PHOTO OF GOD

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:48:17 -0800 (PST), "nuny@bid.nes"
<Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 10:52 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> Note:  Heavy traffic may hit my website looking for this
>> picture so that it may become temporarily overloaded.  If so
>> try again after the rush is over.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                      
     PHOTO OF GOD
>>
>> Here is the picture, and it needs a little explaining:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Photo-of-God.JPG
>>            (image copyright Kevin Atkinson 2007)
>>
>>   The photo is a single still frame captured from a
>> computerized "curvature" video made by Kevin Atkinson a
>> celebrated Canadian programmer and video producer.  The
>> original video from which it is taken may be seen on his
>> Internet Blog at
>>http://methodart.blogspot.com/2007/09/been-too-busy-to-post-for-while-but.html
>>                  (all images
copyright Kevin Atkinson 2007)
>>
>>    The person in the photograph is in fact Kevin Atkinson
>> himself.  Of course by no means am I implying that Kevin
>> Atkinson is God, don't be ridiculous... the video could have
>> been taken of any person, including you or me!
>>    The reason this is a photo of God however is that it
>> captures two images of the person a split second apart so
>> that two faces are superimposed, but due to the TIME VARYING
>> CURVATURE ALGORITHM being used, the two faces are not
>> completely identical....in fact the main difference is in
>> the eyes.  Notice that the face seems to have two sets of
>> different eyes!
>>    The two sets of eyes are "curved" differently (as in a
>> curved mirror) even thought the rest of the face is nearly
>> identical, and this is why I say that it is a PHOTOGRAPH OF
>> GOD.  If you follow my instructions you will see why!
>>    By the way, real fans may want to blow the picture up
>> using their "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" which is on
>> every computer running Windows.
>>    Now, by taking a coffee stirrer or pencil, depending on
>> how much you've blown the picture up, simply block out the
>> lower set of eyes.  This leaves us with what I call the
>> "upper face".  Now block out the upper set of eyes, and this
>> leaves us what I call the "lower face".
>>    Upper and lower here refers to the difference in
>> development apparent in the two faces.  Notice that the upper
>> face looks much large and stronger than the lower face, much
>> more dominant and powerful.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  Long time no talk, George. Couple of points:
>
[George Hammond]
Hi Mark,  glad to see you're still saddled up.  I've been
studying your comments and am highly impressed with your
comprehension...extremely rare for Usenet or even academia
for that matter!
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  I would primarily characterize the lower and upper faces as being
>those of a youth and an adult respectively rather than using the terms
>(larger, stronger, dominant, powerful) that you did, based on my
>perception that in the lower face the eyes are smaller, closer
>together, and lower on the face making the skull appear
>proportionately larger and the nose reduced in vertical length as in a
>child, whereas in the "upper face" the eyes are larger, farther apart,
>and higher on the face making the skull and nose appear in relative
>adult proportion.
>
[Hammond]
Yes... we're looking at a "growth deficit", and yes
"youth" is the classic exemplar of a growth deficit.. a 9
year old is roughly "half grown" compared to an 18 yr old
adult therefore has a "growth deficit" of 50%.
As you know, "God" is caused by an adult or  "terminal"
growth deficit according to the SPOG.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  I find this interesting because we both performed an instinctive
>assessment of the two faces based on our (and every human's) inbuilt
>awareness of the SPOG; we parsed them by age (and in your case by
>puissance) based on the criteria we all have in the facial recognition
>wetware in our optic cortex; your choice of terminology was perhaps
>indicative of a greater priority in your mind for such things than
>mine, though I do indeed recognize what you describe.
>
[Hammond]
