I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
...previous thought brought to you by Henry Rollins. They both share my POV on OccupyLA.
Ohhh...the irony is getting DEEP now. Time to place my SAG membership on hiatus. I've paid more to SAG in dues than I've earned working for the last 7 years. :/ I wish I had known this was an option a long, long time ago.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Monday, November 28, 2011
Finally some action. #ola
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Sunday, November 27, 2011
The crowd has now moved into the street and a hippie is dancing on top of the bus stop to the drum circle beat. #ola
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
1.5 hours until lights out and they're still talking about random sh7t at the GA.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
What it lacks in size it makes up for in creativity. #ola
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Less-cooperative hippies. #ola
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Flash bein' all gangsta.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Well, at least there's not a media blackout. Quite the opposite it seems. #ola
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Poor @LAPD. I can't believe all these clowns are just going to let the tents get taken and destroyed. What a waste of useful props. And it's not tweakers destroyed all these tents already. :/
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
How does that even happen? Who let the hippies in the trees with pallets?
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Not sure what's going on there.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
If you're gonna get something tattooed on your lower back, why not creative right?
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
The interesting part is there's even more tents here than when I left. It's like no one is moving. Poor @LAPD.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Well, my tent is MIA...but they damn sure all came out when this place is about to get shut down. #ola
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Friday, November 25, 2011
And back to the proverbial grindstone I go...
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The self-proclaimed "biggest internet Occupy movement troll" lolz
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Over the curb in under 5 minutes! I love how I consider rain FB picture worthy now.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Look who's been lighting up Facebook again...
Allen E. Simpson The Big Bang theory is completely fabricated insane hype (when taken in the literal sense). One more reason we live in the modern dark ages.
Yesterday at 9:24am · Like · 1
Nigel Beckwith I feel that if you have not worked it out a bit further than you have (as above) already i might be wasting my time as you appear well programmed. Sorry David. Maybe best to start with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance. Good way to open up a little. Please dont try to tell me I simply dont see your way having not looked. I have for many years and sorry it is just a naive view.
Yesterday at 9:24am · Like
Nigel Beckwith I agree Allen.
Yesterday at 9:24am · Like
David Crosby A central theme of science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses.
I do not personally see that as dogmatic. If we did not have this type of method, people could claim the existance of all sorts of things, and base it's validity without ever offering evidence. Kinda like what religion does.
No hypothesis or theory can be called scientific or accepted if it lacks empirical evidence in favor. Therefore, empirical evidence can be use both to accept or counter any scientific hypothesis or theory.
People tho are free to throw around all types of philosophy or disagree, I am simply only explaning what scientists consider to be their method.
....
Yesterday at 9:26am · Like · 1
Nigel Beckwith Is this another recorded message?
Yesterday at 9:28am · Like
David Crosby People are free to believe or disbelieve what they want and I respect that.
Regarding the big bang;
Space itself is expanding. And that is simply done by observation of the radial velocity of any distant object (galaxies, quasars, galaxy clusters...).
It is after the observation of expansion and the determination that it was "linear" (the determination was done by Edwin Hubble, the astronomer, back in the 1910s). All the observations done since, all confirm that expansion is real.
Once it was accepted that space was expanding, theories were developed to explain how the universe could evolve in the context of expanding space.
This includes the idea that if the universe is finite, then the universe expands with the expanding space (which raises the questions about "what are we expanding into?").
If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself does not expand (it "remains" infinite -- only space within it keeps expanding).
So, several ideas were published to explain how to explain the universe in the context of expanding space.
These ideas can be broken down in three groups:
1) the energy content of the universe stays the same. This means that the average temperature of the universe diminishes as expansion goes on.
2) the temperature of the universe remains constant, which means that new energy is constantly being added (probably by expansion itself)
3) ideas that did not make sense.
---
The idea that came to represent group 1 is the one we now call Big Bang. One effect of this idea is that if we go backwards in time with a constant energy content (but an increasing energy density) then we must get to a point (now called the Planck Time) when the energy density was so high that we do not know how time itself could have flowed.
The idea that came to represent group 2 was called the Steady State theory. In it, the universe is eternal and expands continuously. New energy is slowly created in order to fill the new space being created by expansion.
In both cases, the energy turns into matter (which was already known to be possible thanks to Einstein's famous E = m c^2 ).
Around 1948, some scientists who were not connected with either theory finally determined a series of tests to see which idea was the best.
If Big Bang, then the universe would look very different in the past than it does not; there would be a time in the past when the universe had no molecules, only ionized atoms (too hot for molecules) and, at the transition between the ionized universe and the transparent universe, there would have been a sudden emission of light from everywhere at once, in all direction.
They even calculated what frequency this light should now have: it should be in the "microwave" part of the spectrum (therefore, only visible to radio-telescopes).
Under the Steady State theory, this kind of radiation was deemed impossible. It just can't exist.
For decades, scientists preferred Steady State (easier to use, easier calculations, and no strange questions about the "origin" of the universe, since an eternal universe has no origin).
However, in 1964, the Cosmological Microwave Background radiation was discovered. Also, with better telescopes and cameras, we began to discover that the early universe was very different than the present universe.
Remember that the further out (in distance) we look, the further back (in time) we see.
There was a time in the past when there were lots of quasars. before that, there were hardly any (no galaxies) and after that, there were fewer (less matter falling into the central black holes in galaxies).
Thus, modern observations show that the universe used to be a lot hotter than now and that it has had some kind of "beginning".
The Big Bang theory itself does not explain the beginning. It simply describes what happens to the already existing energy AFTER expansion is under way. It does not say where the energy came from.
Again each to their own.
......
Yesterday at 9:31am · Unlike · 2
David Crosby http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The%20Big%20Bang%20Theory.htm
...
Yesterday at 9:37am · Like
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch The reformation?
Yesterday at 9:40am · Like
Allen E. Simpson Watch this and tell me if you trust these guys. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-universe-everything-else/ It sounds like a bunch of space geek clowns making jokes in "Space English" to me.
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like · 1
David Crosby INot sure if you meant me or someone else, but yea iv seen this interview before, I dont personally consider them space geek clowns, I actually consider Hawkings and Sagan to be two of the greatest scientific minds to have evolved on this planet, but each to their own as I have said. Regarding God, well I am personally an atheist so I wont go into that. The grand unified theory is simply science trying to blend M-theory [string theory] and relativity, but I dont believe this can be done, untill quantum physics is mastered, and science is a long way of mastering quantum physics yet, I mean maybe it will never be done, who knows. I actually enjoyed this old interview, thanks for the link Allen, I forgot all about it.
