2039 AD BRIEFING, PART I
Zeta Reticuli is a planetary system including two stars both of which are about 1 billion years older than the Earth’s sun (Adams, 2024). Zeti Reticuli is 39.2 light years from Earth and Zeta I is approximately one-eight of a light year from Zeta II (Njatcha, 2018).
The Zetan Founders evolved on a planet orbiting Zeta I Reticuli and populated a Zeta II Reticulan planet with a genetically altered version – to accommodate different environmental conditions – of their species (Zetapedia, 2039). Subsequently, on Earth the Founders attempted to genetically modify a native species of simians to approximate the Founders’ appearance and abilities in the context of yet another divergent environment (Meek, 2025). As represented in many artistic representations as well as written and oral traditions, Humanity has a long record of punctuated periods of involvement with the Founders (Von Daniken, 1970). Yet, consistent with Human behavior, all such involvement was officially denied and actively concealed by Human authorities (Wagner, 2029).
During the summer of 1947, two Zeta Reticulan I Ovoid-Class extraterrestrial lenticular-shaped aerodyne craft collided while on an observance-only mission over the atomic testing grounds in the State of New Mexico, USA, Earth (Green, 2017). Radar film and tower logs from American Holloman Air Force Base reflected the merger of three objects prior to collision and subsequent crashes with the third object believed to be an unrecovered test balloon (Majestic Twelve, 1952). The two Ovoid-Class craft experienced non-planned ground contact at two dispersed sites in New Mexico. Four Zeta Reticulan I bodies were recovered, two of which were unevacuated in a damaged escape cylinder and two of which were found several yards from a second albeit evacuated cylinder (Majestic Twelve, 1952). One of the four – an evacuated body -- was nonmetabolic and badly decomposed as a result of exposure and assumed predatory action. A second – the second evacuated body – became nonmetabolic within the first hour of the American Army Air Force recovery operation (“Briefing Document,” 1952). The two unevacuated bodies became nonmetabolic due to undetermined causes (Hetrick, 2025). All of the bodies were inadvertently cremated prior to autopsies (Cardene, 2025).
Years of intensive Human study of the retrieved components of the two Ovoid-Class craft seeded numerous Human technological advances. Within decades of the recovery, the reverse engineering of recovered components led to the fruition, as examples, of fiber optics, integrated circuits, lasers, Kevlar and accelerated particle beam devices (Corso, 1997).
In 2021, Human scientists at the Furey Institute, , Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, fully replicated a functioning Ovoid-Class power source (Jefferson, 2022). The Noorbaksh reactor was fueled with Element 114 in a closed system. Fueling was the initial step in the provision of amplified Gravity-S waves and Magnetic-S waves allowing Villonian travel (a.k.a. “accelerated light” travel) (Umar, 2027).
The Noorbaksh reactor bombarded Element 114 with hydrogen protons using a microparticle accelerator. The hydrogen protons fused into the Element 114 nucleus creating the misnamed “radioactive” form of Element 115 (“R-115”). The almost simultaneous decay of R-115 produced one particle of a type of anti-matter known as Sigma-Hydrogen as well as a large number of tachyons. The flux of newly produced Sigma-Hydrogen particles and tachyons were channeled through an evacuated tuned tube and further contained within a flowing stream of higgs-boson particles where they were reacted with condensed dark matter in a Cannonian Annihilation Reaction (Ibric, 2022).
The generation of the Subquarkian-Gravity-S-Magnetic-S Waves theoretically allowed the craft to “fall” through space and time to its targeted (a.k.a. “attracted”) position at velocities of up to 1,000 times the speed of light (“1000-c”). However, the inefficiencies of the Human constructed “Model H.U. 23” restricted Villonian travel to speeds of under 12-c.
With the Human National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s first successful interplanetary flight in the Schiavelli Program (the first manned extra-Earth program after the suspension of the Apollo Program), overt and nonconcealable Zeta Reticulan contact was initiated in compliance with Zeta Reticulan Containment Policy: Earth (Pyramid 0099742.7760.04, 2039).
[TO BE CONTINUED.]
