Posts tagged "Proof"

Aren’t Liberals and Conservatives both guilty of Empowering the Government to Tyranny?

Conservatives empowered the Government with the Patriot Act.
Liberals like Obama resign it.

Liberals empowered the Government to Force people to buy Health Insurance
I can safely bet Conservatives won’t repeal this.

Conservatives surged in Iraq and Liberals disagreed.
Yet Liberals support the surge in Afghanistan.

This Liberal/Conservative nonsense isn’t all that different, they both do the same thing and are weak in opposition. They never really take power from the Government, they just empower it. Who else feels that we are on the road to Tyranny? Read quotes of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Yes it is the exact same in the UK. Both political parties have played their part on the road to tyranny. I think this is proof that it is the same people behind the scenes and we are getting closer to an evil one world government.

Shopping Nightmare

I was arrested for Trespassing on 3/19 and 6 weeks later charged with battery and disorderly conduct. The stories of the Security Guard from Jewel Foods and Monterrey Security guards was totally different from what they wrote in their incident report, the Chicago Police Report was different, their written statements were different and on 5/16/2009 their testimony in court was totally different from all the evidence. I was found not Guilty of Trespassing, Battery and Disorderly Conduct.

This entire incident started because I questioned the customer service of Jewel Foods and I was denied a manager by the Jewel Foods Security Guard. When the Guard denied me a manager he smiled as if it was a joke. I told the security guard, “What do I have to do? Do I have to go down the street and get some of my rich white friends and come back so you can open up the self check out line? That comment made the Jewel Security Guard mad and he followed me to the grocery line and blocked me in, knocked my orange juice out of my hands, grabbed me by the arms and pushed me out of the line. I was pushed to register #3 where I was picked up and slammed to the concrete floor where I yelled for help because I was in pain. I was dragged from register #3 to Register #10 by a Jewel Food Security Guard by one handcuff which cut into my skin and I was dragged by a Monterrey Security Guard by the other arm. I was yelling because I was in pain because of the slam to the floor and the handcuff cutting into my skin while I was being dragged. The security guards were trying to pull me into the Loss Prevention Office which the customer did not allow that to happen because they witnessed the security guard touching me for no reason.

A customer called 911 and once the Chicago Police arrived the customers were trying to explain to them what happen but refused to listen. The customer who called 911 tried to explain to the Chicago Police Officer he called 911 and the officer choose not to listen. In the Chicago Police Report it states, The Reporting Officer Was responding to a battery: The customer who called said, “They are beating this guy up in front of Jewel.” I’m wondering why did the Chicago Police refused to take a statement from the customer? Did the Chicago Police look at the video evidence?

I went to court on 4/30 to fight the Charges of Criminal Trespassing and the Jewel Foods filed an additional charge of Battery and Disorderly Conduct.

3/19 Criminal Trespassing to Land: “KNOWINGLY REMAINED UPON THE LAND OF JEWEL FOODS LOCATED AT 1224 S. WABASH AFTERRECIEVING NOTICE FROM OWNER/OCCUPANT.AGENT TO DEPART.”

4/30 Battery: The Security Guard signed a complaint in Court claiming Battery. “Intentionally or knowingly without legal justification made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the complainant in that the defendant swung fist at complaint hitting complainant in the arm.”

4/30 Disorderly Conduct: The Cashier signed a complaint in Court claiming Disorderly Conduct. Knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peach in that the defendant was screaming and yelling which prevented the complainant from performing her duties as a cashier for Jewel.

Go to Youtube and type in “Jewel-Osco Security Guard Gone Wild”

Video #1 and 2 will show the Security Guard following me to the grocery line.

Video # 3 will show the Security Guard grabbing me and pushing me out of the Grocery Line.

Video # 4 will show the Security Guard lifting me up from behind and slamming me to the floor.

Video # 4, #5 and #6 will show I was dragged by the security guards.

Video # 7 will show I was dragged and jerked by the handcuff and arrested by the Chicago Police Officers.

The Trespassing Charges

The security guard told the judge he told me in the Grocery Line that if I could not keep quiet he would have to tell me to leave. The Judge asked the Security Guard, “So you gave the defendant a condition?” The security guard said, “Yes.”