"Youth vs. adult" may certainly be characterized by a
"puissance" difference.  Also notable is that Intelligence
(mental age) increases linearly with growth also.... and
perhaps you were focusing more on the Intelligence
difference rather than the apparent "class" difference.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  The relative curvature of the lower face's eyes suggest to me a
>pseudo-racial effect, or possibly a genetic defect e.g. Downs'
>syndrome.
>
[Hammond]
Yes, Down's Syndrome for sure, certainly the lower face
reflects abnormally lowered intelligence.  Racial nuance I
think is irrelevant since both persons are de facto racially
(e.g. genetically) identical... basically the lower face
looks "lower class" compared to the upper face.  Of course
as you know Intelligence correlates directly with "social
class",in fact some call it the "definer" of social class.
Point is, "class" so called is obviously composed of both
Nature and Nurture (i.e. BOTH genetics and growth).  In this
case the difference in apparent class is de facto ENTIRELY
caused by a difference in growth since both persons are
genetically identical.  The difference between the two
people is COMPLETELY due to "God" in other words!
>
>> [Mark L. Fergerson]
> The former may be a mere wetwired misperception due to my
>European/Mediterranean heritage. The latter may be an actual
>genetically-wired "diagnosis" of diminished competence as you implied.
>Such perceptive capacity would be very useful in pretechnological
>humans (or for that matter any species, but particularly social
>mammals), so we could recognize at a glance relatively vulnerable
>individuals.
>
[Hammond]
Obviously I intentionally selected an example with the
MAXIMUM apparent difference in Class (e.g. maximum
Intelligence difference) and this required that I look for a
frame that made the lower face practically look like a
Retarded individual with subnormal IQ for the purposes of
dramatization.
>>
>>[George Hammond]
>>    Interestingly, and unknown to most people, many
>> professionals and otherwise worldly people can actual "see"
>> the double identity of most people.  Yes, due to repression
>> which we all have, most of us have a "double identity" and
>> very few of us are aware of it.  This rarely bothers the
>> average person, but in extreme cases "God" may break through
>> and move the person up towards the invisible man in all of
>> us... in which case the person may undergo a personality
>> change.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  The potential for this perceptive ability must exist in all of us
>but is rarely used for the fairly obvious reason that in most of us,
>there is not sufficient brain growth to make use of it _and_ live our
>day-to-day lives.
>
[Hammond]
No, in most of us there is not sufficient EXPERIENCE to
develop this perceptual power.
Anybody is capable of developing this perceptive
ability... the question simply being who would want to?  It
turns out that it has useful application particularly in
social leadership, Art, Psychology, Politics, business
management, Acting, Combat, Religion etc.... basically it is
a "social skill" as opposed to merely "technical skill" such
as bricklaying and therefore is only acquired on a "need to
know basis" by people who are in charge of directing other
people.  Supposedly the priesthood are traditionally the
masters of the art.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  In many people though the ability exists to a great degree; anyone
>capable of "reading" people deeply such as (some) psychologists,
>police, and politicians, not to mention many criminal classes e.g. con
>men.
>
[George Hammond]
Exactly correct!
>
>> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  This brings up a point I've been wanting to discuss for some time
>but just haven't gotten around to; that brain growth is not consistent
>across the board as it were, extreme examples being so-called idiot
>savants of various kinds (and less extreme being what are currently
>called "nerds"). I use that term in a rather broader fashion than most
>though, I include what most would consider the exact opposite of such,
>namely politicians and others who, while capable of gaining others'
>trust and manipulating them on brief acquaintance, are however not
>particularly adept at anything else and may actually measure as fairly