References
Adams, N. (2024). Look it up yourself! Harrisburg University: Yet Another Project
Press.
Bates, H. (1940, October), Farewell to the master. Astounding Science Fiction
Magazine.
Benigni, S. (2020). The unending book of unending homework problems.
Beijing: AndyouthoughtIwasaniceguyPress.
Briefing Document. (1952). Operation majestic 12 prepared for president-elect
dwight d. eisenhower. (Project Operations Group, White House.)
Washington, DC: White House.
Cardene, L. (2025). But couldn’t you do it another way? Antarctica: HeadachePress.
Coleman, N. (2027). Ganja. Scranton: Inyourface Publishing.
Corso, P. (1997). The day after roswell. New York: Pocket Books.
Element 115. (n.d.). Bob lazar. Retrieved April 23, 2039, from
http://www.boblazar.com
Green, A. (2017). Oh my god! Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Greys (2039). Retrieved April 24, 2039, from
http://zeta.en.zetapedia.org/wiki/greys
Hetrick, G. (2025). I’ll get back to you. Las Vegas: Onthegopress.
Ibric, P. (2022). And then we …. Kansas: Talktalktalktalk Press.
Island of Stability. (September, 2006). Nova scienceNOW. Retrieved April 24, 2039,
from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3313/02.html
Jefferson, J. (2022). One quick question. Bawlamer Publications: Maryland.
Majestic Twelve. (1952). First annual report. (Project Operations Group,
White House.) Washington, DC: White House.
Massengale, R. (2026). The lone star. Chicago: Playboy Press.
Meek, P. (2025). The point is: was cartman right? Tahiti: South Park Press.
Njatcha, C. (2018). Flying saucers and science. New Jersey: New Page Books.
Pyramid 0099742.7760.04. (2039). Containment policy: Earth ( J. Turner, Trans.)
Akenhaten: Central Office of Records. (Original work published 18,496 BCE)
Pyramid 3301003.0020.54. (2039). Graduate student restrictions ( J. Turner, Trans.)
Akenhaten: Central Office of Records. (Original work published 1947.)
Radioactive Decay. (April 24, 2039.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2039, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
Umar, A. (2027.) Success! Success! Retrieved April 23, 2039 from
http://www.boblazar.com.
Vaideeswaran, P. (2021). !!!!!. Mumbai: ModernCity-Dog Billionaire Press.
Von Daniken, E. (1970). Chariots of the gods? New York: Bantam Books, Inc.
Wagner, J. (2029). Piece it together. Kalamazoo: Paperwork Press.
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Saved at: BRIEFINGI.docx
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Chapter 1
I think I’ll take the approach of noting some quotes from the book and then adding a few comments. Given its introductory nature, it is possible that Chapter 1 will have more quotes of interest to me than might subsequent chapters.
Chapter 1
1. “ … changing the face of journalism and media as we know it.” (Page 4.)
A few years ago I had a discussion with a journalist friend of mine who mentioned that while the economy as a whole might be undergoing a recession, the journalism profession was experiencing a depression, or worse.
2. “ … many CEOs are beginning to catch on to blogging as well.” (Page 5.)
I wonder how vapid these may or may not be? If vapid, I can see such blogs creating cynicism among the rank-and-file.
3. “These technologies make more of our lives transparent to others in ways that many find unsettling.” (Page 5.)
Our lives are now probably much more transparent than we realize. Here is a recent article from the New York Times:
June 20, 2011
Upending Anonymity, These Days the Web Unmasks Everyone
By BRIAN STELTER
Not too long ago, theorists fretted that the Internet was a place where anonymity thrived.
Now, it seems, it is the place where anonymity dies.
A commuter in the New York area who verbally tangled with a conductor last Tuesday — and defended herself by asking “Do you know what schools I’ve been to and how well-educated I am?” — was publicly identified after a fellow rider posted a cellphone video of the encounter on YouTube. The woman, who had gone to N.Y.U., was ridiculed by a cadre of bloggers, one of whom termed it the latest episode of “Name and Shame on the Web.”