.....
Yesterday at 9:56am · Like
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch Until you personally have invented the Communication Satellite or an invention of such magnitude, please refrain from referring to Arthur C Clarke as part of "a bunch of space geek clowns".
Personally I found their statements concise and as to the point as English allows when discussing such matters.
Your lack of understanding is what leads you wrongly to attack these men with name calling . Try to get over this, it's the same as me sneering at you based on my higher IQ,
e.g. "sounds like whacked out cali skater putting down the bong long enough to chat some kind of kowabunga crap"
This is wrong and can lead you to make mistakes which is why I personally avoid it.
And they weren't speaking "Space English" the language they were using is called ENGLISH, but I do understand that no fucker speaks it on your continent.
Yesterday at 9:58am · Like · 2
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch Be Told
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like · 1
David Crosby I kinda have to agree with Aaron on this one Allen.
....
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like · 2
David Crosby Ad hominem is never a correct way to reason.
...
Yesterday at 10:04am · Like
Allen E. Simpson Wow you watched that quick Aaron. In truth, it's been awhile since I saw it, but all I could think is "wow these are some kids with specialized knowledge in those certain areas making constant inside jokes that they seem to believe to be over the heads of the viewing audience." They made science sound more like religion, and that hurt my brain to watch. Oh those clever aliens. :/
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like
Allen E. Simpson In other news, you might be surprised what I've invented.
Yesterday at 10:12am · Like
David Crosby Inside jokes and specialized knowledge? No its simply just intelligence,philosophy, understanding and reason, oh and science. They are some of the greatest minds to have lived on this planet. I do not think they made science more like religion in this, maybe you just did not understand some of what they were saying, or maybe you have a bit of a bias going on. Not sure, but at the end of the day their your views. Like Aaron said
Until you personally have invented the Communication Satellite or an invention of such magnitude, please refrain from referring to Arthur C Clarke as part of "a bunch of space geek clowns".
And I concur with that.
......
Yesterday at 10:16am · Like · 1
Allen E. Simpson And I was only referring to them as "space geek clowns" in the context of that forum in which they seemed a bit too high and mighty in their positions considering the religion-like gaps in theory. What I invented (amongst other things) is a unique and original "code language" for the intelligence community to identify and bypass the side effects of the other "space English" (not to be read literally...) in light of how the existing older code language they were using has devolved our species since the end of WWII. You didn't get the memo?
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like
Allen E. Simpson BTW...it's been installed and running in between the lines of your (well, at least in America) TV for the last 5 years...and is responsible for a LOT of stuff you may or may not see and be aware of...so until you know...easy on the put downs. kthxgr8
Yesterday at 10:23am · Like
David Crosby I still dont consider them space geek clowns, but all the best with your invention.
....
15 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch Sounds interesting, I don't personally own a Television but nice going.
It's no World Wide Communication Revolution though is it, Clarkes invention is parralelled only by DARPA and Tim Berners Lee's inventions in the field on Comms
10 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Allen E. Simpson Alright, sorry for calling them space geek clowns, but I also refer to world leaders as "the kids" and other silly uses of language in my highly sarcastic and satirical lexicon, so I think if you guys understood the comedic nature of my personality better you might not have been so harsh. All I was saying is, beyond the literal discussion of things like time, matter, and energy I remembered it sounded like they were speaking in that 1950's era "space English" code and being a bit too smirky about things for people whose theory concluded the entire Universe emerged from one tiny spec if not "bang." My personal belief is that "God" is everything both within our puny ant-like comprehension and beyond it, so when anyone even enters the debate with anything resembling some of the more conventional concepts of "God" much less dares to blur them with science, I immediately throw a flag on the play. Seeing as how, as beings, we can't even conceive the size of the Universe on a macro or micro scale, when people get all matter-of-fact and smug about sh5t that our species clearly doesn't even have a full grasp of to begin with, it irks me because I feel it, like religion, is just impeding true progress. In other fun news, y'all might be interested to know my embedded "" between the lines of the American media project is just one small hidden-in-plain-sight stealth marketing facet of a much larger plan for complete global government world redesign based on the myriad of unsustainability and inefficiency problems presently facing our civilization with a fun Disney/Google-grade government twist to it...but that is obviously a much, much longer conversation and complicated plan, hiding the ultimate marketing plan for it between the lines of existing centralized mass media while "filtering" the old-world intelligence community behind the veil of secrecy sas just the first phase of. Since I've spent 10 years religiously (pardon the pun...and oh yeah, it has a "supra religion" and spice-licensing component to it as well) working on it and have been called a creative genius more than once, I dare say it's some seriously impressive sh5t to know and for cooler than anything presently on the world design stage, but that's why I've got to stop slacking and just write the book so I can just hand it to people like you guys and say "here, read this" instead of having to occasionally fall into these awkward blind debates with strangers. That said, both of you seem very intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about science, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of our species at this point, so I commend you for that. If you think I'm full of sh5t and just care to follow along on my social media profiles and slowly put the pieces together yourselves, you're more than welcome to. Cheers!
9 hours ago · Like · 1
Allen E. Simpson ^far
9 hours ago · Like
David Crosby Isnt invoking something like a God a bit complecated....? I mean who or what created the creator, and what is he/she/it made up of.....? is he/she/it transcendent, if so is that not a tad bit unfalsifiable, like many other things that could be claimed to exist......? The Multiverse could be claimed as a counter unfalsifiable argument could it not.....? and if spacetime all came into existance after the big bang, it seems kinda unlikley that a God would have any time to create in never mind the space to dwell in (unless its transcendent of course) If we live in a flat universe, then the total amout of energy adds up to 0, thus a universe will create itself from nothing, without the need of a deity. Just curious hope you dont mind the question Allen, would you be more on the deist side of things or new age, or something totally different.....? I doubt you are a Abrahamic theist anyway.
8 hours ago · Like · 1
David Crosby I dont think you are full of shit, you to seem knowledgeable about science. I just did not agree with the space geek clown comment, but as you say it was a joke taken out of context, its not really a big deal lol. Anyway its to hard for me to type on my phone, so have to respond tomorow or something, all the best mate.
8 hours ago · Like
Pawel Fryga Sagan is a bitch.