1st My attorney asked the security guard to read the Trespassing Warning in court and when he read the warning he did not know what time it was given to me. There’s two different times on the warning.. 1st It states it was given to me at 1:15am and 2nd It states it was given to me at 1:25am. There was no way I received any Trespassing warning because at 1:15am I was grabbed and pushed out of the line and slammed to the floor at. Then I was dragged from register 3 to 10 by one handcuff.

2nd The trespassing warning also state, “The above named person was advised that if he/she returns to said premises that he/she would be in violation of this Trespass Warning and be subject to arrest.” In order for the Trespassing Warning to be valid I had to leave and come back onto the Premises I was band from.

3rd My attorney asked the security guard the following question to show I was illegally detain with warning.
A: Where was my client standing? The security guard replied in line.
B: What was on my Client left side? The security guard replied, a pop machine and a candy rack.
C: What was on my Client Right side? The security guard said the self-check out line.
D: Who was standing behind my Client? The security guard said he was.
F: My attorney said, “If my client wanted leave out of the store would he go in the direction you were standing which is behind my client or would he go in the direction the customer were facing. Better yet, would it be easier to say the only Exits would be in the front of the store and not the back? The security guard said the only Exit would be the front of the store?

My attorney said, if you were blocking his rear, the pop machine and the candy rack is blocking his left, the self-check out line was blocking his right and the 10 to 15 customers in front of my client was blocking his front which prevented him from Exiting the Store, please explain to the courts if you gave my client a trespassing warning to leave, how was he going to leave if he was blocked in? The security guard could not answer.

4th The security guard said they gave the Trespassing Warning to the Chicago Police after I was arrested and assumed they gave it to me.

5th In Jewel and Monterrey Security they lied about the security guard was telling me to leave several times and that never occurred.

6th The Security Guard from Monterrey Security was asked why did he sign his name on the Trespassing Warning as a witness? He said I was in the parking lot and I did not know what was going on?

The charges were dropped because it showed he blocked me in, he had no reason to stop follow me to the grocery line which he told the judge he did not follow me, the times were wrong and in order for the trespassing warning to be valid he would have to word it correctly, give it to me directly and time must match.

Battery Charges:

1: The Video Evidence shows I never swung at anyone.
2: The Judge looked at the Video Evidence and said, “It clearly shows the security guard grabbed the defendant and there is not proof of the defendant swinging according the the video evidence.”
3: The Security Guard from Monterrey Security wrote in his statement, “At this point the man dropped to the ground of his own will and started to scream.”
4. In court the Security Guard told the Judge he could not remember because it’s been so long but later said, “1st it look like he dropped to the ground on his own. 2nd it look like Christopher Mendoza laid him on the ground and 3rd I did not have a clear view.”
5. The video evidence shows I was slammed to the floor by Jewel Loss Prevention and Monterrey Security Guard was standing directly in front of me.

On May 16, 2008 Christopher Mendoza told the Judge that I swung at him with a bag of Pistachios Nuts and when he blocked my swing with his arm and the Pistachios Nuts when everywhere on the floor. The Monterrey Security Guard support the story also.

March 19, 2007 Christopher Mendoza wrote in his Loss Prevention Incident Report, “He Gestured as if he was going to strike me, I blocked his arem and tried to handcuff the subject. Kerry Kielbon (Monterrey Security) assisted me.”

March 19, 2007 Christopher Mendoza told the Chicago Police, “At this time subject was asked to leave premise, subject refused stating he would make a scene if security touched him subject was asked again to leave and refused, at this point security attempted to place subject into customdy, scuffle ensued while handcuffs were being placed on offender.”

April 30, 2007 Christopher Mendoza filed a complaint in court stating, “Intentionally or knowingly without legal justification made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the Complainant in that: The defendant swung fist at complainant hitting complainant in the arm.

May 16, 2008 Christopher Mendoza told the judge I swung toward his face with a bag of Pistachios and he blocked the swing with his arm which made the bag of Pistachios fall on the floor.

My attorney asked where did the allege swing take place and the security guard was not able to give that information. My attorney asked did this take place after you tried to arrest my client or before you tried to arrest my client? The Security Guard from Jewel Foods said, “It took place before I tried to arrest him.” So my attorney said we should be able to see Pistachios Nuts everywhere on the floor, Correct? The Jewel Food Security Guard agreed?

