subject:"\[Vo\]\:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed"


See:

It's Time to Make Free Energy our Next Grass Roots Victory

Steve Windisch

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-free-energy-our-next-grass-roots-victory-by-steve-windisch/

This author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed. A lot 
of people agree, but I doubt it. The author says we should pressure 
the government to open up and allow research on these subject. That I 
agree with.


Interesting quote from article:


Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's 
Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71 
Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School 
of Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a 
presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base):


We already have the means to traverse the stars but these 
technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act 
of god to ever get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can 
imagine we already know how to do.



Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at 
hiding information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:

It's Time to Make Free Energy our Next Grass Roots Victory

Steve Windisch

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-free-energy-our-next-grass-roots-victory-by-steve-windisch/

This author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed. A lot of
people agree, but I doubt it. The author says we should pressure the
government to open up and allow research on these subject. That I agree
with.

Interesting quote from article:

Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's
Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71
Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of
Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a
presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base):

We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies
are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever
get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already
know how to do.

Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding
information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps.

You also might think that, if mainstream science and engineering done by
trained scientists and engineers (which is what Lockheed and similar
outfits engage in) had actually found a workable star drive, then there
might be some hints in currently published papers on cosmology pointing
to how they might do it. The details would be secret, sure, but you'd
see some sort of dim outline of it in the public journals.

Yet, you don't -- there are no hints of such a thing.

There are fringe notions which could lead to a star drive, maybe,
someday, if mainstream cosmology is all wrong and if people like Van
Flandern and Sarfatti turn out to be honest capable researchers who were
just misunderstood. But from what I can see, the mainstream physics
community doesn't have a shadow of a hint of a such a thing, and even
some ideas which were floating around, such as wormholes and gateways
through spinning black holes, seem to be on the skids.

To have a workable star drive in the back room at some lab, while
there's no hint in the literature, would be as though the Manhattan
project had been started up at a time when there was no hint in the
mainstream literature that splitting the atom was even possible.

Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when
all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight
was impossible.

Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and
computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the
invention of a practical lightbulb.

Or it would be like someone producing a workable canon back before
anyone had invented gunpowder.

None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

2009-03-04 Thread Michel Jullian

Ah, but look what happened to planet Krikkit ;-)

Michel

2009/3/4 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com:

Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:

It's Time to Make Free Energy our Next Grass Roots Victory

Steve Windisch

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-free-energy-our-next-grass-roots-victory-by-steve-windisch/

Interesting quote from article:

Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding
information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps.

Yet, you don't -- there are no hints of such a thing.

Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when
all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight
was impossible.

Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and
computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the
invention of a practical lightbulb.

Or it would be like someone producing a workable canon back before
anyone had invented gunpowder.

None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

2009-03-04 Thread OrionWorks

From Jed:

 Interesting quote from article:

 Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's
 Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71
 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of
 Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a
 presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base):

 We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies
 are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever
 get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already
 know how to do.


 Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding
 information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps.

...and from Steve Lawrence:

...

 None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable.

FWIW:

Having attended numerous informal social gatherings of a local UFO
group held in the Milwaukee area since the 1990s I'd have to say that
Rich's comments are, not surprisingly, fertile topics of constant
conjecture. For example, the true propulsion of the B-2 has
occasionally been discussed.

It's become my suspicion that a person could easily spend his entire
lifetime pursuing the Holy Grail of what really drives the B-2
bomber through the air, or whether something of an extraterrestrial
nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947, or whether we humans
are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who knows
what kinds of various experiments.

If one is into pursuing these kinds of Holy Grails, I would recommend
a website that was first brought to my attention by Thomas Malloy,
Project Camelot. See:

http://www.projectcamelot.org/interviews.html

for the latest interviews with various players. Some of the
interviewees are obscure, and some well known within the UFO field.
This is an excellent smorgasbord of video  audio entrees for those
who want to get an overwhelming dose of conspiratorial views. (Took me
damned well over a month to get through most of the video interviews.)

Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on this
planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few
of my personal interests within the UFO community and the Free
Energy field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt that
I've experienced numerous adventures over the decades, and some of
those adventures have even been fun - incredibly fun! But what did I
actually learn (of substance) from all of my adventures? That IS the
key question, one that is not easily answered. For example, what have
I personally uncovered - have I actually SEEN the Holey Grail,
personal proof that there exists a simple free energy device that if
ONLY we could get the contraption past the MIBs and out to the public
it would solve ALL of our planet's dire energy problems. Or, have I
personally met an extraterrestrial, perhaps at a StarBuck's coffee
shop, and he/she/it answered one of my burning questions, like: Was
the Face on Mars really constructed in the likeness of Elvis? ... Ok,
strike that last statement. Me bad.