2 hours ago · Like
David Crosby Why Pawel because he does not believe in the supernatural world, because he rejects the claims of Abrahamic believers and their man made deity...? At the end of the day as Sagan would say;
extraordinary claim's require extraordinary evidence- Carl Sagan
When you can prove the existance of Yahweh or Allah along with where they came from etc etc....without invoking logical fallacies and metaphysics, I and many of the sientists agnostics and atheists in the world, are going to reject such primitive mind fallacies. We are all waiting to see the evidence or your saviour show up. Untill then, Yahweh and Allah are just as real as the invisible pink unicorn or mother goose.
.........
about an hour ago · Like · 1
David Crosby The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail my friend.
As Dr Ted Drange would say;
(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.
(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).
(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.
(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.
(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.
(f) It follows that God, as defined by Abrahamic theism, cannot exist.
A similar argument could possibly be constructed with regard to the other components of the universe as well: space, matter, and energy. It is very hard to comprehend how a being could have created the universe without existing within space and without any involvement with matter or energy. But maybe one could make the claim of a transcendent deity, so be it, but;
The Transcendent-Personal Argument
........................................................
(a) In order for God to have created the universe, he must have been transcendent, that is, he must have existed outside space and time.
(b) But to be personal implies (among other things) being within space and time.
(c) Therefore, it is logically impossible for God, as defined by Abrahamic theism, to exist.
It might be suggested that God has a part that is outside space and time and another part that is inside space and time and that it is the latter part, not the former part, which is personal in nature. But the idea of a being which is partly personal and partly transcendent is incomprehensible. Furthermore, definition by Abrahamic theism claims that God, as a personal being, existed prior to the universe, and it is incomprehensible how a personal being could do so.
Another argument could be made called 'The Argument from Evil' , but I think that's self explanatory.
.......
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson I consider "God" to be life and this realm itself, like I said, everything both within our comprehension and beyond - but certainly none of the insane metaphysical "imaginary guy in the sky who is going to send you to heaven or hell after you die" stuff. That's mass group-think insanity that the world and human condition is presently plagued with. My "supra-religion" dubbed Religion1 is actually based on truth and logic and is actually more of a tool for explaining how everything, including all other religions, work. Like a mechanism designed to explain how the magician's tricks work to the audience rather than lying to or deceiving them further - but at the same time recognizing and honoring the more noble principles from them all that can be extracted from the fairy tales and blatantly saying "look, this is a lie/story, but here is the purpose of the lie/story and the reason it existed in the first place, so can we recognize and focus on that instead." In fact, my plan was to take over/reuse many of the existing churches (as we need bases in communities which is the role churches serve) and create more of an IMAX theater experience of it that worships and explains science, technology, and the human condition by creating a collaborative plan to create a "never-ending story" that gets added to and furthered every week, and in tandem with an educational and carefully ritualized selective use of alchemy coordinates and guides people on safe courses of enhanced life experience that can be combined with goodwill initiatives to fix neighbors and lives and literally save the world...but like I said, it is extremely cool and complex and requires a lot more explaining than I can bare to do typing with my thumbs on my cellphone keypad as I'm doing at the moment.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
David Crosby LOL I see your point, I might not agree with all your views tho, but at least you do not invoke metaphysical or typical theistic supernaturalism. It's rare I see someone make a logical argument for a deity, usualy its always logical fallacies. So are atheists allowed into your God's heaven lol, only joking my friend, it's good to see you think outside of the religious and abrahamic box.
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson I don't take "God" takes an active role in our existence more than people are paranoid and give the concept of whatever God they believe in misdirected credit for the good, bad, or whatever, but one of the concepts I consider in creating a belief in "God" would be to take a Second Life approach, in that he/it/whatever created the self-evolving game of life and has the ability to see and experience it through the eyes and senses of any living creature, and that possibly on the flip side, like in a video game, our performance and behavior on this planet does count (it certainly does in relation to other living beings) and that maybe he/it/the scorekeeper/whatever sits there with you on the other side and reviews your entire experience and performance which is then factored into where your soul goes from there, to a different realm as a different incarnation or God only knows right? Of course, like being an ant-like human like all the rest I really don't know and therefore can't tell you what happens after death, but I can point out the other bad specimens that are lying to others and create and clearly label these hypothetical models that would allow our species to use the paranoia of the God consciousness to behave better toward one-another and the whole of existence.
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson ^think
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson It's actually the opposite - I'm not making a logical argument for a deity, I'm making the argument that everything in existence itself is the deity (if life and that all this exists far beyond our comprehension isn't the only true miracle then what is?) and that accordingly we should behave more carefully just in case it turns out this is nothing more than an ultimate game of 3D Second Life. With the advent of recording and broadcasting technology, it actually gets closer and closer to creating that game model of things anyway, that's why I just designed all my theories from an ultimate all-knowing and fully sustainable technological point in the future and plan to just encourage all people to act accordingly while at the same time creating a literal way of gaming existence and giving them credit for their behavior, good, bad, or other. Furthermore, I would argue stupid ancient retarded men claiming to be God and invoking that concept along such insane and abusive lines is what has led to the destruction and enslavement of mankind...which is why in the future men or women claiming to be God in the face of technology recording it are really going to be digging their own graves. We live in the modern dark ages - I hate it, it tests my sanity daily, and I kind of consider the Big Bang theory and all the absurd centralized propaganda and lies part of that, which is why I railed so hard against the scientists in that video, not because of the actual legitimate scientific work they've done - that I'm extremely impressed by. It's when they take the clout/credit they've earned in one arena in misuse it in another that I start growling, and that's the only reason I interjected my comments earlier.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
David Crosby Our understanding of the universe is restricted to the 3 physical dimensions that we happen to exist in, plus of course the dimension of time. Many theories strongly indicate that there are many more dimensions in the universe. Perhaps with an understanding of these other dimensions it will all make sense [M-theory combined with relativity etc....]. Perhaps not, who really knows. But I do not personally believe any such God like being exists, then again maybe I am wrong [personally doubt it tho ] I don't believe we, or the universe, exist for a reason, we just exist, and if the universe didnt exist, we wouldnt be here wondering why we exist. As the old saying goes, the universe is the way it is weather we like it or not. But I respect your views Allen, your a smart guy, thanks for the chat and all the best.
about an hour ago · Unlike · 1
David Crosby There could even be an infinite number of universes existing, some of which may have developed life, others which may not have. We should not assume that 'ours' is the only universe, we should not attach so much importance to ourselves, it is rather like the earlier belief that the universe revolved around the Earth. There is however still an 'in built' belief that we are somehow 'special', and I feel that this largely stems from a belief in God and that He put us here for a reason. Isn't it amazing the number of scientific theories where God creeps into the argument! It used to be that for everything that could not be explained it was accredited to God, or The Gods, from crop failure, disease, abnormal weather conditions, and a host of other events. As knowledge has progressed, and answers found, The need to blame, or thank God, has steadily declined as we look to science for the answers.We do not often have to call upon God in order to explain natural events these days, but in some areas that we are still seeking answers, some people still do. I am not saying that they are wrong, but I am saying that that perhaps they are being too hasty looking to God as a 'final solution' because history has shown that given time, we often do find the answers. Perhaps one day we will have all the answers.