Women who were online pen pals of former Representative Anthony D. Weiner similarly learned how quickly Internet users can sniff out all the details of a person’s online life. So did the men who set fire to cars and looted stores in the wake of Vancouver’s Stanley Cup defeat last week when they were identified, tagged by acquaintances online.
The collective intelligence of the Internet’s two billion users, and the digital fingerprints that so many users leave on Web sites, combine to make it more and more likely that every embarrassing video, every intimate photo, and every indelicate e-mail is attributed to its source, whether that source wants it to be or not. This intelligence makes the public sphere more public than ever before and sometimes forces personal lives into public view.
To some, this could conjure up comparisons to the agents of repressive governments in the Middle East who monitor online protests and exact retribution offline. But the positive effects can be numerous: criminality can be ferreted out, falsehoods can be disproved and individuals can become Internet icons.
When a freelance photographer, Rich Lam, digested his pictures of the riots in Vancouver, he spotted several shots of a man and a woman, surrounded by police officers in riot gear, in the middle of a like-nobody’s-watching kiss. When the photos were published, a worldwide dragnet of sorts ensued to identify the “kissing couple.” Within a day, the couple’s relatives had tipped off news Web sites to their identities, and there they were, Monday, on the “Today” show: Scott Jones and Alex Thomas, the latest proof that thanks to the Internet, every day could be a day that will be remembered around the world.
“It’s kind of amazing that there was someone there to take a photo,” Ms. Thomas said on “Today.”
The “kissing couple” will most likely enjoy just a tweet’s worth of fame, but it is noteworthy that they were tracked down at all.
This erosion of anonymity is a product of pervasive social media services, cheap cellphone cameras, free photo and video Web hosts, and perhaps most important of all, a change in people’s views about what ought to be public and what ought to be private. Experts say that Web sites like Facebook, which require real identities and encourage the sharing of photographs and videos, have hastened this change.
“Humans want nothing more than to connect, and the companies that are connecting us electronically want to know who’s saying what, where,” said Susan Crawford, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. “As a result, we’re more known than ever before.”
This growing “publicness,” as it is sometimes called, comes with significant consequences for commerce, for political speech and for ordinary people’s right to privacy. There are efforts by governments and corporations to set up online identity systems. Technology will play an even greater role in the identification of once-anonymous individuals: Facebook, for instance, is already using facial recognition technology in ways that are alarming to European regulators.
After the riots in Vancouver, locals needed no such facial recognition technology — they simply combed through social media sites to try to identify some of the people involved, like Nathan Kotylak, 17, a star on Canada’s junior water polo team.
On Facebook, Mr. Kotylak apologized for the damage he had caused. The finger-pointing affected not only him, it affected his family: local news media reported that his father, a doctor, had seen his ranking on a medical practice review site, RateMDs.com, drop after people posted comments about his son’s involvement in the riots. Other people subsequently went to the Web site to defend the doctor and improve his ranking.
Predictably, there was a backlash to the Internet-assisted identification of the people involved in the alcohol-fueled riot. Camille Cacnio, a student in Vancouver who was photographed during the riot and who admitted to theft, wrote on her blog that the “21st-century witch hunt” on the Internet was “another form of mobbing.”
In the New York area, the commuter who was the subject of online scorn last week shut down both her Twitter and LinkedIn accounts once her name bubbled up on blogs. Though the person who originally posted the cellphone video took it down, other people quickly reposted it, giving the story new life. The original video poster remains anonymous because his or her YouTube account has been shut down.
Half a world away, in Middle Eastern countries like Iran and Syria, activists have sometimes succeeded in identifying victims of dictatorial violence through anonymously uploaded YouTube videos.
They have also succeeded in identifying fakes: In a widely publicized case this month, a blogger who claimed to be a Syrian-American lesbian and called herself “A Gay Girl in Damascus” was revealed to be an American man, Tom MacMaster.
The sleuthing was led by Andy Carvin, a strategist for NPR who has exhaustively covered the Middle Eastern protests on Twitter. When sources of his said they were skeptical of the blogger’s identity, “I just started asking questions on Twitter and Facebook,” Mr. Carvin recalled on CNN. “Have any of you met her in person? Do you know her at all? The more I asked, the less I learned, because no one had met her, not even the reporters who had supposedly interviewed her in person.”