As for what I actually have learned... well, I think I've learned not
to pass judgment on what I've heard, at least not so quickly as
perhaps I would have tended to have done earlier in my life. I've
learned that the more I've learned the more ignorant I realize I truly
am about what the hell may actually be going on, particularly beyond
the boundaries of my five senses. I've learned that there is only so
much I, as an individual, can know about my surroundings.

I would like to suggest that if one chooses to make as one of their
Life's Goals the pursuit one of the above Holy Grails (UFOs, Aliens,
Free Energy, etc...), it would be wise to prepare yourself with the
possibility that, as you approach death, you may NOT know what is
really going on behind the curtain. There is a real temptation to
manufacture an explanation of truth, just so one can feel like
they accomplished something of value in their all-too-short life span.

One of the few but profound revelations I have learned so far in this
lifetime is that it is a good thing to know and enjoy what I DO know,
along with what I truly do NOT know. The wisdom is to know the
difference.

Small steps, Sparks. Small steps.

Still working on that one. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when
all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight
was impossible.

Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and
computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the
invention of a practical lightbulb.


That's my gut feeling. There have been some mechanical devices that 
seem temporally out of sequence, such as the Antikythera device and 
Babbage's computer designs. But I can't think of any full-scale 
devices based on new physical principles.


The closest I can think of offhand is ancient Iraqi batteries, from 
around 2000 years ago, which were probably used for medical purposes. 
Of course ancient people did not understand electricity. The 
batteries were clay jars with an iron rod surrounded by a copper 
cylinder. The electrolyte was probably vinegar, and it produced ~1.1 
V. You wonder how they ever discovered it, but that can be said for 
countless other ancient discoveries such as steel.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed



OrionWorks wrote:
From Jed:
 
 Interesting quote from article:

 Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's
 Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71
 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of
 Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a
 presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base):
 We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies
 are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever
 get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already
 know how to do.

 
 Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding
 information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps.
 
 ...and from Steve Lawrence:
 
 ...
 
 None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable.
 
 FWIW:
 
 Having attended numerous informal social gatherings of a local UFO
 group held in the Milwaukee area since the 1990s I'd have to say that
 Rich's comments are, not surprisingly, fertile topics of constant
 conjecture. For example, the true propulsion of the B-2 has
 occasionally been discussed.
 
 It's become my suspicion that a person could easily spend his entire
 lifetime pursuing the Holy Grail of what really drives the B-2
 bomber through the air,

Ummm... I gather there's some reason to believe that Four General
Electric F118-GE-100 engines, as it says on the fact sheet, are not
actually up to the job?  Of course they're buried in the body of the
plane to cut the heat signature, contributing to the overall weird look
of the plane, but seriously, are you saying that folks (who are
presumably not aerospace engineers) have been able to *prove* that these
engines couldn't possibly be the real power plant?

I've learned some things, too, over the years, starting with this:  It's
easier to raise objections to a (patently correct) claim than it is to
counter them.

It's possible to come up with 10 arguments showing, for example, that
the Apollo missions could not possibly have gone to the Moon in far less
time than it takes to thoroughly debunk any *one* such argument.

Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction must make sense -- what
this really means is that figuring out why the truth actually does make
sense can be extremely difficult and time consuming.  In many cases it's
*much* easier to come up with a convenient, and apparently sensible,
fiction, and just *deny* the truth.

We went to the moon 38 years ago, and then the last mission came home
and we never went back.  That doesn't make sense!  If we could do it
then, we *certainly* could do it now!  Lots of people want to go, so if
we could do it, we certainly would!  That's *really* hard to explain!
So, it must all be a lie, and a cover-up of the real truth.  It's
*much* easier to make sense of a claim that we never went to the moon at
all, and it was all done in Stanley Kubrick's studio.

Oh, and one other thing:  Never accept without corroboration an
outlandish claim made by a speaker who received an honorarium for
talking.  Once people start taking money for making their strange
claims, they will *never* realize that their claims are, after all,
false.  (This principle applies to a lot of other things, as well, such
as authors who have published a book (and who are hence making money)
showing strange things denied by the Establishment.  Jack Sarfatti comes
to mind here.)



 or whether something of an extraterrestrial
 nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947

I like the Roswell story.

As far as I know nobody made a dime off those weird photos.  If it was a
hoax it wasn't done for the money.


 , or whether we humans
 are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who knows
 what kinds of various experiments.

Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena.  The folks whose
memories were recovered are apparently sincere.  As to the researchers
who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story
-- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're
also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is
making money from the operation.

Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered
being in battles which never took place, outside of movies?  If not I'll
see if I can dig up more info on it.  There is evidence that human
memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of
conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before
it causes trouble.  When you get yourself into a situation where you can
no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using
context, beware.  (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.)

If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I have
someone at my shoulder telling me it might

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed


I wrote:

Photography, maybe. The electromagnetic telegraph, and Watt's steam 
engine? No. The cut-off is around 1750, about 150 years into the 
scientific revolution.