.......
58 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
David Crosby Or maybe not.................Who knows.
..
55 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Allen E. Simpson Yes, to assume we are the only life forms in a Universe we CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE THE SIZE OF at the same time we do not even know how our own brains work (*pokes gray mass with an electrical probe* Look, it moves! *facepalm*) is possible the height of human ignorance and arrogance, and for such creatures to even be claiming much less fabricating the concept of "God" to summon in relation to manipulating others is completely absurd...yet that is the state of affairs in many human minds even to this day. Literal insanity that strangely all the less-intelligent animal life forms on this planet do not seem to suffer from and enjoy existence just fine so long as more powerful creatures are not harming or abusing them. At the point mankind can scientifically learn enough about itself and our existence to actually create life forms as we have been created (not just copy, actually create from scratch) then I would say we have become close to God in actually creating the interactive soul-based feedback loop that is existence...but until then, we're just silly little ants lost in our own corner of space. In the same way an ant can't explain to you what Earth is or how big the planet they exist on is, we cannot explain the Universe or even what we are, and because of that I just wish some of these damn superapes would get a lot less confident in daring to say they have the answers or that their delusional versions of God exist, because it actually completely distorts reality, and clearly not always in a good or positive way.
41 minutes ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson ^possibly
Yesterday at 9:24am · Like · 1
Nigel Beckwith I feel that if you have not worked it out a bit further than you have (as above) already i might be wasting my time as you appear well programmed. Sorry David. Maybe best to start with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance. Good way to open up a little. Please dont try to tell me I simply dont see your way having not looked. I have for many years and sorry it is just a naive view.
Yesterday at 9:24am · Like
Nigel Beckwith I agree Allen.
Yesterday at 9:24am · Like
David Crosby A central theme of science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses.
I do not personally see that as dogmatic. If we did not have this type of method, people could claim the existance of all sorts of things, and base it's validity without ever offering evidence. Kinda like what religion does.
No hypothesis or theory can be called scientific or accepted if it lacks empirical evidence in favor. Therefore, empirical evidence can be use both to accept or counter any scientific hypothesis or theory.
People tho are free to throw around all types of philosophy or disagree, I am simply only explaning what scientists consider to be their method.
....
Yesterday at 9:26am · Like · 1
Nigel Beckwith Is this another recorded message?
Yesterday at 9:28am · Like
David Crosby People are free to believe or disbelieve what they want and I respect that.
Regarding the big bang;
Space itself is expanding. And that is simply done by observation of the radial velocity of any distant object (galaxies, quasars, galaxy clusters...).
It is after the observation of expansion and the determination that it was "linear" (the determination was done by Edwin Hubble, the astronomer, back in the 1910s). All the observations done since, all confirm that expansion is real.
Once it was accepted that space was expanding, theories were developed to explain how the universe could evolve in the context of expanding space.
This includes the idea that if the universe is finite, then the universe expands with the expanding space (which raises the questions about "what are we expanding into?").
If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself does not expand (it "remains" infinite -- only space within it keeps expanding).
So, several ideas were published to explain how to explain the universe in the context of expanding space.
These ideas can be broken down in three groups:
1) the energy content of the universe stays the same. This means that the average temperature of the universe diminishes as expansion goes on.
2) the temperature of the universe remains constant, which means that new energy is constantly being added (probably by expansion itself)
3) ideas that did not make sense.
---
The idea that came to represent group 1 is the one we now call Big Bang. One effect of this idea is that if we go backwards in time with a constant energy content (but an increasing energy density) then we must get to a point (now called the Planck Time) when the energy density was so high that we do not know how time itself could have flowed.
The idea that came to represent group 2 was called the Steady State theory. In it, the universe is eternal and expands continuously. New energy is slowly created in order to fill the new space being created by expansion.
In both cases, the energy turns into matter (which was already known to be possible thanks to Einstein's famous E = m c^2 ).
Around 1948, some scientists who were not connected with either theory finally determined a series of tests to see which idea was the best.
If Big Bang, then the universe would look very different in the past than it does not; there would be a time in the past when the universe had no molecules, only ionized atoms (too hot for molecules) and, at the transition between the ionized universe and the transparent universe, there would have been a sudden emission of light from everywhere at once, in all direction.
They even calculated what frequency this light should now have: it should be in the "microwave" part of the spectrum (therefore, only visible to radio-telescopes).
Under the Steady State theory, this kind of radiation was deemed impossible. It just can't exist.
For decades, scientists preferred Steady State (easier to use, easier calculations, and no strange questions about the "origin" of the universe, since an eternal universe has no origin).
However, in 1964, the Cosmological Microwave Background radiation was discovered. Also, with better telescopes and cameras, we began to discover that the early universe was very different than the present universe.
Remember that the further out (in distance) we look, the further back (in time) we see.
There was a time in the past when there were lots of quasars. before that, there were hardly any (no galaxies) and after that, there were fewer (less matter falling into the central black holes in galaxies).
Thus, modern observations show that the universe used to be a lot hotter than now and that it has had some kind of "beginning".
The Big Bang theory itself does not explain the beginning. It simply describes what happens to the already existing energy AFTER expansion is under way. It does not say where the energy came from.
Again each to their own.
......
Yesterday at 9:31am · Unlike · 2
David Crosby http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The%20Big%20Bang%20Theory.htm
...
Yesterday at 9:37am · Like
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch The reformation?
Yesterday at 9:40am · Like
Allen E. Simpson Watch this and tell me if you trust these guys. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-universe-everything-else/ It sounds like a bunch of space geek clowns making jokes in "Space English" to me.