We showed the Video Evidence from Line #1 Which show no punches were thrown and it clearly showed he grabbed me and pushed me out of the line. We paused the video which showed I had Pistachios in my hand and we showed the floor area where Pistachios show have been and there were not Pistachios on the floor because I had the bag in my hand. We showed Video Evidence from Line #3 which show the Jewel Foods Security Guard picking me up from behind which holding my arms in the air. We pause the video and it showed I had Pistachios in my hands and there were not Pistachios on the floor. We were about to show more of the video and the Judge said, “That’s Enough.” I’m sure she was in disbelief of what happen and the video showed they were lying..
The judge looked at the video and said, It clearly shows the security guard grabbing the defending and pushing him out of the line. There is no proof showing the defendant swing at anyone and there are no Pistachios on the floor.

The Jewel Security guard was asked if I was handcuff and he replied, “No”. The video evidence showed the security guard dragging me from lane #3 to lane #4 and you see customers taking pictures with their phones because he was dragging and jerking me by the handcuff.

Disorderly Conduct:

The Jewel Food Cashier claimed my yelling for help and 911 stopped her from doing her job. The video evidence clearly show she never stop working and did not witnessed the incident.

The cashier wrote the following statement on 4/3/2007: “I was the only line open and the line was long and customers were complaining about the line but there was no help I had no extra bodies to perform the job.”

The cashier did not show up to court on April 1, 2008 and on May 16, 2008 my attorney asked to have the disorderly charge dropped but a Manager in the Loss Prevention Department said Linda Williams passed away. The Judge allowed the Disorderly Conduct to stay because the Loss Prevention Manager stood in her place. The charges were later dismissed because there was no proof of Disorderly Conduct I did not need to show any video evidence to prove my innocence.

Jewel Foods and Monterrey Security tried to intimidate me not to come to court and I was harassed for about 8 months. I was also told by the Loss Prevention Manager if I sign a letter no to file Civil Suit they would drop the charges. The Loss Prevention Manager also stated, ” Beside, I’m 22 and Zero when I come to court.” I told him the charges are weak and false and I’m going to fight this in court.

On May 16, 2008 I was offered a plea of 3 months supervision from Jewel Food Loss Prevention. I was also offered to plea no Contest and to stay out of Jewel. I told my attorney no because I did not do anything wrong and I would rather fight this in court.

On May 16, 2008 I was found Not Guilty of all the charges filed against me.

I was found not Guilty of Criminal Trespassing to Land
I was found not Guilty of Disorderly Conduct
I was found not Guilty of Battery

The Court Transcript will show the Security Guards lied from day 1 and 95% of their statement was conflicting.

Joseph Robinson Jr

If the world truly did end up into a tyrannical oligarchy world government, how would you deal with it?

Just imagine it for a moment …

The remanence of a once free humanity are forced to live within highly controlled compact prison like cities.

Travel is highly restricted. Super highways connect the mega cities and keep the population from entering in unauthorized zones.

No human activity is private. A.I. super computers chronicle and categorize every action.

A prison planet dominated by a ruthless gang of control freaks, whose power can never be challenged.

How would you deal with living in a world like this?

Wake up. We are already under such a system.
What do you think the American system of Divorce is?
Lawyers are the tyrannical oligarchy of the world today.
PROOF: They take away your jury, and your "not guilty" plea. They write laws to encourage destruction of the American family by giving all the power to the marketing system. (See recent Supreme court decision as an example). The American marketing system is designed around selling to your emotions and they are unscrupulous in their efforts to drive wedges between spouses and parents.
The laws are written to encourage and endorse only one side of the divorce argument: (People who want divorce as an option) People (like true Christians) who cannot accept divorce under any circumstances are not represented by this system of divorce. If they wanted to write laws to protect both sides they would simply require individuals to decide up front: Do you want a marriage or do you want a partnership. In a partnership contract either side can get out without any reason for a 50/50 split. In a marriage you are committing to your partner that there is no way out and that you will (like a solder protecting the country) rather die than fail to make it work. Doesn’t a person have the right to know the commitment level of the person they are marrying? Doesn’t this country stand more to gain by learning "how to get along" and teaching it to others? Why must we cater to the destructive element?
It’s like car insurance. Can you get coverage for an accident if you failed to sign up for insurance? People in this country are being cheated on a wholesale level. If there is an inalienable right in this country it should be the right to know the terms under which you are going to bring children into this world. Divorce is inhumane because we are forcing children to deal with psychological situations that we refuse to ask adults to deal with. God will bring great shame on this world for this system.
The only way to deal with the horror of this tyrannical oligarchy world is to run to God’s word. Only He can keep you safe. Read your Bible before it’s too late.
All these events are proof that we are near the end of time. In fact it can be proven that the Bible declares (through parables) that Judgment day is MAY 21 2011.
1COR 2: 9-16 indicates that the true believer can know. "No man knoweth" is an argument reserved for the unsaved.
Read your Bible and be ready.
God bless you all