To clarify, I do not mean that every single gadget invented after 
1750 could only have been invented by modern people. Paperclips, for 
example, could have made anytime in the last 2000 years, although the 
automatic machines that make them could not have been.


The first photography was done around 1820 but I think it might have 
been done earlier. I am not sure how much knowledge of chemistry went 
into it, and how much was trial and error.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed



Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
 
 Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when
 all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight
 was impossible.

 Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and
 computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the
 invention of a practical lightbulb.
 
 That's my gut feeling. There have been some mechanical devices that seem
 temporally out of sequence, such as the Antikythera device and Babbage's
 computer designs. But I can't think of any full-scale devices based on
 new physical principles.

Actually, both the Antikythera device and Babbage's engines support what
I was saying:  They were the bleeding-edge best which could be done in
their times, and they were both based firmly on known and well
understood physics of those times.  No scientist of the time would have
mistaken them for magic; any engineer of the time would have recognized
them for what they were.

Babbage's engines were based on mechanical mechanisms which had been
understood, at least in principle, for a couple thousand years.  The
Antikythera device was similar (in principle).  Neither would have
allowed computing pi to 1000 places; they simply didn't have the
horsepower for the job.  To do that job, new physics was needed, and the
new physics didn't exist before the 1900's, and the engineering
fundamentals needed to use the new physics didn't exist before Edison's
lightbulb paved the way to develop vacuum tubes.

In concept, one could compare both of those computing engines to a star
ship built with a combination of rockets and ground based lasers.  We
can design such a device today, because it's based on physics we
understand.  But we could not build such a device and cruise to the
galactic center to check out the black hole there, because such a star
ship simply wouldn't be capable of such a performance.  New physics is
needed -- and there is no hint of the necessary new physics anywhere in
the mainstream literature.

A Bussard ramjet is probably the closest thing going to an end run
around the problems of a star ship.  Unfortunately as far as I know
there's no reason to believe such a thing is even possible; it's pure
speculation without any kind of firm factual foundation -- like Tony
Stark's transistor powered iron suit.

 
 The closest I can think of offhand is ancient Iraqi batteries, from
 around 2000 years ago, which were probably used for medical purposes. Of
 course ancient people did not understand electricity. The batteries were
 clay jars with an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder. The
 electrolyte was probably vinegar, and it produced ~1.1 V. You wonder how
 they ever discovered it, but that can be said for countless other
 ancient discoveries such as steel.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed






or whether something of an extraterrestrial
nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947


I like the Roswell story.

As far as I know nobody made a dime off those weird photos.  If it  
was a

hoax it wasn't done for the money.



, or whether we humans
are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who  
knows

what kinds of various experiments.


Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena.  The folks whose
memories were recovered are apparently sincere.  As to the researchers
who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another  
story
-- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis  
you're

also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is
making money from the operation.

Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently  
remembered
being in battles which never took place, outside of movies?  If not  
I'll

see if I can dig up more info on it.  There is evidence that human
memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal  
of
conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff  
before
it causes trouble.  When you get yourself into a situation where you  
can

no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using
context, beware.  (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.)

If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I  
have
someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened,  
then I

won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens next?
Hmmm


Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read  
the books by David Jacobs.  Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple  
University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was  
convinced of their claims when many different people from different  
parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments  
used during the examination. These people did not know each other and  
had no way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now,  
this detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the  
claims.  Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same  
relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the  
tools and procedures.  This seems to me to be very credible evidence  
that could be used in any court of law to prove a legal fact.


Ed







If one is into pursuing these kinds of Holy Grails, I would recommend
a website that was first brought to my attention by Thomas Malloy,
Project Camelot. See:

http://www.projectcamelot.org/interviews.html

for the latest interviews with various players. Some of the
interviewees are obscure, and some well known within the UFO field.
This is an excellent smorgasbord of video  audio entrees for those
who want to get an overwhelming dose of conspiratorial views. (Took  
me
damned well over a month to get through most of the video  
interviews.)


Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on  
this

planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few
of my personal interests within the UFO community and the Free
Energy field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt  
that

I've experienced numerous adventures over the decades, and some of
those adventures have even been fun - incredibly fun! But what did I
actually learn (of substance) from all of my adventures? That IS the
key question, one that is not easily answered. For example, what have
I personally uncovered - have I actually SEEN the Holey Grail,
personal proof that there exists a simple free energy device that if
ONLY we could get the contraption past the MIBs and out to the public
it would solve ALL of our planet's dire energy problems. Or, have I
personally met an extraterrestrial, perhaps at a StarBuck's coffee
shop, and he/she/it answered one of my burning questions, like: Was
the Face on Mars really constructed in the likeness of Elvis? ... Ok,
strike that last statement. Me bad.