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like · 1
David Crosby INot sure if you meant me or someone else, but yea iv seen this interview before, I dont personally consider them space geek clowns, I actually consider Hawkings and Sagan to be two of the greatest scientific minds to have evolved on this planet, but each to their own as I have said. Regarding God, well I am personally an atheist so I wont go into that. The grand unified theory is simply science trying to blend M-theory [string theory] and relativity, but I dont believe this can be done, untill quantum physics is mastered, and science is a long way of mastering quantum physics yet, I mean maybe it will never be done, who knows. I actually enjoyed this old interview, thanks for the link Allen, I forgot all about it.
.....
Yesterday at 9:56am · Like
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch Until you personally have invented the Communication Satellite or an invention of such magnitude, please refrain from referring to Arthur C Clarke as part of "a bunch of space geek clowns".
Personally I found their statements concise and as to the point as English allows when discussing such matters.
Your lack of understanding is what leads you wrongly to attack these men with name calling . Try to get over this, it's the same as me sneering at you based on my higher IQ,
e.g. "sounds like whacked out cali skater putting down the bong long enough to chat some kind of kowabunga crap"
This is wrong and can lead you to make mistakes which is why I personally avoid it.
And they weren't speaking "Space English" the language they were using is called ENGLISH, but I do understand that no fucker speaks it on your continent.
Yesterday at 9:58am · Like · 2
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch Be Told
Yesterday at 10:02am · Like · 1
David Crosby I kinda have to agree with Aaron on this one Allen.
....
Yesterday at 10:03am · Like · 2
David Crosby Ad hominem is never a correct way to reason.
...
Yesterday at 10:04am · Like
Allen E. Simpson Wow you watched that quick Aaron. In truth, it's been awhile since I saw it, but all I could think is "wow these are some kids with specialized knowledge in those certain areas making constant inside jokes that they seem to believe to be over the heads of the viewing audience." They made science sound more like religion, and that hurt my brain to watch. Oh those clever aliens. :/
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like
Allen E. Simpson In other news, you might be surprised what I've invented.
Yesterday at 10:12am · Like
David Crosby Inside jokes and specialized knowledge? No its simply just intelligence,philosophy, understanding and reason, oh and science. They are some of the greatest minds to have lived on this planet. I do not think they made science more like religion in this, maybe you just did not understand some of what they were saying, or maybe you have a bit of a bias going on. Not sure, but at the end of the day their your views. Like Aaron said
Until you personally have invented the Communication Satellite or an invention of such magnitude, please refrain from referring to Arthur C Clarke as part of "a bunch of space geek clowns".
And I concur with that.
......
Yesterday at 10:16am · Like · 1
Allen E. Simpson And I was only referring to them as "space geek clowns" in the context of that forum in which they seemed a bit too high and mighty in their positions considering the religion-like gaps in theory. What I invented (amongst other things) is a unique and original "code language" for the intelligence community to identify and bypass the side effects of the other "space English" (not to be read literally...
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like
Allen E. Simpson BTW...it's been installed and running in between the lines of your (well, at least in America) TV for the last 5 years...and is responsible for a LOT of stuff you may or may not see and be aware of...so until you know...easy on the put downs. kthxgr8
Yesterday at 10:23am · Like
David Crosby I still dont consider them space geek clowns, but all the best with your invention.
....
15 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Aaron Micheal Harrison-Lynch Sounds interesting, I don't personally own a Television but nice going.
It's no World Wide Communication Revolution though is it, Clarkes invention is parralelled only by DARPA and Tim Berners Lee's inventions in the field on Comms
10 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Allen E. Simpson Alright, sorry for calling them space geek clowns, but I also refer to world leaders as "the kids" and other silly uses of language in my highly sarcastic and satirical lexicon, so I think if you guys understood the comedic nature of my personality better you might not have been so harsh. All I was saying is, beyond the literal discussion of things like time, matter, and energy I remembered it sounded like they were speaking in that 1950's era "space English" code and being a bit too smirky about things for people whose theory concluded the entire Universe emerged from one tiny spec if not "bang." My personal belief is that "God" is everything both within our puny ant-like comprehension and beyond it, so when anyone even enters the debate with anything resembling some of the more conventional concepts of "God" much less dares to blur them with science, I immediately throw a flag on the play. Seeing as how, as beings, we can't even conceive the size of the Universe on a macro or micro scale, when people get all matter-of-fact and smug about sh5t that our species clearly doesn't even have a full grasp of to begin with, it irks me because I feel it, like religion, is just impeding true progress. In other fun news, y'all might be interested to know my embedded "
9 hours ago · Like · 1
Allen E. Simpson ^far
9 hours ago · Like
David Crosby Isnt invoking something like a God a bit complecated....? I mean who or what created the creator, and what is he/she/it made up of.....? is he/she/it transcendent, if so is that not a tad bit unfalsifiable, like many other things that could be claimed to exist......? The Multiverse could be claimed as a counter unfalsifiable argument could it not.....? and if spacetime all came into existance after the big bang, it seems kinda unlikley that a God would have any time to create in never mind the space to dwell in (unless its transcendent of course) If we live in a flat universe, then the total amout of energy adds up to 0, thus a universe will create itself from nothing, without the need of a deity. Just curious hope you dont mind the question Allen, would you be more on the deist side of things or new age, or something totally different.....? I doubt you are a Abrahamic theist anyway.
8 hours ago · Like · 1
David Crosby I dont think you are full of shit, you to seem knowledgeable about science. I just did not agree with the space geek clown comment, but as you say it was a joke taken out of context, its not really a big deal lol. Anyway its to hard for me to type on my phone, so have to respond tomorow or something, all the best mate.
8 hours ago · Like
Pawel Fryga Sagan is a bitch.
2 hours ago · Like
David Crosby Why Pawel because he does not believe in the supernatural world, because he rejects the claims of Abrahamic believers and their man made deity...? At the end of the day as Sagan would say;
extraordinary claim's require extraordinary evidence- Carl Sagan
When you can prove the existance of Yahweh or Allah along with where they came from etc etc....without invoking logical fallacies and metaphysics, I and many of the sientists agnostics and atheists in the world, are going to reject such primitive mind fallacies. We are all waiting to see the evidence or your saviour show up. Untill then, Yahweh and Allah are just as real as the invisible pink unicorn or mother goose.
.........
about an hour ago · Like · 1
David Crosby The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail my friend.
As Dr Ted Drange would say;
(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.
(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).
(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.
(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.
(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.
(f) It follows that God, as defined by Abrahamic theism, cannot exist.