PRISON PLANET — THE PROOF

Desteniproductions

http://www.desteni.co.za

Duration : 0:3:11

Read more…

Bible corruption

2:79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from Allah,”

Duration : 0:4:57

Read more…

Arrested for DUI – What Should I Do?

If you find yourself arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in the State of Arizona, and you have submitted to a breath, blood, or urine test, and the results of the test reveal a blood/breath alcohol result of .08% or higher, or you have refused these tests, you can expect to be involved in two separate legal proceedings.

1. A criminal proceeding in court
2. A civil proceeding with the Department of Motor Vehicles (MVD) and the likely suspension of your driver license.

These two proceedings are mutually exclusive; the outcome of one will not affect the other. You could win both matters or lose both matters. How the MVD driver license hearing is handled is extremely important.

Your DUI arrest begins your criminal proceeding. The consequences of this — plea of guilty, or a verdict of guilty following a jury or bench trial — could result in mandatory jail time, fines, fees and assessments, supervised or unsupervised probation, as well as a criminal record. The civil proceeding is conducted before an administrative hearing officer at the MVD. This proceeding deals with a possible suspension of your driver’s license, or if from out of state, your privilege to drive in Arizona.  The arresting police officer will serve you with a “Notice of Suspension.” If you have been arrested in Arizona for DUI and you take a breath, blood or urine test, and the results measured a alcohol concentration of .08% or more within 2 hours of driving, or you refuse to take the blood, breath or other chemical test, the arresting police will serve you with a 90 day driver license suspension notice, or in the case of refusal, a 12 month driver license or driving privilege suspension. The police should give you two copies of this form.

If your test results indicate a result of .08% or higher, the police will seize your Arizona driver license, and issue you a temporary license which is valid for 15 days, or, if you request a hearing within the 15 day window, until the hearing is conducted and the outcome determined. Since the police confiscated your driver license, the yellow copy of the suspension notice is your temporary driver license.

If you are from out of state, the police cannot seize your driver license. They will serve you with a notice of suspension of your privilege to drive in Arizona. The suspension will take effect 15 days after service unless you request a hearing within the 15 days. If a hearing is requested, your privilege to drive in Arizona will not be suspended until the hearing is conducted and the outcome determined.

If you refused to take the breath, blood or urine test, the police will serve you a notice of a 12-month suspension of your driver license, or privilege to drive if you are from out of state. This suspension becomes effective 15 days from the date of service unless you request a hearing. If a hearing is requested your driver license or privilege to drive in Arizona will not be suspended until the hearing is conducted and the outcome determined. If your refused to take a breath, blood or urine test, it is likely that the police obtained a search warrant and obtained your blood anyway. If this is the case, your driver license or privilege to drive will still be suspended for 12 months even though the police obtained your blood through the use of a search warrant.

A request for hearing must be submitted in writing to the MVD. Generally, the pink copy of suspension form, furnished by the police, is used to request this hearing. It is important to fill out the information completely and accurately on the back of the pink form. You must check the box indicating you are requesting an Administrative Hearing and mail it, within 15 days of service to you by the police, to: Arizona Department of Transportation, Executive Hearing Office, Mail Drop 507M, P.O. Box 2100, Phoenix, AZ 85001-2100. Do not select Summary Review; this will not get you a hearing, but merely a review of the paperwork submitted by the police.

In the criminal case, if you plead guilty to the charge of DUI, or if you are found guilty, you will be sentenced in accordance within the present Arizona DUI sentencing guidelines. When the State receives notification of the verdict, your driver license will be suspended for 90 days. However, if you are a first offender, or you have had no DUI convictions within the past five years, and if you took the breath, blood or other required test, and if you have been found guilty in the criminal proceeding, or you feel that such a result is likely, then you may wish to agree to a suspension of your driver license prior to or at the MVD hearing.

