--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edg, > > I really respect your skepticism.
(Okay Edg, prepare to bend over and lower the trousers.) In my opinion, it is the scientifically acceptable amount--enough open-mindedness to explore this further in a discussion with me, but enough caution to not latch onto something before you have all the information. (Here it comes Edg. It may not be as bad as you think.) But let me secondly point out that if I am a fraud, then I am so good that I even fool myself, as I firmly believe in my hypotheses put forth in those videos. (OMG, the height of nobility!) > > But my beliefs have been wrong before. Those who know me best are the most skeptical of my beliefs; (Yea, especially the debt collection agencies.) they are often hard to handle. However, I do not need people to rally behind me; (yea, heads I win, tails, you lose) that would be strange for me anyway, as I am not starting a religion or a philosophy. I am simply an experimenter/inventor. I also am a writer, as I love to share with others my observations. When I was able to reproduce my experiments a handful of times, it thrilled me to death to be able to share what I observed with as many people as possible in as short amount time as I could with the Internet. This is something scientists of the past did not have access to and needed to get rear-ended by the infrastructure they existed in. Heck, this same sort of thing happened with Gallileo when he observed planets in his telescope. He was put under house arrest because he wanted to share what he saw...because it messed with some people's reality. Hopefully the idiots of history have long sinced > decayed in such regards, or at least those idiots with any sort of influence. While I do not this they fully have, I DO know there reasonable people in this world. In fact, I'd like to share a brief observation I made after reading your post. > > I needed to run an errand with my wife to have a key copied at Wal-Mart. On the way, there were three African-American boys (7 or 8 years old) who lost their basketball out in the road. The road was four-laned with a turning lane between them; it was terribly busy. They were just staring at the ball wondering what to do, as it rolled all the way across. The car in front of me pulled to the side of the road and I caught the light to observe. Our of the car stood a tall handsome African-American man who looked like a ball player himself. The boys started running away, thinking somehow they were in danger or going to get in trouble. But one boy stayed at the side of the road. The man kindly carried the ball across the street and handed it back to him. Now, this man didn't need to help. He could have just driven by like the rest...but he didn't. It was a simple, but heart-warming observation. It reminded me that there are simply some people out there who simply > respect the weaker of us out there and somehow appear at just the right times to lend a hand. It also makes me consider where their damned parents were while the boys were playing near a busy street. Anyway, this is life. > > I studied Chemistry just two years in high school. I was terrible. I managed to pull off C's, but that was only because two girls who sat near me allowed me to cheat from them...sometimes. I lothed my instructor, and he made a point to make me realize on a daily basis that I was terrible at Chemistry...but still he stayed after class to help me, as he saw I loved it. But he was worse to me in those private sessions. My biggest problem was that I didn't understand nomenclature conventions. I still believe today this was due partly from his teaching, but also because it's a type of language...and I am terrible with languages other than English...terrible! I wrote a paper once in an Anatomy-Physiology class on cloning, but that instructor gave me a C also. (What did you have for lunch that day. And what color socks did you wear.) I don't remember the reasons for that. In short, I was a C student in science, as much as I loved it. > > So, since you do not know me, I will share a little more about me to get you caught up. I have no credentials whatsoever, as least in terms of formal higher education. I did go to college, but it was for business, not science or mathematics. I got straight A's in everything except French...again the language thing. I did take science courses, but was able to ace things in flying colors later in life. I didn't start college until I was 29. (Colleges love the middle ager. He/she is such an stand out. I say you got a grade and a half give me. By my reckoning, you're still a C student.) And I dropped out after two years, as I ran out of money and didn't even have enough to buy gas to get there. > > In my early twenties, I spent most of my time on the Philosophy of Life and made my way as a musician. (Okay, I'm f'n otta here.) I simply wanted to solve the greatest question in Philosophy of all time: what is the meaning of life? I spent my days alone in the desert outside of Phoenix just watching the bugs and plants. I figured the first thing anyone would need to do to find the meaning of life is to observe it. What does life do on a daily basis? All lifeforms? What has life done throughout history? What sets life apart from non-living chemical compounds? > > The one single, simplest aspect I could come up with was this: progress. All life grows, adapts, evolves upward and outward, and it multiplies...it progresses. That is what life does, but there still was raised the question: why? To understand that, I said to myself, whatever sets life apart from non-living chemical components, must explain this; otherwise, there would be no difference. For instance, why does a magnet have two poles? 'Cause it would cease to exist as a magnet if it only had one. But does that really make any sense? Well, what does all non-living chemical compounds do over time? Do they progress? Why no, entropy keeps that from happening even though no energy is lost in the process. But wait a minute, doesn't life exhibit negative entropy? Well, that can be discussed later, but it did seem so to me. So, the why simply lead me to balance. And balance led me to existence. For something to exist, it needs balance (just like the magnet), stable > repitition, potential energy. And for every amount of entropy given to that balance in the universe, something must be born. Well, anyway, that was my early adulthood interpretation. Is it right? Who knows? Probably not. It's Philosophy, not science. > > Then, when I was 27, I wrote a novel, called "Woe to the Hunted." It was comedic, but gave me to means to share some of my observations. It was just published this year and received very good reviews, by the only 3 people who ever cared to read it. It's not selling. Anyway, that's another problem. > > After I finished writing it, I went into the Computer Software business to latch onto the IT boom that was happening. I had programmed a lot as a kid with the first home computers and thought it would be a good opportunity. I excelled quickly. I went from $8 and hour to $90k in just the first two years. I was very well respected and worked with some very well known companies, like Oracle and others. However, I cracked! I lost it. I left the Silicon Valley, my home, my live-in girlfriend, my car and everything I owned except the clothes on my back and my briefcase. I then wandered the US in panic and confusion for the next week, had many terrifying experiences and met many interesting despicable people. I then ended up back in my childhood hometown and then attempted to take my own life. I had two Sam Adams Lagers and a whole lot of pills. I wouldn't recommend this, as my near-death experience had no light at the end of the tunnel. My near-death experience > lastest for 3 hours of me in hell. I wouldn't recommend going there. Not pretty. > > Anyway, when I came out of my coma, I was in a hospital and then was shipped to the funny farm. I met many other despicable people and had many other terrifying experiences. However, I prayed every night that if God really wanted to keep me in this horrible world, they give me something worthwhile to do and give me some peace. Give me a frickin' break already, I said. > > Well, since that time, and many unfathomable experiences that makes John Nash's story look like a Disney movie, I have traveled the world, met my extraordinary wife, written a Reimann Hypothesis proof, published my novel, taught myself calculus, chemistry, Quantum and Relatavistic physics and have invented many things and made a number of strange discoveries. I have discussed many aspects of my research and work with top minds in Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics, and have to say there is nothing I am convinced that I cannot learn. I even learned Lithuanian, which is arguably the hardest language today that is not exstinct. > > So, my latest discovery is the synthesis of life. > > If you have more questions, feel free to ask. > > Jeff > > > > > > Jeff, > > 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 >