A similar argument could possibly be constructed with regard to the other components of the universe as well: space, matter, and energy. It is very hard to comprehend how a being could have created the universe without existing within space and without any involvement with matter or energy. But maybe one could make the claim of a transcendent deity, so be it, but;
The Transcendent-Personal Argument
........................................................
(a) In order for God to have created the universe, he must have been transcendent, that is, he must have existed outside space and time.
(b) But to be personal implies (among other things) being within space and time.
(c) Therefore, it is logically impossible for God, as defined by Abrahamic theism, to exist.
It might be suggested that God has a part that is outside space and time and another part that is inside space and time and that it is the latter part, not the former part, which is personal in nature. But the idea of a being which is partly personal and partly transcendent is incomprehensible. Furthermore, definition by Abrahamic theism claims that God, as a personal being, existed prior to the universe, and it is incomprehensible how a personal being could do so.
Another argument could be made called 'The Argument from Evil' , but I think that's self explanatory.
.......
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson I consider "God" to be life and this realm itself, like I said, everything both within our comprehension and beyond - but certainly none of the insane metaphysical "imaginary guy in the sky who is going to send you to heaven or hell after you die" stuff. That's mass group-think insanity that the world and human condition is presently plagued with. My "supra-religion" dubbed Religion1 is actually based on truth and logic and is actually more of a tool for explaining how everything, including all other religions, work. Like a mechanism designed to explain how the magician's tricks work to the audience rather than lying to or deceiving them further - but at the same time recognizing and honoring the more noble principles from them all that can be extracted from the fairy tales and blatantly saying "look, this is a lie/story, but here is the purpose of the lie/story and the reason it existed in the first place, so can we recognize and focus on that instead." In fact, my plan was to take over/reuse many of the existing churches (as we need bases in communities which is the role churches serve) and create more of an IMAX theater experience of it that worships and explains science, technology, and the human condition by creating a collaborative plan to create a "never-ending story" that gets added to and furthered every week, and in tandem with an educational and carefully ritualized selective use of alchemy coordinates and guides people on safe courses of enhanced life experience that can be combined with goodwill initiatives to fix neighbors and lives and literally save the world...but like I said, it is extremely cool and complex and requires a lot more explaining than I can bare to do typing with my thumbs on my cellphone keypad as I'm doing at the moment.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
David Crosby LOL I see your point, I might not agree with all your views tho, but at least you do not invoke metaphysical or typical theistic supernaturalism. It's rare I see someone make a logical argument for a deity, usualy its always logical fallacies. So are atheists allowed into your God's heaven lol, only joking my friend, it's good to see you think outside of the religious and abrahamic box.
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson I don't take "God" takes an active role in our existence more than people are paranoid and give the concept of whatever God they believe in misdirected credit for the good, bad, or whatever, but one of the concepts I consider in creating a belief in "God" would be to take a Second Life approach, in that he/it/whatever created the self-evolving game of life and has the ability to see and experience it through the eyes and senses of any living creature, and that possibly on the flip side, like in a video game, our performance and behavior on this planet does count (it certainly does in relation to other living beings) and that maybe he/it/the scorekeeper/whatever sits there with you on the other side and reviews your entire experience and performance which is then factored into where your soul goes from there, to a different realm as a different incarnation or God only knows right? Of course, like being an ant-like human like all the rest I really don't know and therefore can't tell you what happens after death, but I can point out the other bad specimens that are lying to others and create and clearly label these hypothetical models that would allow our species to use the paranoia of the God consciousness to behave better toward one-another and the whole of existence.
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson ^think
about an hour ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson It's actually the opposite - I'm not making a logical argument for a deity, I'm making the argument that everything in existence itself is the deity (if life and that all this exists far beyond our comprehension isn't the only true miracle then what is?) and that accordingly we should behave more carefully just in case it turns out this is nothing more than an ultimate game of 3D Second Life. With the advent of recording and broadcasting technology, it actually gets closer and closer to creating that game model of things anyway, that's why I just designed all my theories from an ultimate all-knowing and fully sustainable technological point in the future and plan to just encourage all people to act accordingly while at the same time creating a literal way of gaming existence and giving them credit for their behavior, good, bad, or other. Furthermore, I would argue stupid ancient retarded men claiming to be God and invoking that concept along such insane and abusive lines is what has led to the destruction and enslavement of mankind...which is why in the future men or women claiming to be God in the face of technology recording it are really going to be digging their own graves. We live in the modern dark ages - I hate it, it tests my sanity daily, and I kind of consider the Big Bang theory and all the absurd centralized propaganda and lies part of that, which is why I railed so hard against the scientists in that video, not because of the actual legitimate scientific work they've done - that I'm extremely impressed by. It's when they take the clout/credit they've earned in one arena in misuse it in another that I start growling, and that's the only reason I interjected my comments earlier.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
David Crosby Our understanding of the universe is restricted to the 3 physical dimensions that we happen to exist in, plus of course the dimension of time. Many theories strongly indicate that there are many more dimensions in the universe. Perhaps with an understanding of these other dimensions it will all make sense [M-theory combined with relativity etc....]. Perhaps not, who really knows. But I do not personally believe any such God like being exists, then again maybe I am wrong [personally doubt it tho ] I don't believe we, or the universe, exist for a reason, we just exist, and if the universe didnt exist, we wouldnt be here wondering why we exist. As the old saying goes, the universe is the way it is weather we like it or not. But I respect your views Allen, your a smart guy, thanks for the chat and all the best.
about an hour ago · Unlike · 1
David Crosby There could even be an infinite number of universes existing, some of which may have developed life, others which may not have. We should not assume that 'ours' is the only universe, we should not attach so much importance to ourselves, it is rather like the earlier belief that the universe revolved around the Earth. There is however still an 'in built' belief that we are somehow 'special', and I feel that this largely stems from a belief in God and that He put us here for a reason. Isn't it amazing the number of scientific theories where God creeps into the argument! It used to be that for everything that could not be explained it was accredited to God, or The Gods, from crop failure, disease, abnormal weather conditions, and a host of other events. As knowledge has progressed, and answers found, The need to blame, or thank God, has steadily declined as we look to science for the answers.We do not often have to call upon God in order to explain natural events these days, but in some areas that we are still seeking answers, some people still do. I am not saying that they are wrong, but I am saying that that perhaps they are being too hasty looking to God as a 'final solution' because history has shown that given time, we often do find the answers. Perhaps one day we will have all the answers.
.......
58 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
David Crosby Or maybe not.................Who knows.
..
55 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Allen E. Simpson Yes, to assume we are the only life forms in a Universe we CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE THE SIZE OF at the same time we do not even know how our own brains work (*pokes gray mass with an electrical probe* Look, it moves! *facepalm*) is possible the height of human ignorance and arrogance, and for such creatures to even be claiming much less fabricating the concept of "God" to summon in relation to manipulating others is completely absurd...yet that is the state of affairs in many human minds even to this day. Literal insanity that strangely all the less-intelligent animal life forms on this planet do not seem to suffer from and enjoy existence just fine so long as more powerful creatures are not harming or abusing them. At the point mankind can scientifically learn enough about itself and our existence to actually create life forms as we have been created (not just copy, actually create from scratch) then I would say we have become close to God in actually creating the interactive soul-based feedback loop that is existence...but until then, we're just silly little ants lost in our own corner of space. In the same way an ant can't explain to you what Earth is or how big the planet they exist on is, we cannot explain the Universe or even what we are, and because of that I just wish some of these damn superapes would get a lot less confident in daring to say they have the answers or that their delusional versions of God exist, because it actually completely distorts reality, and clearly not always in a good or positive way.
41 minutes ago · Like
Allen E. Simpson ^possibly
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Better reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally late than never, right? Damn you Hollywood.
I took this with Camera ZOOM FX for Android. Check it out!!
http://bit.ly/qH3Ahd
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
When Violent Mike Attacks...
So there I was at OccupyLA, trying to save the world as usual or at least save the hippies from the police and themselves or vice versa. The second week into my mid-October 3-week-straight stay there the comically tragic circus was in full tilt. Most notably, at the General Assembly the evening prior to this incident, there had been a huge argument and breakdown of standard operating protocol when the facilitation committee had decided they suddenly wanted to use the "peoples' mic" to conduct the General Assembly, completely ignoring and forgoing the PA system and livestream camera the media team had setup. The reasons you will hear for this are random, flimsy, questionable, and scattered, but nonetheless, the facilitation committee had decided they were going to do things that way without asking or telling anyone beforehand, so when it came time for the GA, basically all hell broke loose with people questioning why they would want to use the peoples' mic and stand in the dark when there was a perfectly lit stage, PA system, and media broadcast setup there specifically to be used for the GA.
Nevada thinks it was a conspiracy to derail the movement since voting for "90% majority" verus "complete consensus" approval was on the agenda for that evening's GA, I don't know, so I digress.
This absurdity and confusion lead to an hour or so of well-documented chaos as elements within the crowd revolted against the facilitation committee responsible for sending the PA back into the dark ages out of "solidarity," but it even made a wikileaks press release, so I'm fairly sure that whole preceding incident is well-covered if anyone wants to check it out. I was on the media committee's side, questioning the logic and motives of the members of the facilitation committee responsible for deciding not to use the existing microphone system and set, but all I did was wander about the crowd with my camera recording the whole event in the dark, and ask those facilitation committee members responsible what they hell they were thinking and who gave them the authority to do what they did. No biggie.
Eventually the whole fiasco got resolved and they went back to using the microphone so everyone could hear that evening, but not without the entire scene descending into pandemonium for at least an hour first. Prior to that evening I hadn't even known there was a facilitation committee or that anyone was specifically responsible for the GA and its format, so as I was watching the seemingly insane storyline unfold it was all news to me that people "behind the scenes" were responsible for what I was witnessing, and the next day I planned to get to the bottom of what was going on and specifically who was responsible for making these sorts of decisions if not the entire campsite.
The next day I got up and went wandering about the campsite as usual, and as I randomly ran into the various people who were seemingly part of the facilitation committee from the previous evening, I went up to them one-by-one to talk about what was going on and smooth out everything to make sure there were no hard feelings, as obviously this was a procedural argument, nothing personal. Everything went well and all the people cool, mostly resulting in brief conversations of explanation and then just laughing about the insanity of the previous night's breakdown in structure. Well...except for Mike.
Mike, that one black dude seen hitting my phone out of my hand in the above video. Yeah, we need to have a talk about him. I had only spoken to him once before, on the second or third day I was there, with my typical "So what brings you to OccupyLA?" opening question. He was one of those types that doesn't like to share his story or reveal much (the complete opposite of me), but in that brief conversation he said that he had previously been a substitute teacher or something like that. Something that would obviously never lead me to expect such an insane behavioral reaction from him as my phone caught a fraction of before being violently knocked from my hand by him.
Some context to the above video. I had been out walking that morning gathering random footage of everything for Truman's (the puppet tiger) show, holding Truman in my right hand as always and holding my camera in my left hand making him appear to be speaking about everything that was going on in the camera's field of vision in the background. I had just returned from across the street after noticing there were like 100 police vehicle surrounding the block where the LAPD station also happened to be. I found that spectacle curious when I saw it, so I grabbed the puppet tiger and my camera and went across the street to check it out and comment on it up close and personal as Truman also talked about all his ideas for plans to save the "hippies" and "stormtroppers" from each other and history from all of it. When I came back into the OccupyLA camp I was standing on the hill there recording footage of Truman talking in front of City Hall for my show when up walks Mike (who I now refer to as Violent Mike, for obvious reasons)...
When I saw Mike walk up I said "Hey Mike, about last night, no hard feelings." as he was apparently one of the facilitation committee members running that "peoples' mic" version of the GA that had caused all the drama with the camp. He said "Naw man I don't even want to talk to you." which I found f5cked up but amusing b/c I hadn't even done anything nor even directly interacted with him the previous evening (remember everyone else involved was totally cool and we talked and laughed about the GA protocol debacle, he was just one of the "cast" moderating that evening), so since my cameraphone was already in my left hand and the puppet tiger was in my right hand, I just pushed record on the camera to record the conversation as the puppet tiger attempted to get to the bottom of why Mike has such serious issues about things that he really shouldn't...only to have Mike instantly get physical and violent out of nowhere as can be seen in the video.
That was messed up. The moment he swung on me my phone was knocked out of my hand, and in complete shock and disbelief I immediately threw my hands up and just looked up at both security cameras on the corners of City Hall only hoping they were getting all this, because obviously behaving physically violently like that towards anything/anyone much less me simply trying to have a peaceful conversation is so far out of line and out of bounds I can't even begin to comprehend it. After I picked up my phone (luckily still functioning...which is good...because it's my lifeline and I can't afford to replace it at the moment) and everyone had come in to protect and surround us, Mike continued to make threats of physical violence like "I'll shove that camera up your ass." causing me to turn the camera on and record the tail end of one of the times he said that, which is what you see at the end of the clip.