As for what I actually have learned... well, I think I've learned not
to pass judgment on what I've heard, at least not so quickly as
perhaps I would have tended to have done earlier in my life. I've
learned that the more I've learned the more ignorant I realize I  
truly

am about what the hell may actually be going on, particularly beyond
the boundaries of my five senses. I've learned that there is only so
much I, as an individual, can know about my surroundings.

I would like to suggest that if one chooses to make as one of their
Life's Goals the pursuit one of the above Holy Grails (UFOs, Aliens,
Free Energy, etc...), it would be wise to prepare yourself with the
possibility that, as you approach death, you may NOT know what is
really going on behind the curtain. There is a real temptation to
manufacture an explanation of truth, just so one can feel like
they

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible . . .


And suggestible. And malleable. The extent of this in normal, healthy 
people has only been discovered in recent decades. It explains a lot 
about history and human nature. It is regrettable in some ways, but 
my guess is that this same mental flexibility allows creativity.


There are a few people with perfect memories. That is, people who can 
correctly recall what they had for breakfast and what the weather was 
like on June 1, 1967. This has been confirmed by looking up old 
weather data. There are others who can recite from memory books that 
they read once decades ago. Such people are not notably creative. 
Most of them are miserable, and apparently incapable of original 
thinking. I think the ability to forget things and confuse them is 
essential to discovering new ways to look at old facts. I hope that 
is true because I myself feel reborn practically every day, having 
(it seems) forgotten all that I ever knew about programming, 
calorimetry and women, among other things. It makes life an adventure.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed



Edmund Storms wrote:


 Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena.  The folks whose
 memories were recovered are apparently sincere.  As to the researchers
 who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story
 -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're
 also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is
 making money from the operation.

 Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered
 being in battles which never took place, outside of movies?  If not I'll
 see if I can dig up more info on it.  There is evidence that human
 memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of
 conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before
 it causes trouble.  When you get yourself into a situation where you can
 no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using
 context, beware.  (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.)

 If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
 immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I have
 someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I
 won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens next?
 Hmmm
 
 Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read
 the books by David Jacobs.  Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple
 University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was
 convinced of their claims when many different people from different
 parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used
 during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no
 way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this
 detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims.

If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of
Prof. Jacobs's claims?

How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony,
of course)?  As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on
the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of
course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as
a result of these stories!

This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility
is so important in the sciences.

This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of
testimony regarding the WTC collapse:  There were violent explosions in
the basement before the buildings fell.  This is *very* suspicious.  We
know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a man
who was working in the basement at that time.  He happens to be an
amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have
gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his
experiences (that shouldn't matter, either).  But the details of his
personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not
disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on
the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally bogus
statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all).
So, should we believe him?  Not without corroboration!

Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what
independently verifiable support for his assertions exists.


 Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same
 relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the
 tools and procedures.

Has Dr. Mack published the details of what it was he found the common
thread to be?

Again, as I said to start with, it's not the abductees who are the
suspicious characters in memories of abductions -- it's the
interviewer.  In this case, that's Dr. Mack.


  This seems to me to be very credible evidence
 that could be used in any court of law to prove a legal fact.



 
 Ed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


 This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility
 is so important in the sciences.
 
 This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of
 testimony regarding the WTC collapse:  There were violent explosions in
 the basement before the buildings fell.  This is *very* suspicious.  We
 know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a man
 who was working in the basement at that time.  He happens to be an
 amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have
 gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his
 experiences (that shouldn't matter, either).  But the details of his
 personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not
 disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on
 the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally bogus
 statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all).
 So, should we believe him?  Not without corroboration!

Here would be the appropriate place to point out the not un-interesting
fact that, 2 relatively small planes can magically drop 3 huge  massive
buildings right into their footprints.
And talk about mis-direction...
(bah-bah-boomp. Somebody cue the next act, please.)


- -- grok.





- -- 
*** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! ***
* Boycott bourgeois mass-media   *  Political Comix  Cartoons *
**   for enlightenment  enjoyment *
* Critical endorsement only  Most sites need donations *
* http://www.crumbmuseum.com   R. Crumb Museum   BuzzFlash *
* http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/archives.html Editorial toons *
* http://weltschmerz.caWeltschmerz *
* http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html  Get Your War On *
* http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks   The Boondocks *
* http://www.mediachannel.org/reality   Living the Reality *
* http://www.crumbmuseum.com/history1.html R.Crumb History of U.S. *
*  DEATH TO NEOLIBERALISM  *
GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3  09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmu64YACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HLAQCgyd0y6EYYmSUrtuDgkbCPQDeo
E2cAn2K9sfM+az2tkWpJ3AeQ0idoFn7H
=FR4j
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed



On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:




Edmund Storms wrote:



Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena.  The folks whose
memories were recovered are apparently sincere.  As to the  
researchers
who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another  
story
-- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis  
you're

also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is
making money from the operation.

Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently  
remembered
being in battles which never took place, outside of movies?  If  
not I'll

see if I can dig up more info on it.  There is evidence that human
memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great  
deal of
conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff  
before
it causes trouble.  When you get yourself into a situation where  
you can
no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by  
using

context, beware.  (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.)

If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I  
have
someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened,  
then I
won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens  
next?

Hmmm


Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read
the books by David Jacobs.  Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple
University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was
convinced of their claims when many different people from different
parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments  
used
during the examination. These people did not know each other and  
had no

way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this
detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the  
claims.


If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of
Prof. Jacobs's claims?


If the information were published, the people testing the claims would  
no longer have this tool available. But suppose you had the  
information, what good would it do you? How would this help you decide  
if Jacobs and the other people studying the field were honest?  So,  
according to you, any one who publishes his discoveries and makes some  
money  is suspect.  In other words, the large literature based on  
books cannot be believed unless you personally have tested the claims.  
This might be an overstatement of how you approach the problem, but  
where do you draw the line? How can someone who has such unique  
information make it known to you in a way you would accept?  The  
possibility that beings from other planets have visited us and are  
presently interacting with people, seems to me to be a subject worth  
exploring in a serious way.  I have talked to Jacobs personally and  
I'm convinced he is honest and just as amazed by what he is  
discovering as you are. In his case, he took the effort to make a  
serious investigation.  How does any new idea get accepted unless  
people are willing to at least give the benefit of doubt to the claim  
and look deeper?





How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony,
of course)?  As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on
the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of
course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame  
as

a result of these stories!

This question is, of course, a big part of the reason  
reproducibility

is so important in the sciences.

This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits  
of
testimony regarding the WTC collapse:  There were violent explosions  
in
the basement before the buildings fell.  This is *very* suspicious.   
We
know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a  
man

who was working in the basement at that time.  He happens to be an
amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have
gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his
experiences (that shouldn't matter, either).  But the details of his
personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not
disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on
the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally  
bogus

statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all).
So, should we believe him?  Not without corroboration!


I see no relationship in your example to this subject. The UFO  
phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by  
thousands.  If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example.  
People reproduce the same experience, although not willingly.





Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what
independently verifiable support for his assertions exists.


I have read at least a dozen books

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

2009-03-04 Thread OrionWorks

Some follow-up comments

I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post:

 If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
 immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I have
 someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I
 won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens next?
 Hmmm

From Ed Storms:

 Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read
 the books by David Jacobs.  Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple
 University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was
 convinced of their claims when many different people from different
 parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used
 during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no
 way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this
 detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims.

From Stephen Lawrence:

 If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of
 Prof. Jacobs's claims?

 How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony,
 of course)?  As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on
 the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of
 course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as
 a result of these stories!

...

 Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what
 independently verifiable support for his assertions exists.


In my experience the above conjecture as described by Mr. Lawrence
often seems to be a common thread that many skeptics (particularly
debunkers) use to discredit UFO researchers, particularly that they
are not sincere and that they are doing it primarily for the money.
BTW, I'm not implying the Mr. Lawrence is, himself a debunker! ;-) I
just want to be clear on the point that I doubt few UFO researchers
have made any tangible money off of their UFO/alien abduction research
and related publications. Far from it. To publish a book on alien
abduction is pretty much the professional kiss of death. (Jee! Does
this sound familiar???) One is in eminent danger of having mainstream
science never taking any their professional work seriously ever again.

...and now, on to...

 Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same
 relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the
 tools and procedures.

 Has Dr. Mack published the details of what it was he found the common
 thread to be?

There was an academic publication that was published in the early 90s
for which John Mack was one of the principal authors. It's a HUGE
white book, white cover with plain back text title: Alien Abduction
or something like that. It's close to a thousand pages in length. It
was NOT a best seller. It's one of those books that you buy and then
put in your library shelf to collect dust... Plenty of details to get
lost in. The compilation contains numerous testimony from
experiencers. I bought a copy. Cost a good penny, too. Not sure if it
contains the specific markers that are alluded to in Dr. Jacob's work
however. Unfortunately, we can't ask Dr. Mack since he has since
transcended to the next dimension due to an unfortunate encounter with
a car while stepping off a curb in London. The driver was drunk, and
Mack was killed. No conspiracy here. Just tragic unfortunately
circumstances.

 Again, as I said to start with, it's not the abductees who are the
 suspicious characters in memories of abductions -- it's the
 interviewer.  In this case, that's Dr. Mack.

I do sympathize with those who question the veracity of collecting
recovered memories. Indeed, there is much controversy over how
effective such a tool is.

Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt
compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about
this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something
useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions
pertaining to the weaknesses and fallacies of others and their
perceptions as an attempt to show how superior his personal intellect
must be, is turning out to be nothing ore than an exercise in mental
masturbation. Grok, please do it behind closed doors where we don't
have to continue observing the activity. Like Mr. Lawrence, I too, am
seriously considering the kill file for the remainder of your
life-span within Vortex. I realize I risk fanning the flames here,
but I guess it's the risk I'll have to take.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


 Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt
 compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about
 this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something
 useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions
 pertaining to the weaknesses and fallacies of others and their
 perceptions as an attempt to show how superior his personal intellect
 must be, is turning out to be nothing ore than an exercise in mental
 masturbation. Grok, please do it behind closed doors where we don't
 have to continue observing the activity. Like Mr. Lawrence, I too, am
 seriously considering the kill file for the remainder of your
 life-span within Vortex. I realize I risk fanning the flames here,
 but I guess it's the risk I'll have to take.

- From my POV, fella, when most people like you wax eloquent on politix --
maybe Science too, eh? -- you're just plain embarrassing. You think
you've made your slam-dunk point, etc. -- but in fact you haven't even
gotten close to Reality. So by all means, put me in your killfile. Life
is too short to have to suffer such endless repeated inanity as yours.
Not to mention the hypocrisy.

Talk about intolerant. Welcome to U.S. society. Police state that it is.


- -- grok.







- -- 
*** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! ***
* In advance of the Revolution:   *  Get facts  get organized *
* Fight the Man!  *   thru these sites  movements *

* http://www.infoshop.org/wiki   Infoshop OpenWiki *
*http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix The Matrix:Anti-Capitalist Wiki
* http://risingtide.org.uk  Greenwash Guerillas UK *
* http://risingtidenorthamerica.orgGreenwash Guerillas *
* http://www.ministrywatch.com   MinistryWatch *
* http://www.levees.org Levees.Org *
* http://www.govtrack.us   GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress *
  NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK:  Law  Order  ==  Police State   
GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3  09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmu+WIACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HsNwCgjw+dE6da/3OsJlhlle658uRM
DggAniRjGIwfxaKzw1Bt8OEDAKgsFcXJ
=iCtk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


Oh, and one other thing:  Never accept without corroboration an
outlandish claim made by a speaker who received an honorarium for
talking.  Once people start taking money for making their strange
claims, they will *never* realize that their claims are, after all,
false.


You should not accept any claim without corroboration, even an ordinary one.

Still, I agree with this general principle. But it can be pushed too 
far. See Drasin's classic essay:


. . . if investigators or chroniclers of the unorthodox have profited 
financially from activities connected with their research, accuse 
them of profiting financially from activities connected with their 
research! If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so 
forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, 
hold that fact as conclusive proof that income is being realized 
from such activities! If they have labored to achieve public 
recognition of their work, you may safely characterize them as 
publicity seekers. Take care not to inadvertently apply such 
judgments to those pursuing, in similar fashion, orthodox activities.


There is a version of this essay here, but it is missing the last sentence:

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed



Edmund Storms wrote:
 
 On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
 


 Edmund Storms wrote:


 Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena.  The folks whose
 memories were recovered are apparently sincere.  As to the researchers
 who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story
 -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're
 also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is
 making money from the operation.

 Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered
 being in battles which never took place, outside of movies?  If not
 I'll
 see if I can dig up more info on it.  There is evidence that human
 memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of
 conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff
 before
 it causes trouble.  When you get yourself into a situation where you
 can
 no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using
 context, beware.  (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.)

 If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
 immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I have
 someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I
 won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens next?
 Hmmm

 Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read
 the books by David Jacobs.  Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple
 University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was
 convinced of their claims when many different people from different
 parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used
 during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no
 way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this
 detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims.

 If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of
 Prof. Jacobs's claims?
 
 If the information were published, the people testing the claims would
 no longer have this tool available. But suppose you had the information,
 what good would it do you? How would this help you decide if Jacobs and
 the other people studying the field were honest?  So, according to you,
 any one who publishes his discoveries and makes some money  is suspect.

Of course they are, when he's getting the money in exchange for a simple
recital of the discoveries, rather than as a result of some consequence
of the discoveries.  That's why we require reproducibility by third parties.

There is no physical evidence for this claim.  There is nothing but the
researcher's word for it.  Before I'd go too far believing it, I'd want
*some* kind of additional evidence that it's true.

People are venal.  People are not always truthful.  If these things were
not true we could dispense not just with a lot of experimental
replications, but with the locks on our front doors.


 In other words, the large literature based on books cannot be believed
 unless you personally have tested the claims.

No, I never said that.  I asked what corroboration existed.

If there is only Prof. Jacobs' word for his results, then yes, I am
suspicious.

If one person alone got a result and nobody else did, and there was no
physical evidence of the result, I would not necessarily believe that
result.  Does that surprise you?

