Uncle Jack

Discussion in 'Φ STEM' started by Shadowself, Aug 21, 2016.

  1. Shadowself

    Shadowself Shadow Speaker

    Have you met my Uncle Jack? He laughed at me when I played this song for him...

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2016
  2. Shadowself

    Shadowself Shadow Speaker

    One last interesting side note.....they've not stopped toying with the minds of people on the street....This is incidentally part of what I got an "A" grade on from Uncle Jack....

    Not long ago there was this internet nut job...she claimed the Pleadians were going to save us and her spaceship was piloted by Arch Angel Michael...her brother....she was selling videos on YT of her boobs to fund her cause...and she was indeed under the "influence" of Uncle Jack....(she is the woman on the right)...Coleen Thomas...the man of course is Uncle Jack!

    She has since come down a bit and has found Jesus.....kinda like Susan Atkins!


    Now that's a fuckin conspiracy eh?​
  3. Rose

    Rose Φ

    This is all very interesting... So you are saying, the Psychological Evaluation of Bill Ryan & Kerry Cassidy provided by Corey Goode was incorrect regarding Kerry's association with "Uncle Jack"? Or, there is more than one Uncle Jack?
  4. Rose

    Rose Φ

    So, what was your relationship with Uncle Jack, Brook? Did you take courses with him? Is that you in the photo? I remember Colleen Thomas, lol. Uncle Jack influenced her actions?
  5. Shadowself

    Shadowself Shadow Speaker

    I have no idea who Kerry is referring to when she speaks of Uncle Jack. Is she referring to Sarfatti?....I coined that term for Sarfatti years ago. So if she is referring to Sarfatti...she directly stole that from me! I'm quite certain Mr Goode has no idea who that is....if he does I'd be very surprised. If she's referring to Sarfatti as Uncle Jack...I find that interesting only in the fact that I coined that for Mr. Sarfatti long before Mr Goode hit the world wide web...lol It is quite possible that Mr Goode may have seen some of my writing on the subject (he tends to nick peoples work off the internet for his diatribe) and put that together some how but I have no idea of what you are referring to. Can you enlighten me?

    As for Kerry...I really don't pay much attention to her (or Goode for that matter) and have not for quite some time.

    No that's not me in the photo. I wouldn't come within ten feet of that woman...she was nuts! LOL He is in San Francisco...I am living in NC. I found that photo doing some research on Esalan, and channeling of the 9...and I have been corresponding with him in regards to his physics papers for quite some time. Going on 6 years now....he invites me to his panel discussions on various topics. Here is a screen shot of one of those invitations for a draft he did:


    Here is where he was just recently at UCSD giving a series of lectures with some other physicists....at the end he speaks of those deep pockets and the area he's researching.

    Without as much as admitting so....he gave me a A when he read my thoughts on Coleen Thomas and what she was up to at the time....and her interactions with him.​
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016
  6. Rose

    Rose Φ

    This is an excerpt from information GoodET asked me to give to Houdini/Atticus/Stephen last year containing Bill and Kerry's Psychological Evaluation. "Uncle Jack" is mentioned as their "handler" and Kerry's father figure who had worked with some of the Pioneers in the development of these techniques.

    pe1.JPG pe2.JPG pe3.JPG pe4.JPG pe5.JPG
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. Shadowself

    Shadowself Shadow Speaker

    I see...I don't think from what I'm reading here he's speaking of Sarfatti.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. david

    david Member

    What I will do is start another thread. Rose and Shadow, feel free to change the name of the thread, or suggest another name for the thread, so people can know the subject area. I will start posting the stuff on Laurel canyon, etc on this other thread. We can also change the name of this thread also if it helps.

    Just so people know what is in the thread. Hope this helps.
    • agree agree x 1
  9. Shadowself

    Shadowself Shadow Speaker

    Okay...since we have moved this to another thread...I will add this as it was in my Theater of the Parallel Universe which I saved...


    Theatre is a word that has evolved from the Greek word theatron meaning a ‘place for viewing.’

    Theory is a word that has evolved from the Greek word theorein meaning ‘to gaze upon.’

    The act of observation within the Parallel Universe. Or as I used to put it...the all seeing eye.


    As far as using the word phrase, "emerging reality" it's a common way to describe how many people experience life, and also the fact that the experience is fluid, such as wave like. Causality and determinism often playing a key roll.

    An interview:

    Bohm: Well, in relativity we have the notion of the universal field which is dynamic, flowing and according to Einstein particles should eventually emerge out of this as singularities or very strong regions, stable pulses of field, which gradually emerge, the fields gradually emerge with other particles. So we have an unbroken universe which is in constant flow, dynamically, and even the very notions of space and time have become relative, which were previously absolute. And it may even go on to singularities like a black hole, the supposed beginning of the universe, where the present laws would brake down all together. All concepts that we know. So that’s a very revolutionary view compared with what we had, say, a century ago.

    And then there’s quantum theory, which perhaps is more revolutionary. It’s hard to explain that in a short time, but there are 3 main features I’d say.One is the notion that a quantum process is in some sense indivisible, that it is one whole, which cannot, it can be broken but then it becomes an entirely different process, so each process is a whole, otherwise it can’t be what it is, and all the quantum processes of movement are linked as it where in one whole.

    Now the second point is the wave particle duality, the discovery that, say, electrons which classically particles can behave statistically like waves when in a more precise experiment and light which is classically a wave can behave like a particle in a more precise experiment. So it seems we have this 2 aspects which depend on how the system is treated, context dependent, which is quite different from the classical idea that whether it’s a wave or a particle is intrinsic.

    Now the third point is what’s non-locality. That we find that in certain conditions there’s apparently an immediate connection of different particles.It’s rather hard to explain, we can use it for signals but still it seems to be there. It’s connected with the experiment of Einstein-Podolsy-Rosen and has been checked by, you they’ve been tested by Bell’s theorem aspects experiment. It seems pretty well established, right. Both theoretically and experimentally.

    Again all of these you see combined to the notion that the universe is a kind of indivisible whole, rather than analyzed into constituent elements which interact has separately existent.

    Interviewer: But how much can you tell about this indivisible whole?

    Bohm: Well, we can tell quite a bit in the sense that all the laws of quantum mechanics are concerned with it you see. I mean you can tell, well I don’t know what you want to know, but I mean all the laws you compute, the properties of all sorts of things. For example, take superconductivity. At high temperature the electrons will generally scatter of obstacles and metals. And therefore there will be a resistance for the current flow would stop unless it’s maintained by a voltage. At very low temperatures and certain metals the current flow is indefinitely without scattering and that is as a quantum effect.

    Now as far as, if you analyze it, you can see that it’s due to the fact that the electrons are a sort of locked, held together in summary by these non-local interactions. So that if there is an obstacle they go around and reform rather than scatter. It’s rather than a ballet dance, that people going around and reform as in a crowd each person is following his own personal purpose and they all scatter, they all get into each others way.

    Interviewer: So this unity also creates a kind of ordering of things?

    Bohm: Yes, it can create a kind of ordering of things. But at the same time it explains, you can see that there are situations where we have this high degree of order and others where we don’t. That it’s possible within the mathematics to see that when something called the wavefunction, represented as a set up product of independent factors, and all the particles behave independently, but then in a more general situation they don’t. You can explain why we have so much independence in ordinary experience and yet why in a more careful probing we find order, new kinds of order.

    So the classical level, the Newtonian level, is explained by quantum mechanics as a limiting case. Now the more, you have a whole, but the whole determines itself to behave somewhat like independent parts in many cases. So even whether it’s going to behave like parts is determined by the whole,right.

    Interviewer: But what we can see is the parts rather than the whole.

    Bohm: Well, in physics we see the parts because that’s the way we approached it the last few centuries. I don’t know if, you see, I think our perception is influenced by our way of thinking. So that we accept this mechanical way of looking at things. But if you went back a thousand or two thousand years, I don’t think people actually saw the particles as primary.The way we see depends on the way we think.

    Interviewer: But is it a choice, do we have to choose between the whole and the parts?

    Bohm: No, well you see, it’s a question or whether you have a holistic approach, which puts the whole as primary. In classical physics the parts are the primary concept and the whole is only an auxiliary concept which is convenient, you have many parts working together like a machine. But the parts are taken as the basic reality. And seeing we just subjectively we find it convenient to think about the whole. But in quantum mechanics I think there’s something else, that the whole is object and the parts are the result of analysis. But we have large areas where the whole behaves to some extend like independent parts.


    the quantum behaviour of a system of electrons and the behaviour of mind

    Geometry acts on Matter/Energy telling it how to move,

    while Matter/Energy has a reciprocal Back-Reaction on Geometry telling it how to bend.

    This bending of our four-dimensional Space Time Geometry explains the phenomena of Gravity, such as why an apple falls to the Earth and why there are Black Holes.

    Charge = Amplitude to Emit

    Emit....to throw or give off or out (as light or heat)
    cast, discharge, emanate, evolve, exhale,expel, give out, irradiate, issue, radiate,release, send (out), shoot, throw out, vent

    Emission....The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state.

    What are the chances of that eh?
    Spirit = Stir Pi

    Stirring the Pi

    Spirit = Time Circle
    Time circles.....Feedback loops

    Check it


    Uncle Jack's "BACK REACTION"

    Sarfatti wrote that people such as Josephson, Stapp, Penrose and others have suggested changes in quantum theory which allow for the possibility of "intent" or the like to bias quantum outcomes, but that all these authors operate using the Copenhagen picture in which there really is a "collapse" of the wavefunction. Jack advocates a Bohmian picture in which both wave and particle are always real and there is no collapse. So how does mind enter the world? It must have been here from the start. Jack describes an explicit dualism in which both mind and matter exist...

    "In accord with Chalmer's idea, I posit that the wavefunction is intrinsically 'mental' capable of qualia."

    ...and he suggests equating the guiding wave in Bohmian mechanics with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the particles are "matter," "mind" the pilot-wave.

    That might be uninteresting except for the next step: the "mental" aspect of the universe can be upgraded to life and consciousness by self-organization. This happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization. In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: the system configures itself so as to set up its own Bohmian pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration which then affects its nonlocal pilot wave which affects the configuration,

    Normally in quantum mechanics this "back-action" is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but the back-action of the particle onto the wave is not systematically calculated - of course, the back-reaction is physically real: the movement of the particle determines the initial conditions of the next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason that this works in practice is that for systems that are not self organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.

    This is an interesting way to utilize nonlocality despite Eberhard's proof that point-to-point signaling by the quantum connection is not in the cards! (If a physical system occupied a dynamical stability based on such a feedback loop then it would be a "nonlocal" physical system, without superluminal signals.)

    Questions of consciousness aside, consideration of "back-action" as a dynamical fact nourishes a suspicion that linear quantum theory is fundamentally an approximation...


    Proponents of qualia:

    David Chalmers

    Erwin Schrödinger and his Cat





    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016
  10. Shadowself

    Shadowself Shadow Speaker

    One more for the day on thought by Bohm


    First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.

    Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star, I've miles And miles Of files Pretty files of your forefather's fruit and now to suit our great computer, You're magnetic ink.

    First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.

    Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles And piles Of trials With smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave And keep on thinking free.

    Tell us what you've seen in faraway forgotten lands
    Where empires have turned back to sand.


    I met a traveller from an antique land
    Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

    Shelly ~ 1792-1822


    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016