And that is what you see above. Now, here's the kicker --- that isn't even the big deal. The big deal is when Mike once again violently swung on me and sucker-punched me in the face a day or two later, when I wasn't even recording him nor speaking to him nor even aware or concerned he was in my vicinity as I was taking a picture of my other friend Alex wearing a Stroh's shirt (which I found cute enough to find Facebook picture worthy). Unfortunately for me (fortunately for Mike) that incident didn't get recorded by me, b/c like I said, I wasn't there trying to record Mike or it, so my phone was in regular camera mode, not videocamera, and I only got the picture of Alex wearing the Stroh's shirt which is what I was interested in in the first place. (If you're curious, you can see it here: http://hasanyoneseenmytail.blogspot.com/2011/11/alexs-clever-fashion-sense.html)
To elaborate on that incident, there I was walking about the camp minding my own business doing my own thing as usual, when in passing I saw another guy I had met in an amusing context named Alex wearing a t-shirt that said "Stroh's." I got the cleverness of the joke (Alex the dog from the Stroh's commercials? Google it or listen to Funky Cold Medina by Tone Loc I guess), and being someone who records and shares interesting highlights and lowlights of my life for my friends and my future grandkids to see on Facebook and what not, I figured that joke was cute enough that I'd take a picture and upload it to Facebook as other people would get the joke Alex was making and enjoy his humor as well. Little did I realize in walking up to ask Alex if it was cool if I took a picture of him that "Violent Mike" was standing next to him having a conversation with some other dude I didn't know, when I did, I figured it wasn't a big deal as Mike was of no concern to me, so I just went about asking Alex and then taking the picture as planned.
As soon as I did, Mike noticed me and started talking sh5t in a very belittling and provocative way, saying things like "Oh, yeah, you just go around taking pictures of people and stuff." to which I replied "Yeah, I go around taking pictures of people and stuff. That's why I'm here." Alex had told me it was cool to take his picture, and he told Mike that directly, but Mike was looking for a fight and went back into his threatening physical violence mode saying "I'll shove that camera up your ass." (he's not very original either I guess), to which I just said "Dude, whatever." as I wasn't even there to talk to him nor deal with him in the first place. Apparently in Mike's world this is license to swing on someone the same way he swung on my cameraphone in this video, except in this case it was my face that he randomly blindsided with his fist.
Upon realizing he had knocked the sunglasses off my face and my beyond precious Droid once again out of my hand, and not being the type to take that kind of sh5t (even this atypically lean 160 lb version of myself), I immediately went for his neck to try and suffocate him into a passive state without causing any serious harm. I fell to my knees on the paving stones in the scuffle (ouch) and ultimately had him in a headlock as he kept punching me with his free hand by the time a group of strangers swarmed to break it up, but the experience of the insanity of his behavior has left me with very mixed feelings about the incident and OccupyLA in relation to it.
I managed to emerge relatively unscathed except for my pair of sunglasses which he broke when he blindsided my face with his fist. Apparently he left a knick in the center of my forehead, possibly caused by one of his nails, possibly caused by my sunglasses getting smashed on their way to flying off my face. Friends in the crowd suggested I have the medic look at it, so I did. She put some alcohol on it and I passed on the bandaid. Although I didn't feel it at first because of the adrenaline, my kneecaps were bruised causing it to hurt like hell to walk once the swelling kicked in, but other than that, luckily he didn't do any permanent physical harm to me. My phone did get one hell of a rash on the corner where it apparently impacted the ground before the battery and cover flew off, but apparently that Droid is as tough as I am b/c in whatever miracle that happened, it survived both attacks by Mike and rebooted without issue the moment the battery was reattached.
No thanks to Mike.
There is where I may have a problem with this moving forward. Mike's behavior as a human being was so far out of line, twice, that I no longer feel comfortable at the OccupyLA camp with him there. He could have easily caused much more harm than he did, and psychologically, principle-wise, he has. He has not apologized, much less offered to pay for my sunglasses or the harm he tried to do to my Droid. The insane fact that he feels it's OK to physically assault someone because they are taking pictures in a free and open public space of protest full of signs people have made specifically to be seen and have pictures taken of them is what bothers me most. As far as what the OccupyLA movement stands for and having a zero tolerance policy towards violence, I sincerely think Mike's behavior needs to be taken under particularly close scrutiny regarding this incident in that light. I've been quiet and passive about it thus far and "just let it go", but I'm not sure that's the right thing to do, because if he'll behave that way towards me, who else will he behave that way towards? What if they aren't so tough and lucky? Physical violence is not acceptable. His style of blindsiding assault and multiple threats of physical violence is especially odious.
Truth be told, I'm not sure how to feel about this series of incidents, which is why I bothered to take the time to write-out what happened when I stumbled across the footage. I'm OK, except for my pair of cheap $10-15 sunglasses, but principle and circumstance-wise, I'm not so sure. Mike has made the entire OccupyLA experience and brand extremely awkward if not undeservingly uncomfortable for me, and in contemplating my return visits I'm undecided on how to address this issue, which is why I decided to openly share what happened and ask for advice on the matter. Please, your suggestions are welcomed, especially from anyone directly involved with Occupy since people who behave like that are a threat anyone with a camera they don't like and the brand of the movement as a whole. I saw a news lady completely freak out because some guy simply pushed the camera away (see 1:40), if someone behaved towards her as Mike behaved towards me, they'd probably be in jail right now).
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
:)
- A -
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Random street dog has learned to cross the street only when humans do.
Taken with Camera ZOOM FX for Android
I'd say it's weathered the 3 weeks well enough. #OccupyLA #ows
Taken with Camera ZOOM FX for Android
And in under 5 minutes...here come the beautiful box scarers.... #OccupyLA #ows
Taken with Camera ZOOM FX for Android
The trillion dollar question is which hippie will make the first mark and what this will look like by the time I come back. #OccupyLA #ows
Taken with Camera ZOOM FX for Android
Tah dah! #OccupyLA #ows Over night the city built a beautiful virgin plywood box around the historical fountain to protect it...
Taken with Camera ZOOM FX for Android
The turnaround...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it... #OccupyLA #ows
Taken with Camera ZOOM FX for Android
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