I don't require that I, personally, test the result, obviously!  But
there should be *some* independent corroboration.


 This might be an
 overstatement of how you approach the problem, but where do you draw the
 line? How can someone who has such unique information make it known to
 you in a way you would accept?  The possibility that beings from other
 planets have visited us and are presently interacting with people, seems
 to me to be a subject worth exploring in a serious way.  I have talked
 to Jacobs personally and I'm convinced he is honest and just as amazed
 by what he is discovering as you are.

While that's not *exactly* the same as corroboration it's still
extremely interesting, and lends a lot of credibility to it; thank you
for mentioning it.



 In his case, he took the effort to
 make a serious investigation.  How does any new idea get accepted unless
 people are willing to at least give the benefit of doubt to the claim
 and look deeper?
 


 How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony,
 of course)?  As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on
 the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of
 course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as
 a result of these stories!

 This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility
 is so important in the sciences.

 This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of
 testimony regarding the WTC collapse:  There were violent explosions in

RE: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

2009-03-04 Thread Rick Monteverde

Grok  killfile

Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems.
Request removal by list owner.

-Original Message-
From: grok [mailto:g...@resist.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

 Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt 
 compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about 
 this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something 
 useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions 
 pertaining to the weaknesses and fallacies of others and their 
 perceptions as an attempt to show how superior his personal intellect 
 must be, is turning out to be nothing ore than an exercise in mental 
 masturbation. Grok, please do it behind closed doors where we don't 
 have to continue observing the activity. Like Mr. Lawrence, I too, am 
 seriously considering the kill file for the remainder of your 
 life-span within Vortex. I realize I risk fanning the flames here, 
 but I guess it's the risk I'll have to take.

- From my POV, fella, when most people like you wax eloquent on politix --
maybe Science too, eh? -- you're just plain embarrassing. You think you've
made your slam-dunk point, etc. -- but in fact you haven't even gotten close
to Reality. So by all means, put me in your killfile. Life is too short to
have to suffer such endless repeated inanity as yours.
Not to mention the hypocrisy.

Talk about intolerant. Welcome to U.S. society. Police state that it is.

- -- grok.

- --
*** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! ***
* In advance of the Revolution:   *  Get facts  get organized *
* Fight the Man!  *   thru these sites  movements *

* http://www.infoshop.org/wiki   Infoshop OpenWiki *
*http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix The Matrix:Anti-Capitalist Wiki
* http://risingtide.org.uk  Greenwash Guerillas UK *
* http://risingtidenorthamerica.orgGreenwash Guerillas *
* http://www.ministrywatch.com   MinistryWatch *
* http://www.levees.org Levees.Org *
* http://www.govtrack.us   GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress *
  NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK:  Law  Order  ==  Police State   
GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3  09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmu+WIACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HsNwCgjw+dE6da/3OsJlhlle658uRM
DggAniRjGIwfxaKzw1Bt8OEDAKgsFcXJ
=iCtk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed


Edmund Storms wrote:


The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by
thousands.  If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example.


Not so perfect. It is more in the category of a natural science field 
observation, rather than a phenomenon reproduced in an experiment, 
and detected with instruments. The latter is far more reliable. Field 
observations are essential to science. Darwin used them to make 
biology into a science, rather than glorified stamp collecting. But 
observations made by untrained people are often flawed.


It seems to me that the term reproduce usually means that the 
researcher plays an active role in bringing about the phenomenon. The 
researcher makes it happen in some sense. This would not apply to a 
UFO unless you invent a gadget that brings a UFO to your door, like 
the one shown in the movie ET. It doesn't have to work every time. 
Low reproducibility would be convincing, as long as the proof itself 
is solid, the way it is with cloning, for example.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed


Rick Monteverde wrote:


Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems.
Request removal by list owner.


I don't see any point to removal by the list owner. That seem too 
extreme. All modern e-mail systems allow the user to flag and delete 
individuals. I have already nailed Grok so his postings do not trouble me.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed



OrionWorks wrote:
 Some follow-up comments
 
 I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post:
 
 If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
 immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I have
 someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I
 won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens next?
 Hmmm

Actually that was me.

I have to say I have found the things you and Ed have been saying to be
extremely interesting.

As Ed seems to have guessed, I'm kind of a pathological skeptic in this
area, as well as certain other areas which come up now and then (and
which I try to avoid commenting on) but the statements I've been seeing
here have got me thinking seriously about this.

Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther.  After all, I could
be wrong...

I wonder if any of the seminal works on this are available in Mobipocket
format?  I'll look around; that's always a painless way to add yet
another book to the queue of things I read bits of now and again.