Agreeing to the suspension will entitle you to a 60 day restricted driving permit following a 30 day suspension. The suspension is still classified as a 90 day suspension. To obtain the restricted driving permit, you must apply at a local MVD office following the first 30 days of the suspension.  Agreeing to the suspension will generally resolve the civil proceeding sooner and oftentimes well before the resolution of your Criminal matter in court. This is advantageous as you get the suspension over with sooner and under less onerous circumstances. Agreeing to the suspension will generally result in no further suspension of your driver license if you later plead or are found guilty of your DUI in court. In the case of a stipulated suspension from MVD, there will be no requirement that you post proof of Financial Responsibility before your Arizona driver license or privilege is reinstated. Agreeing to the suspension will allow you to select the day you want your suspension to begin, so long as the suspension start date is within 45 days of your MVD hearing date. This allows flexibility in arranging transportation to work or school during the initial 30 days of the suspension. NOTE: If you request a hearing and actually go through with it and lose, the only difference is that your will not be able to choose the day the suspension begins. You should still be eligible for the 30 day driver license suspension followed by the 60 day restricted driving permit.

If you agree to the suspension, you do not get a hearing with the administrative law judge. You do not get to challenge the police officers or contest the evidence in the civil hearing. Sometimes this hearing may be important to gather critical evidence in your DUI case. However, this decision should not be made without first discussing your DUI case and individual circumstances with an experienced DUI defense attorney.

If you have the Administrative Hearing and win, and later lose your DUI case, either through a plea or finding of guilty at trial, MVD will suspend your driver license for 90 consecutive days. There is no eligibility for a restricted driving permit following the first 30 days of the suspension.  Further, if you are convicted either through a plea or finding of guilty in court you will be required to provide proof of financial responsibility (insurance) for three years by filing with the State of Arizona either a $40,000 cash deposit, or Certificates of Deposit (CD’s) totaling $40,000 or a Certificate of Insurance (SR22). This Financial Responsibility requirement could have significant cost implications for you, depending upon your selection of acceptable Financial Responsibility filings and/or your insurance carrier’s underwriting requirements.

Cooper Hill
http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/arrested-for-dui-what-should-i-do-985297.html

The 1912 World Series; the Hidden Rule

In the 1912 World Series, the Boston Red Sox beat the New York Giants four games to three (with one tie).

This dramatic series showcased great pitching from Christy Mathewson  and from Boston fireballler Smoky Joe Wood. Wood won two of his three starts and pitched in relief in the final game. In the deciding game, Boston rallied for two runs in the tenth inning thanks to two costly Giants fielding misplays.

Mathewson started three games, completed all three, compiled a 0.94 ERA for the Series, and got two losses and a no-decision for his efforts.

Nearly all of the games were close. Four games in this Series were decided by one run. A fifth ended in a tie. A sixth was decided by two runs. Game 7 was the only one with a margin greater than three runs. Two games, including the decisive Game 8, went to extra innings. In Games 1 and 3, the losing team had the tying and winning runs on base when the game ended.

This was the first Series in which a series was decided in the last inning of the final game, in “sudden death” or “sudden victory” fashion. It was also the first Series where a team within one inning of losing came back to win. The next time a team that close to elimination recovered to win was Game 6 of the 1985 World Series. Other World Series that have ended with a Game 7 (or in this case, Game 8, due to the tie) going to extra innings include the Series of 1924, 1991 and 1997. Other World Series won by the home team in its last at-bat in a Game 7 include the Series of 1960, 1991, 1997, and 2001.

This was one of only four World Series to go to eight games, and the only best-of-seven Series to do so. While the 1912 Series was extended to eight games due to a tie game being called on account of darkness, the 1903, 1919 and 1921 World Series were all best-of-nine affairs that happened to run eight games.

The 1912 Series was plagued by rumors that Game 7 was not played entirely honestly.[1] Some observers, including famed Boston sportswriter Tim Murnane, theorized that Wood’s terrible start and the Sox’s poor outing were deliberate. The idea was that the Red Sox threw the game in order to play another game to make up for the gate receipts they did not receive from Game 2. No proof was ever offered nor charges filed, but it was one more episode of public suspicion that would haunt several Series in the 1910s. Baseball’s problems with gambling did not come to a head until the infamous 1919 World Series and the Black Sox scandal. The charge that the Red Sox would have wanted Game 8 in order to increase their income is a weak accusation, because from the very beginning in 1903, the players have only earned Series money from the first four games. That rule exists precisely to prevent the kind of shenanigans suggested by the rumors. Wow! Thats a new one!

Marcus Robbins
http://www.articlesbase.com/baseball-articles/the-1912-world-series-the-hidden-rule-722418.html

The Origin of the 11d World Membrane as a Pascal Conic Section of Six 1d Strings in a 5d Projective Space

The biography of David Hilbert discusses a debate concerning whether it was an intellectual faux pas to advocate advancing the 2000 year old Theorem of Pappus to the status of an Axiom. This issue is notable from a number of perspectives, one being his 1920 proposal establishing the Hilbert Program of formulating mathematics and/or geometry on a more solid and complete logical foundation conforming to inclusively greater ‘meta-mathematical principles.’

Yet at that time, he proposed this could be done if: 1. all math follows from a complete or correctly-chosen finite system of axioms, and 2. this axiom system is provably consistent through some means like his epsilon calculus. Although this formalism has been successfully influential in regard to Hilbert’s work in algebra and functional analysis, it failed to engage in the same way with respect to his interests in logic, as well as physics – not to mention his axiomatizion of geometry, given the sketchy issue of regarding Pappus’s theorem as an axiom. Likewise, a similar problem arose when Bertrand Russell rejected Cantor’s proof that there was no ‘greatest’ cardinal number, and went on to defend the ‘logicism’ of his and A. N. Whitehead’s proposition in <i>Principia Mathematica</i> that all mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic. But both Hilbert and Russell’s support for an axiomatized mathematical system of definitive principles that could banish theoretical uncertainties “forever” would end in failure by 1931.

For Kurt Gödel demonstrated that any such non-contradictory (self-consistent) formal system comprehensive enough to at least include arithmetic, could not demonstrate (both) its completeness (and/or, conversely, its categorical consistency) by way of its own axioms. Which means that Hilbert’s program was impossible as stated since there’s no way the second point can be rationally combined with assumption-1 as long as the system of axioms is indeed finite – otherwise you have to add an infinite series of new axioms, beginning, I guess, with Pappus’s! Likewise, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem reveals that neither <i>Principia Mathematica</i>, nor any of other consistent system of recursive arithmetic, could decide whether every proposition, and/or its negation, was provable within that system itself.

Yet beyond Hilbert’s faux pas concerning Pappus, one should note that Gödel’s theorem itself, in some realistic sense, then actually supports Hilbert’s basic idea of a deeper, more inclusive, ‘meta-logical’ foundation as a ‘Gödelian mapping’ that ‘covers’ all mathematics and geometry. Indeed, it was Hilbert’s student Gentzen who used a Gödel mapping ‘orders’ of ‘trans-infinite’ systems of numbers to actually prove Gödel’s theorem: so truly meta-logically validates ordinary arithmetic. In any case, though this conclusion also loosely conforms to Russell’s logistic ideations, it at once demonstrates a vast improvement over his criticism of Cantor’s proof for an infinite series of cardinal numbers – which, after-all, is the point of Cantors arguments in the sense that some ‘axiom of continuity’ like Archimedes’s is required to generate a infinite field of real numbers. Which makes Hilbert’s Pappian faux pas seem almost trivial in comparison – as I’d like to know how Russell expected to find some ‘greatest cardinal number,’ as well as how he expected to axiomatically describe continuity for an infinite range of numbers or points on a line; i.e. before, let alone after, any infinite axiomatic system became an additional issue!

In either case, had Russell, or Hilbert, truly taken Occam’s razor to heart, they’d likely both slit their own throats with it before revealing their biased assumptions and inconsistencies to the world to see for eternity. Which simply means why elevate some provable theorem to the status of an axiomatic assumption, or introduce your own inconsistent system of assumptions, when one is clearly better off leaving everything as is. Yet I’m elated to instead wield that razor properly in order to cut-up such icons a little bit posthumously – as if God wretched it from their suicidal hands, if just to reciprocally thank them for the lenient opportunity to show everyone once again why fools seem to habitually skew themselves as absurdist fodder for us “lesser” fools or “commoners” in some exclusive or “formal” organizational hierarchy. Which is why the wiser ones just say: the higher the monkey climbs up the tree, the more they get exposed to those underneath! (But then too always watch out below, before something blows out that hole back into your face!!)

In any case, this brings us back to yet another, older, so more pressing, issue that is directly connected to Pappus’s ‘hexagon theorem’ – as it was generalized by Blaise Pascal on a projective conic section, or 6-point oval, in 1639, when he was just 16 years old. Being naturally impressed by Desargues’s work on conics, he produced, as a means of proof, a short treatise on what he called the ”Mystic Hexagram,” so better known ever since then simply as Pascal’s theorem. Which basically (as defined by Wikipedia) states that if an arbitrary hexagon is inscribed in any conic section, where the opposite sides are extended until they meet, the three intersection points will lie on a straight, so-called ‘Pascal, line’ of that configuration.

Though this simple description verbally suffices, it might fail to convey the fuller, and more truly ‘mystic,’ aspects that earn the Pascal theorem and configuration the distinction of being regarded as the most centrally fundamental construct in projective geometry. And while diagrams would certainly help clarify things, especially the following descriptions, its hard enough re-formatting these articles content from the preferred notebook text to accommodate the differing formats of the web’s various e-magazines or article distribution services. In any case, it’s no coincidence that I not only made the Pascal conic the cover figure for my text covering projective and its subgeometries, but include a frontispiece of various 6-element conics relevant to all, including the Brianchon projective dual to Pascal’s. So any interested readers can go to the resource box and pull up at least the Pascal cover figure, if not the frontispiece.

Anyway, the text’s cover figure illustrates Pascal’s theorem represented on a simple hexagon formed by mutually inscribing a complete 6-point (15 line) and complete 6-line (15 point) representing the respective plane sections of a complete six-dimensional 6-line-at-a-point and a complete 3-dimensional 6-plane derived by recurrently sectioning a complete five-dimensional 6-point {being the simplest representation as a maximal spatially-extended projective set of vertices for this object}. This description thus emphasizes its deep significance with regard to encompassing entire dimensional gamete of the ‘axioms of incidence’ (before one goes one to introduce the additional set necessary to establish sense and that of continuity), beginning with those of the simplest axioms dimensional extension and 5D closure, along with its projective dual of six-lines at a point, which is then sectioned back down to the final incidence relations corresponding to six complete points on a line and six complete lines through a point. Likewise, one can add the 5-space with the 6-line dimensions to obtain an 11D manifold mapping what amounts to a finite projective geometry that is at once is both complete and categorically consistent (as it’s not concerned with infinite ranges of points or numbers, it’s not restricted by, but again supports, Gödel’s reasoning). So, for example, it’s quite interesting that J. W. Hirschfeld points out in his text on finite projective groups that no six-conics exist in dimension higher than eleven.

Which brings us to the crux of this article as it relates to the mathematical physics of (super) string, and ‘M’ or membrane, theory – which I have yet seen pared down by Occam’s blade to its essence in the foundations of geometry, thus prompting the summary here, comprehensible to a wider segment of intelligent folks. Superstring theory is based on a four-dimensional space-time or physical metric, that together with an internal six-dimensional (Kauler) manifold (or compact Calabi-Yau space) for what can now be thought of as 1D-strings of the 6-line-a-point; forming a total 10-dimensional system. But it became apparent by the 1980’s that a promising unification of physics within one quantum gravitational theory of superstrings was impossible since they branched into five distinct 10 mathematical groups (which led to the situation where a raft of mathematical eggheads, most with little interest in physics per se, began dominating the theoretic physics departments). Which led to a second ‘superstring revolution’ in the mid 90’s when Ed Witten concluded that each of the 10D super-string theories is a different aspect of what was originally called a single ‘Membrane theory’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_Theory), whose totality is naturally eleven dimensional and establishes interrelations between the different superstring group theories as described by various ‘dualities.’ For just as 1D strings are more manageable, finite extensions of singular points, groups of strings on a plane form ‘world-sheets’ as literal ‘2D membranes,’ where these so-called ‘branes’ can be defined of any dimension, starting with a 0-brane or point.

So though the total system can correctly be called an ‘11D World Membrane,’ Witten generically prefers to call it ‘M-theory,’ where M can stand for membrane, mother, mathematical, matrix, master, mystery, magic, or then, as Pascal would forcefully add, Mystic! In any case, there is little doubt that someday a full rendering of 6-dimensions of compacted 1D strings in a 5D space-time will fulfill Einstein’s dream of a fully unified physical theory.