>stupid according to current standardized tests.
>
>
[Hammond]
Idiot savants are a case of an extreme personality
syndrome in reaction of severe repression... bordering on
Autism in come cases.  Generally speaking their overall
growth is quite average and their apparent "idiocy" is due
more to severe personality distortion and repression more
than anything else IMHO.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  For instance, I parsed the image in one specific set of terms, you
>in another. Both are valid but _partial_ descriptions of the subject.
>An individual with zero BGD would not have missed either and would
>have been able to add much that neither of us would comprehend.
>
>
[George Hammond]
A person with a "zero growth deficit" would of course be
God in the flesh!  No such person has ever existed according
to Secular Trend data nor is expected to be born within the
foreseeable future, the Christian legend of Christ
notwithstanding.
>
>[Mark L. Fergerson]
>  I bring this up because I was thinking about how to objectively
>assess a given individual's BGD. As you know, current I.Q. testing
>uses as its standard what amounts to the average BGD of all previously
>tested individuals of comparable calendar age. But that tells us
>nothing about what a given individual might have attained had they
>been achieved their brain growth potential (or BGP, a convenient
>term).
>
[George Hammond]
Yes that problem is central to the SPOG.  Fact is there
is no laboratory means available to determine what exactly
the size of the population growth deficit actually is,
although it is not hard to estimate it from long experience
with known data.  this is one of the fundamental problems in
the field known as Auxology.  After 20 years of looking at
the data I estimate the human growth deficit to be somewhere
in the neighborhood of 20%, on average.
Basically one can estimate it in principle by observing
the curvature of the Secular Trend curve in human growth
(height for instance).  this is known to be a Logistics
(sigmoidal) curve and Roughly speaking it appears that it
will plateau at something like 20% taller than we are at
present.
Also illuminating data comes from many diverse Auxology
databases.  For instance Orchids are an example of exact
genetic "clones", they are all identical twins.  Thousands
of generations of these plants have been grown in ideal
hothouse conditions in CA for decades so therefore we may
assume they have reached their "genotypic full size" by now.
It is quite obvious from inspection that this growth
increase is somewhere in the range of 20% over wild Orchids.
The argument here is that since the Industrial Revolution we
have become sort of "hothouse" flowers in the West and
indeed the average school child has increased 3.5 inches
since 1900 and since leveled off.
The same is true of Red Tailed Deer almost dying out in
Europe transplanted to the US where the growth increase
amounted to some 20 or 30% after a few generations.
Also immense data on "nutrition growth stunting" from
third World countries supports the idea that that the human
growth deficit currently is about 20%.  IOW, all of this
diverse data supports our interpretation of the Secular
Trend curve in human growth prediction that we are at
present about 20% short of full growth, historically.
Historically, when we finally reach 100% growth is known
in Theology as "Kingdom Come".  Predicting the date of
Kingdom Come is practically the central problem of Auxology.
Needless to say is apparently thousands of years in the
future.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  Obviously determining an individual's BGP will also require huge
>advances in the understanding of our DNA and what it can achieve given
>unrestricted supplies of the chemical building blocks it requires and
>freedom from interference by disease organisms, toxic chemicals etc.
>ISTM we should (eventually) be able to look at an individual's DNA and
>know what their BGP is, and then measure it directly rather than
>having to infer it from mass measurements and guesswork as is done
>with conventional I. Q. testing.
>
[Hammond]
The entire problem is tied up with the Standard of Living
It is the Standard of Living that determines when Kingdom
Come (zero growth deficit) is going to arrive.
The Logistics Curve (growth curve) is generated by the
well known Feedback equation:

open loop gain
Closed loop gain  =   -----------------------------
1  +  open loop gain
A
or    G  =  --------
1 + A

Now, to see how this works in the case of the SECULAR TREND,
we simply identify G as the average percentage of brain
growth in the population of the world (somewhere between 0
and 100 percent) and we identify A as the "Standard of
Living of the civilization.  A is assumed to be growing
exponentially with time, i.e. because of population increase
and the invention of tools, mass production, (synergy) etc.
OK, using:

A  =  a exp(bt)

we get:
a exp(bt)
G  =  ------------
1 + a exp(bt)

or:
1
G =  -----------------
1  + 1/a exp(-bt)

Which is the standard formula for the famous SIGMOIDAL
GROWTH CURVE.

This explains why the Secular Trend is observed to be a
Sigmoidal Curve.  Notice in particular that A, the Standard
of Living, has to go to infinity in order for G, human
growth, to reach 100% !!
And by the way, the Cybernetic Loop (the feedback
equation)  in Theology is known as the "Trinity of God"
(inputúther, output=Son, feedback=Holy Ghost) and was
discovered by Christianity 1500 years before modern Science!
>
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson
>  Why do I care about this? Because it would be very useful to know
>exactly what the maximum potential mentational performance of modern
>humanity is. I use the word "mentation" to include not just
>traditional "intelligence"-oriented mental tasks like math and
>sociocultural norm recognition, but other less commonly considered
>functions like the subject of your post.
>
>  It's obvious that what we consider our highest aims may well be
>completely irrelevant compared to what we could achieve with zero BGD,
>but it would be nice to know how far off we are so we could stop
>wasting time and effort on things we will consider pointless in a few
>dozen generations, when we've eliminated starvation and other barriers
>to full growth.
>
[Hammond]
Well as you can see it is necessary for the Standard of
Living to reach infinity in order to reduce the human growth
deficit to zero, or put the other way around, as the growth
deficit approaches zero, the world Standard of Living will
approach INFINITY!
Try to imagine a world with an "infinite" standard of
living..... the idea of being simply "rich" pales in
comparison!
>
>> [George Hammond]
>>    Of further interest is the common ailment of
>> "schizophrenia" so called.  In this case the person has
>> become disturbed and has discovered that there is another
>> reality and another identity... and before he recovers he
>> may see "both people at once" when interacting with other
>> people.... he may actually SEE people with two faces such as
>> in Atkinson's photo!
>
>> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  From personal experience I can tell you that certain hallucinogens
>also enhance the perceptual ability.
>
[Hammond]
Yes, and that is EXACTLY the lure and fascination of
hallucinogenic drugs.... or even narcotic drugs!  There has
always been a quest for a "drug" that would allow you to see
God or reach Heaven... and I wouldn't rule the idea out...
but it is a fact that no drug so far has been able to effect
a permanent lifting of "repression" and therefore made any
substantial progress toward reducing the human growth
deficit.  Even ordinary medical psychotropic drugs work in
this direction, but most physicians are agreed that
psychotropics only treat the symptoms of repression rather
than actually removing the repression.
>
>
>>[George Hammond]
>>  This of course calls for professional
>> counseling before it gets out of hand.  Hopefully this kind
>> of research will ultimately provide a new tool for easing
>> the change to a new personality without running the risk of
>> falling into the trap of schizophrenia or other less severe
>> mental illness.
>
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  Did I not tell you years ago that a fully developed SPOG will not
>just replace, but make a mockery of, conventional psychiatry and
>psychology?
>
[Hammond]
Indeed.  and that is one reason why the leading
Psychology Journals wouldn't publish my discovery of the
Structural Model and I had to publish it in a Philosophy
Journal where it has sat unread since 1994.
Academic in general are scared to death of me and twice
as jealous.  It is doubtful that I will ever  receive any
help from that quarter.
>
>>[George Hammond]
>>    At any rate, take it from me... our Canadian film
>> producer and computer guru HAS effected one of the world's
>> first "photographs of God" .
>
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
>  Yes he has, George.
>
>
[Hammond]
Wow... you are now the only person of record who has
publicly agreed with me!  I won't forget that any time soon.
>
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson]
> Now, how will you apply it?
>
>
[Hammond]
At the moment I am more concerned with collecting
illustrations for my upcoming book than anything else:

THE
SCIENTIFIC
PROOF OF GOD

(Hammond, ISBN 0-940915-34-0  to be released 2009)

However, as you point out in the following 2 paragraphs,
the ultimate application of the SPOG is t put the discovery
of God into a VIRTUAL REALITY format... i.e. to actually SEE
and experience what "Heaven" really is !
Kevin Atkinson's video of course is merely the accidental
discovery of the Rosetta Stone of this large new world of
possibilities.