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

While I agree with Jed's point about reproducibility and hard  
evidence, such hard evidence is claimed to apply to the UFO  
phenomenon,  the existence of which is rejected with the same kind of  
arguments. Other than personal observation, we have:


1. Photographs.
2. Radar signals.
3. Pieces of space craft.
4. Pieces of strange  foreign material found imbedded in the skin of  
abductees.
5. Changes in the retina of the eye of people who claimed to be near a  
UFO.


Simultaneous sightings and photographs have been made at different  
locations allowing the actual position in space of the object to be  
determined.  This virtually eliminates fraud.  While some of the  
evidence can be faulty, all the evidence, especially that which is  
internally consistent, can be ignored on this basis.


Nevertheless, I can sympathize with people who do not want to accept  
this idea. It would require a basic change in religious belief and it  
would provide one more reason to be afraid.  After all, most people  
are expected to have no contact with the aliens, so why bother with  
the idea?


Ed


On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms wrote:

The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen  
directly by

thousands.  If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example.


Not so perfect. It is more in the category of a natural science  
field observation, rather than a phenomenon reproduced in an  
experiment, and detected with instruments. The latter is far more  
reliable. Field observations are essential to science. Darwin used  
them to make biology into a science, rather than glorified stamp  
collecting. But observations made by untrained people are often  
flawed.


It seems to me that the term reproduce usually means that the  
researcher plays an active role in bringing about the phenomenon.  
The researcher makes it happen in some sense. This would not apply  
to a UFO unless you invent a gadget that brings a UFO to your door,  
like the one shown in the movie ET. It doesn't have to work every  
time. Low reproducibility would be convincing, as long as the proof  
itself is solid, the way it is with cloning, for example.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


As the smoke cleared, Rick Monteverde r...@highsurf.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:

 Grok  killfile
 
 Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems.
 Request removal by list owner.

Contribute to what? Ayn Rand and Rush Limbaugh crap is fine to you, huh?
And I didn't realize you had to be an experimenter to be on this
apparently Reichwing eList.

Hope the Depression hits you hard, twit.
Do what you will.


- -- grok.





 

- -- 
** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! 
*BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS*   Get your news  analysis *
*  MASS-MEDIA:*   from the Best on the Web *
  Critical endorsement only  Most sites need donations  
* http://mediamatters.orgMedia Matters for America *
* http://www.theorganizer.org  The Organizer Newspaper *
* http://www.michiganimc.orgBlack Box Radio / Michigan IMC *
* http://www.vheadline.com Venezuela Headline News *
* http://www.commondreams.orgCommon Dreams *
* http://www.redpepper.org.uk   Red Pepper *
* http://www.lefthook.org Lefthook *
*   The best way out is always through   ***
GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3  09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmvBbIACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EOJwCcCLPPu8pIFBR4n0OYr6vkym88
7oMAoKQ4FSAqJLeneCLBH1mHYQb1AoIK
=hl4V
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:

 I don't see any point to removal by the list owner. That seem too  
 extreme. All modern e-mail systems allow the user to flag and delete  
 individuals. I have already nailed Grok so his postings do not trouble 
 me.

 - Jed

You seem to think that this is a monumental  development or something...
(Please anyone note I'm only responding to get in the last word in this
dumb-ass pettiness.)

And of course, you could care less that you people actually started this.
But it's the nature of hypocrisy.


- -- grok.




- -- 
*** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! ***
* BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS MASS-MEDIA*  RSS/XML newsfeeds from around *
* Use these links in RSS readers  * the planet: Who needs CNN/Fox? *
  Critical endorsement only  Most sites need donations  
* http://rss.newstandardnews.net/liberty_1.xml Civil Lib  Security*
* http://www.plenglish.com/rss/north/   Prensa   North America *
* http://www.plenglish.com/rss/europe/  Latina  Europa *
* http://www.plenglish.com/rss/asia/(Cuba)Asia *
* http://www.plenglish.com/rss/africa/Afrika  Middle East *
* http://www.plenglish.com/rss/arts/  Arts *
* http://www.plenglish.com/rss/health/Health  Science *
** A properly-chosen slogan cuts thru bullsh!t like a sharp knife **
GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3  09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmvBr4ACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GdQwCgw5qj3Ryfzsbb7gOBjzVnkz2x
HUAAoNosGPL5bONEgiE0AknWAmq+zG3P
=qI2t
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

2009-03-04 Thread OrionWorks

Mr. Lawrence sez:

...

 Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther.  After all, I could
 be wrong...

Oh, n, n n

Save yourself, Stephen! You could end up spending the rest of your
life in the pursuit of ...the truth! ;-D

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed

2009-03-04 Thread John Berry

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

 If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I
 immediately conclude it was a dream.  However, if, when I awake, I have
 someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I
 won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh?  And what happens next?


I once had a dream about an ad on TV promoting The (new-er) Outer Limits.
The problem was that because of the plausibility of the station that used to
show it showing ads for it's return was so plausible I later believed it, I
lost track of the source of the memory and it became reality.

Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed