfly analogy began in 1972, when Lorenz delivered a speech entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?
What’s that got to do with the environment?
Well, given the changes we humans have introduced into the complex ecosystem known as Planet Earth, it’s fair to say that we’ve done the work of billions of butterflies. What we’re trying to figure out now is what’s going to happen, but it’s most likely going to be pretty significant.
What if Butterflies Disappeared?
While there’s little agreement as to what’s going to happen ecologically due to human activity, there’s no doubt that we’ve made drastic changes to just about every natural habitat on the planet. Our oceans and natural water sources are polluted, the composition of our soil has been chemically altered, the atmosphere has been heavily influenced by emissions, our forests have been dramatically reduced, and on and on.
One area of particular importance is biodiversity. Beyond the fact that biodiversity itself protects humans from the effects of agricultural catastrophes like the Irish Potato Famine, the loss of a species results in significant changes in natural habitats that can hurt us badly down the road.
Maybe you don’t personally care about the Mexican long-nosed bat, but if they disappear completely, there will most assuredly be consequences that ripple well beyond Texas and New Mexico over time. We just can’t predict what they’ll be.
If butterflies disappeared, the world would most certainly be worse off for children of all ages. But it’s much worse than that. Many flowering plants are so closely linked to butterflies (and vice versa) that one cannot survive without the other. When you think about the natural interdependence network that could collapse due to the extinction of one important species, it starts to get a little scary.
In the last 439 million years, there have been five cataclysmic extinction events, each one wiping out between 50 to 95 percent of existing life, including the dominant lifeforms of the time. Many scientists believe that:
* we’re in the midst of the sixth extinction event
* we’re the cause, and
* we’re in danger of being wiped out ourselves
Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson predicts that if things don’t change, half of all plant and animal species will be extinct by the year 2100. Worse, a poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that 7 in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a much more dire threat to human existence than global warming does.
That’s not good news, but let’s step away from the negative. Instead, let’s look at how we can put the Butterfly Effect to work for us in a good way.
The Positive Side of the Butterfly Effect
Let’s face it—things will likely change for the worse regarding the environment no matter what. Some of those changes will be pretty bad, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.
That doesn’t mean we should give up. The more positive change we introduce into the system starting right now, the more bad things we avoid. Plus, we buy time for technology to help protect us from adverse conditions, and even reverse some of the damage.
The corollary of the Butterfly Effect is that tiny changes you make do in fact make a difference. And when those tiny changes are aggregated among millions of people, we can truly make a real difference in how much nature we save for our children, grandchildren, and beyond.
We might even be saving them.
It doesn’t need to be a sacrifice. Why not make changes that simply save you money?
Check out these planet-saving actions that keep more coin in your pocket:
* Cut out bottled water: Producing plastic water bottles consumes massive amounts of fossil fuels only to crowd landfills. American demand alone requires 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel approximately 100,000 U.S. cars for a year. And if you think gas prices are bad, you’re paying $10 a gallon for water when you buy individual bottles. Get a simple home filtration solution, and a reusable stainless steel bottle.
* Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs: CFL bulbs are more expensive, but they last 5 times longer than conventional bulbs. Save $30 in energy costs per bulb and help save the planet.
* Buy a new monitor: You know you want a new LCD monitor, so go ahead and do it. They use 1/3 the energy, and they look cool. Just hold on to your computer as long as you can stand it, or learn to recycle it when you trade up.
* Quit your job. Telecommuting twice a week can save 40 percent of your gas costs according to the Telework Coalition, or $624 per year. To further maximize your happiness and the future health of the Earth, start that home-based business you keep talking about.
Here are 52 other ways to save money while you save the planet.
What Have You Got to Lose?
It’s mid-October now, and the butterflies are just about gone for the year. My daughter provided the inspiration for this article when she asked me in a concerned voice:
“Daddy, where have all the butterflies gone?”
“It’s okay sweetie… they’ll be back in the spring.”
I hope no parent has to answer that question differently.[quote]
[quote]The Butterfly Effect and the Environment: How Tiny Actions Can Save the World
by Brian Clark
Blog Action Day
This post is my contribution to Blog Action Day, joining thousands of other bloggers to write about one topic for a single day. This year’s topic is the environment.
The acre of land my family and I live on rests on a heavily-wooded elevation, which provides a panoramic view of a sparkling lake to the south. It’s quite a departure from the suburban tract home I grew up in, and I’m hoping my kids end up with fond childhood memories of frolicking in a beautiful natural setting.
One remarkable thing about the property is the amount of butterflies it attracts, no doubt due to the variety of plant species that are permitted to grow undisturbed. My 5-year-old daughter and her little brother spend large chunks of time hopelessly chasing after scores of Monarchs and other brightly-colored, flitting butterflies.
And all I can think about is the havoc these little critters are having on the weather in China. Not the kids… the butterflies.
The Butterfly Effect
The Butterfly Effect is a term that has leaked into popular culture thanks to time-travel stories, but its actual meaning is steeped in no-nonsense science. From a technical standpoint, it refers to the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory.
In plain language, tiny changes within a complex system lead to results that are impossible to predict. For example, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings could create tiny changes in the atmosphere that lead to violent weather conditions elsewhere on the planet.
Although the concept has been around since 1890, the Butterfly Effect gained popular acceptance in 1961 due to weather prediction modeling performed by meteorologist Edward Lorenz. He found that changes that should have been statistically insignificant led to completely different weather scenarios. The butterfly analogy began in 1972, when Lorenz delivered a speech entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?
What’s that got to do with the environment?
Well, given the changes we humans have introduced into the complex ecosystem known as Planet Earth, it’s fair to say that we’ve done the work of billions of butterflies. What we’re trying to figure out now is what’s going to happen, but it’s most likely going to be pretty significant.
What if Butterflies Disappeared?
While there’s little agreement as to what’s going to happen ecologically due to human activity, there’s no doubt that we’ve made drastic changes to just about every natural habitat on the planet. Our oceans and natural water sources are polluted, the composition of our soil has been chemically altered, the atmosphere has been heavily influenced by emissions, our forests have been dramatically reduced, and on and on.
One area of particular importance is biodiversity. Beyond the fact that biodiversity itself protects humans from the effects of agricultural catastrophes like the Irish Potato Famine, the loss of a species results in significant changes in natural habitats that can hurt us badly down the road.
Maybe you don’t personally care about the Mexican long-nosed bat, but if they disappear completely, there will most assuredly be consequences that ripple well beyond Texas and New Mexico over time. We just can’t predict what they’ll be.
If butterflies disappeared, the world would most certainly be worse off for children of all ages. But it’s much worse than that. Many flowering plants are so closely linked to butterflies (and vice versa) that one cannot survive without the other. When you think about the natural interdependence network that could collapse due to the extinction of one important species, it starts to get a little scary.
In the last 439 million years, there have been five cataclysmic extinction events, each one wiping out between 50 to 95 percent of existing life, including the dominant lifeforms of the time. Many scientists believe that:
* we’re in the midst of the sixth extinction event
* we’re the cause, and
* we’re in danger of being wiped out ourselves
Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson predicts that if things don’t change, half of all plant and animal species will be extinct by the year 2100. Worse, a poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that 7 in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a much more dire threat to human existence than global warming does.
That’s not good news, but let’s step away from the negative. Instead, let’s look at how we can put the Butterfly Effect to work for us in a good way.
The Positive Side of the Butterfly Effect
Let’s face it—things will likely change for the worse regarding the environment no matter what. Some of those changes will be pretty bad, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.
That doesn’t mean we should give up. The more positive change we introduce into the system starting right now, the more bad things we avoid. Plus, we buy time for technology to help protect us from adverse conditions, and even reverse some of the damage.
The corollary of the Butterfly Effect is that tiny changes you make do in fact make a difference. And when those tiny changes are aggregated among millions of people, we can truly make a real difference in how much nature we save for our children, grandchildren, and beyond.
We might even be saving them.
It doesn’t need to be a sacrifice. Why not make changes that simply save you money?
Check out these planet-saving actions that keep more coin in your pocket:
* Cut out bottled water: Producing plastic water bottles consumes massive amounts of fossil fuels only to crowd landfills. American demand alone requires 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel approximately 100,000 U.S. cars for a year. And if you think gas prices are bad, you’re paying $10 a gallon for water when you buy individual bottles. Get a simple home filtration solution, and a reusable stainless steel bottle.
* Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs: CFL bulbs are more expensive, but they last 5 times longer than conventional bulbs. Save $30 in energy costs per bulb and help save the planet.
* Buy a new monitor: You know you want a new LCD monitor, so go ahead and do it. They use 1/3 the energy, and they look cool. Just hold on to your computer as long as you can stand it, or learn to recycle it when you trade up.
* Quit your job. Telecommuting twice a week can save 40 percent of your gas costs according to the Telework Coalition, or $624 per year. To further maximize your happiness and the future health of the Earth, start that home-based business you keep talking about.
Here are 52 other ways to save money while you save the planet.
What Have You Got to Lose?
It’s mid-October now, and the butterflies are just about gone for the year. My daughter provided the inspiration for this article when she asked me in a concerned voice:
“Daddy, where have all the butterflies gone?”
“It’s okay sweetie… they’ll be back in the spring.”
I hope no parent has to answer that question differently.[quote]
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Monarch II Project Phoenix: Mind Control
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A635412E22918B9C
<object width="530" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="530" height="370"></embed></object>
Monarch II: Introduction
08:31
microwave nonlethal weapons have plausible deniability, invisible bullets leave no physical evidence. Mind control and weapons developments programs are being used on Cointelpro targets across the country. What better use for the US Govt enemies list than to use them as human guinea pigs in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt one)
03:32
Seven facts that make the case for US intelligence agencies using nonlethal weapons on US citizens in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt two)
03:54
The seven facts that prove there is an ongoing war crime of torture and assassination against thousands of American citizens.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt three)
03:51
An activist minded lawyer takes on a powerful law firm only to experience a sustained attack on himself and his family by microwave "nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt four)
09:30
whistleblowers and activists comprise at least 30% of the Targeted individuals (TI's). TI's are people who are being attacked in the tradition of Cointelpro and the Phoenix Program. Loyal Americans are 'enrolled" into a weapons development program using EM nonlethal weapons and gang stalking to neutralize and destroy potential threats.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt five) In Their Own Words
09:51
Two Targeted Individuals tell their stories of harassment, intimidation, psychological warfare, and torture by 'nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt six) In Their Own Words
06:01
Helen Anderson speaks to why she and her family have been targeted, dating back to the Manhattan project. John Mecca and Debra Lamb briefly discuss the technology and legal aspects of using the DOJ by the DOD to test and perfect experimental weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt seven) In Their Own Words
05:43
Three TI's from different parts of the country briefly tell their story.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt eight) In Their Own Words
04:18
Two Targeted Individuals living in Florida testify about their harassment through gang stalking and EM weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt nine) In Their Own Words
06:29
Katherine Griggs, wife of Colonel George Griggs talks briefly about her life as a targeted individual. Except from her filmed testimony.
<object width="530" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="530" height="370"></embed></object>
Monarch II: Introduction
08:31
microwave nonlethal weapons have plausible deniability, invisible bullets leave no physical evidence. Mind control and weapons developments programs are being used on Cointelpro targets across the country. What better use for the US Govt enemies list than to use them as human guinea pigs in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt one)
03:32
Seven facts that make the case for US intelligence agencies using nonlethal weapons on US citizens in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt two)
03:54
The seven facts that prove there is an ongoing war crime of torture and assassination against thousands of American citizens.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt three)
03:51
An activist minded lawyer takes on a powerful law firm only to experience a sustained attack on himself and his family by microwave "nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt four)
09:30
whistleblowers and activists comprise at least 30% of the Targeted individuals (TI's). TI's are people who are being attacked in the tradition of Cointelpro and the Phoenix Program. Loyal Americans are 'enrolled" into a weapons development program using EM nonlethal weapons and gang stalking to neutralize and destroy potential threats.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt five) In Their Own Words
09:51
Two Targeted Individuals tell their stories of harassment, intimidation, psychological warfare, and torture by 'nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt six) In Their Own Words
06:01
Helen Anderson speaks to why she and her family have been targeted, dating back to the Manhattan project. John Mecca and Debra Lamb briefly discuss the technology and legal aspects of using the DOJ by the DOD to test and perfect experimental weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt seven) In Their Own Words
05:43
Three TI's from different parts of the country briefly tell their story.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt eight) In Their Own Words
04:18
Two Targeted Individuals living in Florida testify about their harassment through gang stalking and EM weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt nine) In Their Own Words
06:29
Katherine Griggs, wife of Colonel George Griggs talks briefly about her life as a targeted individual. Except from her filmed testimony.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Monarch II Project Phoenix: Mind Control
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A635412E22918B9C
<object width="530" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="530" height="370"></embed></object>
Monarch II: Introduction
08:31
microwave nonlethal weapons have plausible deniability, invisible bullets leave no physical evidence. Mind control and weapons developments programs are being used on Cointelpro targets across the country. What better use for the US Govt enemies list than to use them as human guinea pigs in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt one)
03:32
Seven facts that make the case for US intelligence agencies using nonlethal weapons on US citizens in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt two)
03:54
The seven facts that prove there is an ongoing war crime of torture and assassination against thousands of American citizens.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt three)
03:51
An activist minded lawyer takes on a powerful law firm only to experience a sustained attack on himself and his family by microwave "nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt four)
09:30
whistleblowers and activists comprise at least 30% of the Targeted individuals (TI's). TI's are people who are being attacked in the tradition of Cointelpro and the Phoenix Program. Loyal Americans are 'enrolled" into a weapons development program using EM nonlethal weapons and gang stalking to neutralize and destroy potential threats.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt five) In Their Own Words
09:51
Two Targeted Individuals tell their stories of harassment, intimidation, psychological warfare, and torture by 'nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt six) In Their Own Words
06:01
Helen Anderson speaks to why she and her family have been targeted, dating back to the Manhattan project. John Mecca and Debra Lamb briefly discuss the technology and legal aspects of using the DOJ by the DOD to test and perfect experimental weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt seven) In Their Own Words
05:43
Three TI's from different parts of the country briefly tell their story.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt eight) In Their Own Words
04:18
Two Targeted Individuals living in Florida testify about their harassment through gang stalking and EM weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt nine) In Their Own Words
06:29
Katherine Griggs, wife of Colonel George Griggs talks briefly about her life as a targeted individual. Except from her filmed testimony.
<object width="530" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/A635412E22918B9C" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="530" height="370"></embed></object>
Monarch II: Introduction
08:31
microwave nonlethal weapons have plausible deniability, invisible bullets leave no physical evidence. Mind control and weapons developments programs are being used on Cointelpro targets across the country. What better use for the US Govt enemies list than to use them as human guinea pigs in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt one)
03:32
Seven facts that make the case for US intelligence agencies using nonlethal weapons on US citizens in terminal experiments.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt two)
03:54
The seven facts that prove there is an ongoing war crime of torture and assassination against thousands of American citizens.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt three)
03:51
An activist minded lawyer takes on a powerful law firm only to experience a sustained attack on himself and his family by microwave "nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt four)
09:30
whistleblowers and activists comprise at least 30% of the Targeted individuals (TI's). TI's are people who are being attacked in the tradition of Cointelpro and the Phoenix Program. Loyal Americans are 'enrolled" into a weapons development program using EM nonlethal weapons and gang stalking to neutralize and destroy potential threats.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt five) In Their Own Words
09:51
Two Targeted Individuals tell their stories of harassment, intimidation, psychological warfare, and torture by 'nonlethal" weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt six) In Their Own Words
06:01
Helen Anderson speaks to why she and her family have been targeted, dating back to the Manhattan project. John Mecca and Debra Lamb briefly discuss the technology and legal aspects of using the DOJ by the DOD to test and perfect experimental weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt seven) In Their Own Words
05:43
Three TI's from different parts of the country briefly tell their story.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt eight) In Their Own Words
04:18
Two Targeted Individuals living in Florida testify about their harassment through gang stalking and EM weapons.
Monarch II Making the Case (pt nine) In Their Own Words
06:29
Katherine Griggs, wife of Colonel George Griggs talks briefly about her life as a targeted individual. Except from her filmed testimony.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Friday, October 28, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)