Mr. Carvin, his online followers and others used photos and server log data to connect the blog to Mr. MacMaster’s wife.
“Publicity” — something normally associated with celebrities — “is no longer scarce,” Dave Morgan, the chief executive of Simulmedia, wrote in an essay this month.
He posited that because the Internet “can’t be made to forget” images and moments from the past, like an outburst on a train or a kiss during a riot, “the reality of an inescapable public world is an issue we are all going to hear a lot more about.”
4. “By and large, they are ‘out there’ using a wide variety of technologies that they are told they can’t use when they come to school.” (Page 6.)
I assume this is generally perceived as hypocrisy and simply creates frustration and cynicism.
5. “ … as presenting a risk instead of a solution for a system whose students continue to struggle to stay apace of their international peers.” (Page 6.)
I have a vague understanding that students from a number of foreign countries perform better, on average, than do American students. But here the author should have provided -- at least for me -- some specifics to be more convincing as to the correctness of his general assertion.
6. “‘ This online life has become an entire strategy for how to live, survive, and thrive in the twenty-first century …’” (Page 7.)
Ever more true. Today, people often find dates and mates online! People shop on-line, etc.
7. “ … the Web browser is only 15 years old ….” (Page 8.)
We’ve heard this type of thing a number of times now, but it still is amazing to think about.
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Chapter 1
1. “ … changing the face of journalism and media as we know it.” (Page 4.)
A few years ago I had a discussion with a journalist friend of mine who mentioned that while the economy as a whole might be undergoing a recession, the journalism profession was experiencing a depression, or worse.
2. “ … many CEOs are beginning to catch on to blogging as well.” (Page 5.)
I wonder how vapid these may or may not be? If vapid, I can see such blogs creating cynicism among the rank-and-file.
3. “These technologies make more of our lives transparent to others in ways that many find unsettling.” (Page 5.)
Our lives are now probably much more transparent than we realize. Here is a recent article from the New York Times:
June 20, 2011
Upending Anonymity, These Days the Web Unmasks Everyone
By BRIAN STELTER
Not too long ago, theorists fretted that the Internet was a place where anonymity thrived.
Now, it seems, it is the place where anonymity dies.
A commuter in the New York area who verbally tangled with a conductor last Tuesday — and defended herself by asking “Do you know what schools I’ve been to and how well-educated I am?” — was publicly identified after a fellow rider posted a cellphone video of the encounter on YouTube. The woman, who had gone to N.Y.U., was ridiculed by a cadre of bloggers, one of whom termed it the latest episode of “Name and Shame on the Web.”
Women who were online pen pals of former Representative Anthony D. Weiner similarly learned how quickly Internet users can sniff out all the details of a person’s online life. So did the men who set fire to cars and looted stores in the wake of Vancouver’s Stanley Cup defeat last week when they were identified, tagged by acquaintances online.
The collective intelligence of the Internet’s two billion users, and the digital fingerprints that so many users leave on Web sites, combine to make it more and more likely that every embarrassing video, every intimate photo, and every indelicate e-mail is attributed to its source, whether that source wants it to be or not. This intelligence makes the public sphere more public than ever before and sometimes forces personal lives into public view.
To some, this could conjure up comparisons to the agents of repressive governments in the Middle East who monitor online protests and exact retribution offline. But the positive effects can be numerous: criminality can be ferreted out, falsehoods can be disproved and individuals can become Internet icons.
When a freelance photographer, Rich Lam, digested his pictures of the riots in Vancouver, he spotted several shots of a man and a woman, surrounded by police officers in riot gear, in the middle of a like-nobody’s-watching kiss. When the photos were published, a worldwide dragnet of sorts ensued to identify the “kissing couple.” Within a day, the couple’s relatives had tipped off news Web sites to their identities, and there they were, Monday, on the “Today” show: Scott Jones and Alex Thomas, the latest proof that thanks to the Internet, every day could be a day that will be remembered around the world.
“It’s kind of amazing that there was someone there to take a photo,” Ms. Thomas said on “Today.”
The “kissing couple” will most likely enjoy just a tweet’s worth of fame, but it is noteworthy that they were tracked down at all.
This erosion of anonymity is a product of pervasive social media services, cheap cellphone cameras, free photo and video Web hosts, and perhaps most important of all, a change in people’s views about what ought to be public and what ought to be private. Experts say that Web sites like Facebook, which require real identities and encourage the sharing of photographs and videos, have hastened this change.
“Humans want nothing more than to connect, and the companies that are connecting us electronically want to know who’s saying what, where,” said Susan Crawford, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. “As a result, we’re more known than ever before.”
This growing “publicness,” as it is sometimes called, comes with significant consequences for commerce, for political speech and for ordinary people’s right to privacy. There are efforts by governments and corporations to set up online identity systems. Technology will play an even greater role in the identification of once-anonymous individuals: Facebook, for instance, is already using facial recognition technology in ways that are alarming to European regulators.
After the riots in Vancouver, locals needed no such facial recognition technology — they simply combed through social media sites to try to identify some of the people involved, like Nathan Kotylak, 17, a star on Canada’s junior water polo team.
On Facebook, Mr. Kotylak apologized for the damage he had caused. The finger-pointing affected not only him, it affected his family: local news media reported that his father, a doctor, had seen his ranking on a medical practice review site, RateMDs.com, drop after people posted comments about his son’s involvement in the riots. Other people subsequently went to the Web site to defend the doctor and improve his ranking.
Predictably, there was a backlash to the Internet-assisted identification of the people involved in the alcohol-fueled riot. Camille Cacnio, a student in Vancouver who was photographed during the riot and who admitted to theft, wrote on her blog that the “21st-century witch hunt” on the Internet was “another form of mobbing.”
In the New York area, the commuter who was the subject of online scorn last week shut down both her Twitter and LinkedIn accounts once her name bubbled up on blogs. Though the person who originally posted the cellphone video took it down, other people quickly reposted it, giving the story new life. The original video poster remains anonymous because his or her YouTube account has been shut down.
Half a world away, in Middle Eastern countries like Iran and Syria, activists have sometimes succeeded in identifying victims of dictatorial violence through anonymously uploaded YouTube videos.
They have also succeeded in identifying fakes: In a widely publicized case this month, a blogger who claimed to be a Syrian-American lesbian and called herself “A Gay Girl in Damascus” was revealed to be an American man, Tom MacMaster.
The sleuthing was led by Andy Carvin, a strategist for NPR who has exhaustively covered the Middle Eastern protests on Twitter. When sources of his said they were skeptical of the blogger’s identity, “I just started asking questions on Twitter and Facebook,” Mr. Carvin recalled on CNN. “Have any of you met her in person? Do you know her at all? The more I asked, the less I learned, because no one had met her, not even the reporters who had supposedly interviewed her in person.”
Mr. Carvin, his online followers and others used photos and server log data to connect the blog to Mr. MacMaster’s wife.
“Publicity” — something normally associated with celebrities — “is no longer scarce,” Dave Morgan, the chief executive of Simulmedia, wrote in an essay this month.
He posited that because the Internet “can’t be made to forget” images and moments from the past, like an outburst on a train or a kiss during a riot, “the reality of an inescapable public world is an issue we are all going to hear a lot more about.”
4. “By and large, they are ‘out there’ using a wide variety of technologies that they are told they can’t use when they come to school.” (Page 6.)
I assume this is generally perceived as hypocrisy and simply creates frustration and cynicism.
5. “ … as presenting a risk instead of a solution for a system whose students continue to struggle to stay apace of their international peers.” (Page 6.)
I have a vague understanding that students from a number of foreign countries perform better, on average, than do American students. But here the author should have provided -- at least for me -- some specifics to be more convincing as to the correctness of his general assertion.
6. “‘ This online life has become an entire strategy for how to live, survive, and thrive in the twenty-first century …’” (Page 7.)
Ever more true. Today, people often find dates and mates online! People shop on-line, etc.
7. “ … the Web browser is only 15 years old ….” (Page 8.)
We’ve heard this type of thing a number of times now, but it still is amazing to think about.
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