But personally I’m far less concerned with ‘theoretical’ unifications than a comprehensive rendering of physics and cosmology, replete with a raft of confirmable data. For I’ve developed the first dimensionless or ‘pure’ system of (Planck) scaling I call ‘Mumbers’ or ‘membrane numbers;’ and which precisely covers the entire spectrum of particle and space-time physics. And while I don’t have the IQ, propensity or patience to follow or pursue higher mathematics for theoretic purposes, on the other hand, I’ve tested many, but have yet to find anyone, physicist or mathematician, who can successfully write a pure numeric equation for even one relation between distinct physical states. Likewise, standard super-string or M theory has yet to make any confirmed, or even confirmable, predictions – no more than I, at least, have seen anyone point out the geometric foundations of M-theory as a Pascal’s 11-dimensional section of a dual projective 5-space and a 6D six-string-at-a-point. So regardless my mathematical inadequacies, I can guarantee no workable ‘unified M-theory of physics’ can possibly be developed until the intellectual community accepts the meta-logical tautology of both Pascal’s mysterious 6-conic underlying the foundation of geometry, as well as the accompanying unified ‘dimensionless’ scaling that already represents a proven system spanning the whole of  physics.

Sean Sheeter
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-origin-of-the-11d-world-membrane-as-a-pascal-conic-section-of-six-1d-strings-in-a-5d-projective-space-750422.html

Aliens UFOs Latest Proof Evidence UFO Sightings

##################
PROJECT MOTHERSHIP

http://UFOs-Aliens-Proof-Evidence.50webs.com

Or Here…

http://AliensUFOsPhotosPictures.yolasite.com

Or Here…

http://UFOs-Aliens-Proof-Evidence.totalh.com

Best UFO YouTube Channel…

http://YouTube.com/LisaLovesLove

__________________
##################

Aliens UFOs Latest Proof Evidence UFO Sightings.

Aliens UFOs Facts Proof Evidence Documentary Alien UFO Documentaries Videos Latest News UFO Sightings Reports.

The world class top 10 and top 100 top UFO sites and best resource for the best UFO videos, best images and top secret documents, best UFO files available. Our UFO and alien videos are the very best we have found from all over the world and the Internet. We have UFO videos and pictures from the USA, UK, China, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Amsterdam, Russia, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Africa, India, and other countries.
We have the latest UFO sightings, UFO footage, and the best UFO videos right here at Lisa Loves UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence.
Our videos are some of the very best UFO evidence and proof available and we normally add the lastest UFO news, best UFO links, new UFO sightings, and new UFO footage daily.
If you have any new UFO videos or UFO photos, please feel free to share them with us in our UFO Guestbook or our UFO Forums for
Videos, UFOs, Photos, Aliens, Pictures, 2012, Disclosure, Extraterrestrials, Chat Rooms, Paranormal, Evidence, Message Boards, Ghosts, Conspiracy, Proof, Mystery, Top Secrets, 911 Truth, Cryptozoology, Future, Enlightenment, Honesty, Prophecy, Mafia, Terror, Love, Spirituality, Ancient, Black Budget, Podcasts, Alternative News, Area 51, Pictures, NSA, Images, Scary, 200,000+ UFO Videos, Top Secret, CIA, Mystery, 2012, KGB, Prophecy, Ghosts, Paranormal Videos, Podcasts, Conspiracy Forums, Norad, Real UFO Video, Pine Gap, New UFO Videos, Latest UFO Sightings, and the best ET message ever called… “Decide Whether We Should Show Up”.

Duration : 0:4:6

Read more…

How can victims fight corruption of the justice sytem?

I got a message on the internet as follows:
Muni security guards are downtown, (Powell Street),
checking your Proof of Muni Payment or of course your Muni Pass!

I boarded a J Church Train at 24th Street/Church on Saturday, and was waved on by the driver, as he refused to take my fare, his window and gate were closed, I followed his instructions only to be apprehended at Powell Street station, by a Muni employee who didn’t listen to my story nor would she or her supervisor check on my story.

I NOW have a court case, don’t let this happen to YOU!

The fine could be as much as $500.00!

This happened to a man in San Francisco. It wreaks of systematic corruption. How can he fight it?

I know there are HUGE gaps in your story. I suspect that some parts are out right lies. Why would the muni driver refuse to take your fare and then summon the police unless you did something to make him feel threatened?

Yeah, not likely. Enjoy your time in jail.