I watched all the videos. If you have what you say you have, you should be able to use microscopy to begin to show us evidence -- photos of the cells, etc. That, and if you get a local community college professor of biochemistry to try to "fool proof" and "de-germ" your experiment, it could possibly open some doors for you, but, even then, probably not.
Billions of dollars in research have been spent, billions are being spent now, and billions more are slated for the near term projects to understand life. Your "proposal" is such an extraordinary claim that, trite as it is to repeat, extraordinary proof is required. Right now, a space ship is heading to Mars where it will land and dig into the soil to see if it can scrounge up any evidence of life there. That's hundreds of millions of dollars spent right there, and you say you have an astounding miracle in a cup which would stand the scientific world on its ear in such a way that no headline generated by the Mars rovers, the Hubble Telescope, the manned landing on the moon, etc. could possibly match. "Brand New Life Generated In Minutes Before Your Very Eyes" would be the most exquisite discovery -- true bombast. Your claim is hardly less in importance than, say, if you'd claimed that a space ship had landed on your lawn and that the advanced beings were ready to tell us the secrets of the universe. Your watery solution could contain any number of impurities -- including extremophile life forms that can survive boiling and other measures to disinfect your lab equipment. That and other possibilities, such as "you've put dried up sea monkeys in your solutions when 'no one was looking'" are serious concerns to be addressed. There are, after all, every manner of hucksters out there who put secret batteries inside of cleverly made "perpetual motion machines" etc. You cannot be "seen" as legitimate until you provide scientific, repeatable proofs. Until then, well, your "discovery" is no more amazing than a magician who levitates using a camera trick. I like the idea of life spontaneously forming, and I fully encourage you to try to package your claims with scientific controls. Seriously, if you do not have a PhD in Biochemistry PLUS other credentials of experience, you do not have much of a chance of getting a "fair display" of your concepts before the community of minds that would be able to fully inspect and challenge them. Gregor Mendal after much effort and rejection was able to finally get his pea plant findings published in an obscure journal, but because he was a monk, most of the scientists (natural philosophers as they were then called) didn't get exposed to his ideas, and the few that were lucky enough to have Mendal's findings put right in front of them, rejected the ideas out of hand because of Mendal's lack of credentials -- he was just a monk. In fact, THE most famous scientist of the day DID read Mendal's paper, and he abused and derisively dismissed the paper. For 30 years his paper just sat there, and then, funnily enough, three different scientists, working apart and unbeknownst to themselves, came to Mendal's same conclusions and went to publish their results. But, they THEN took the time (should have done it first) to look up the previous research in the field, and TO A MAN, they all found Mendal's paper, and TO A MAN, they all faithfully reported Mendal as being the "father of the science of heredity." Those guys' names are not famous, because they had integrity. You have to show the world this same integrity. You cannot count on folks like us here to rally around you and help gather the scientific world's attention because you have a "rabble reverently chanting your name." Either get the credentials, or be prepared to give all your "secrets" to someone who has the credentials and hope that he/she will carry forward your discovery into the scientific world. Remember that even then, famous scientists with WOW WOW WOW credentials are routinely blasted by their peers. It takes a huge amount of effort to swing the group consciousness. I am an inventor with tons of ideas "under my belt." I've done what you must do -- go to others "who know better" and have your hat in your hand and be prepared to have your ass handed to you. You of course have something far more important to present than anything I've "cooked up," but that only makes it much harder for you to succeed. I can tell you absolutely that if you think you're going to keep this all to yourself until you've got all the information tied down in proprietary documents, agreements, patents, copyrights, etc., you're kidding yourself. The big boys with the dough will get "your stuff" from you easily -- if anything, they'd sign paperwork that they'd later ignore and say "sue me." You're going to have to be BLESSED BY GOD in a way that Mendal the Monk never was. If you want to try to take a shortcut, approach someone rich who you can get to "back your play" (or marry you and hand over her/his checkbook) enough for you to jazz up the demo enough to create at least the semblance of authenticity. Maybe you can get enough dough behind this to get something flamboyant going (multimedia presentation) that would then titillate the establishment to at least examine your data enough to try to reject it, and then, voila, if you have the real deal, your shortcut would have worked. Huge gobs of good luck to you. By the way, Maharishi promised me "new life," and I consider your "offer" hardly less important to humankind. If you're a fraud, look out, you're playing with the foundation of reality itself in the minds of many. Edg --- In [email protected], "Jeffrey N Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alex, > > Uh, let me guess...you watched only the first video. That's some in- > depth analysis. > > Jeff > > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Jeffrey Cook <jnoelcook@> wrote: > > > > > > All, > > > > > > I have filmed my latest experiment: this one on "synthetic life." > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/jnoelcook > > > > You're in a kitchen, loudly coughing, wearing shorts and a t-shirt, > > mixing two different liquids in a cup, that as far as I can see, > > remain completely inert throughout the entire video. And, you expect > > us to believe that this is a demonstration of you creating new > > bacterial lifeforms? > > >