>
> [Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
> Consider for
>instance sitting someone in front of a monitor running a descendant of
>Atkinson's software crossed with police suspect-face-drawing software,
>and measuring your subject's emotional state via the sort of
>instruments used in lie detectors to feed back to the software,
>eventually producing a face that the subject's "subconscious" will
>consider perfect; this will be unmistakable from the subject's
>physiological responses. What the subject considers perfect will tell
>an observer much about the subject's BGD and current mental state; it
>might even be possible to "cure" certain forms of schizophrenia by
>deliberately steering the software to draw a particular kind of face
>for the subject to perceive.
>
[George Hammond]
I'm frankly totally amazed that are able to discern all
of this.  I'm trying now to recall your vocational and
academic background and can't for the life of me remember.
However you are obviously old enough and experienced enough
to comprehend the "diamond in the rough" scenario which is
what Atkinson's accidental video discovery is.
Kevin has obviously made the first strike in what is a
very large gold field.  A strike that ultimately will
involve the Hollywood graphic arts industry, the entire
scientific community, the APA, the APsyA, and even the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, for heaven's sake!
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
>  Consider running such a test backwards; present a person with a
>"perfect" face based on their own DNA-determined BGD, then morph it in
>ways gauged to decrease its perfection in specific ways, monitoring
>the subject to see when he considers it "normal". This could also
>treat certain forms of mental illnesses, particularly the sort of OCD
>derived from the usual socially-induced "failure to measure up" to
>bogus ideals.
>
> [Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
>  Now consider that this sort of thing is already being done in a
>primitive fashion by marketers presenting us with "perfect" salesmen/
>women/presenters, by political parties presenting us with "ideal"
>candidates,.. would it not be better to take this powerful tool away
>from such venal uses?
>
[George Hammond]
Using presently available technology (albeit guided by
mental health professionals and Hollywood caliber graphic
artists) to generate "psychology films" that can effectively
"show" a person undergoing therapy for personality change
what his "new reality" will actually look like.  Obviously
this is a great advance over the  traditional methods of
simply trying to tell the patient about it... showing is far
more effective than telling, since as we know, seeing is
believing.
In such a film, the facial personas of the person's
current world can be depicted especially instances of
personality clash.... and then the film would cut to the
"new reality viewpoint" where the person's antagonist would
suddenly be miraculously transformed into another facial
identity, and the viewer would gasp with a sigh of relief
and comprehension, and his entire psychological problem, and
his entire life, would be suddenly transformed.  I believe
such a development is nearly at hand using current theory
and technology.  Of course it would revolutionize Psychology
and mental health as we know it.
On the "normal psychology" front, of course the demand
for documentary, educational and entertainment material will
be enormous.  Actual films of "Heaven" eventually will be
generated... films that will transform our everyday world
into a Gulliver's Travel's/Grandma Moses type of reality and
historically transform the public understanding of God,
Heaven and Religion.
Ultimately of course, technology will harness these
developments to the nascent field of "Virtual Reality"
whereby a person will actually be able to physically "visit
Heaven" or visit the diverse and sundry world's that many of
our citizens are actually living in.  It would be
fascinating and highly instructive to see the world through
the eyes of an Adolph Hitler, or Osama Bin Ladin... to say
nothing of it's value to public security.

> [Mark L. Fergerson, continued]
>  As usual George I come across as impatient. I know, why didn't _I_
>invent this embodiment of your SPOG so you didn't have to stumble
>across it?
>
>  Beats me.
>
>  Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
[George Hammond]
Mark, we are certainly indebted to you for stepping up to
the plate and posting something knowledgeable, commanding
and positive about Hammond's SPOG to the public world of
Usenet.
After this demonstration of your profound comprehension
of the SPOG any further remarks or suggestions you might
have would be very welcome.
Regards,
George Hammond  MS Physics,
Cape Cod MA, Dec. 2008

====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv   (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
====================================
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

Uncle Vic (18.12.2008 08:47)