I don’t generally delve into the subject of time travel because it’s kind of hard for my poor mammal brain to comprehend.
Well, I kind of understand Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (or is it Special Theory of Relativity?) because I’ve read science-fiction for 45 years and have actually taken physics courses in high school and college. I get (not grok) that as an object approaches light speed it increases in mass and if an observer was on the object, time would go slower for them than the outside Universe, in essence transporting the observer into the Future.
I get that.
What I don’t get is quantum theories that speculate time travel to the past and this tanj-blasted Grandfather Paradox.
Yeah, that one. The one where the perpetrator manages to travel to the past and kills an ancestor, either purposely or accidently, resulting in the conundrum of if his ancestor dies, how does this person come to the past in the first place?
And he gives an explanation why it isn’t possible to begin with.
Just two days ago here at Barf Stew – I blasted the idea of Time Travelers –http://barfstew.blogspot.com/2010/07/time-travel-is-impossible.html presenting many reasons why it was impossible. Not only that I didn’t even use the ONE REASON the simple thinkers always trot out – the one that says – IF you could go back in time you could end up killing off your ancestry (ie:killing your father, or grandfather – why is it never your mother?) and therefore making one’s own existence impossible to occur.
Well, it seems the mathematicians have finally, possibly, figured out a way for their `time equations’ to filter actions like that out of the equations. Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox –http://www.physorg.com/news198948917.html(my thanks to Bruce Duensing for sending me this link yesterday). And, if you go to the link – you can see the equations and hear the convoluted logic employed to justify the mathematical possibility.
But, I am here to say this – IT DOESN’T MATTER – that math provides such a scenario. And, the reason is tangled up in two of the reasons I presented two days ago: 1) we live on a planet 2) actualization provides realness as Phenomenology overrides `math potentials’. ———- Let me explain the best I can.
First, let me say that IF we didn’t live ON a planet – that I’d probably be willing to accept `math answers’ to the time-traveler saga – but we do live on a planet. OUR space (body) is directly tied to this other object – our planet. But, if it didn’t – if somehow we were a `freely occurring space’ (maybe like we will be AFTER we are DEAD) – with NO TIES to outside phenomena (the entire motion of our galaxy in our particular location) – then, and only then, perhaps `time’ wouldn’t matter.
But, Phenomenology provides a basis for actualization of space – a determinism to spaces– turning our local reality for a singular observer (like a human) into a `not-able-to-not-be’ AS the moment of NOW. Indeed, EVERY actualized space-moment is `not-able-to-not-be’. And that `not-able-to-not-be’ is what `provides realness’ to our experience; and to even the `sperm’ of our grandfathers.
We simply – CAN’T GO BACK – to realness. Realness IS ONLY an attribute of the NOW; of the `not-able-to-not-be’ for the observer-experiencer. The not-able-to-not-be’s of the past EXISTED but DO NOT EXIST (to return to). `Closed time-like curves’ – do not reverse the Earth’s motion in some sort of `running the film backwards’. Earth’s motion is in a `frame of reference’ to `other spaces’ and ONLY has NOW as it’s attribute.
The `Earth’, and placement of that Earth to our grandfather, is not only NOT HERE – it is NOT NOW. That here and that now – RAN OFF the structure of phenomenology as it provided `realness’ to existence. And, the fact that mathematicians can use equations to show that the past has/had areas that prohibit CHANGING THE REAL is hardly surprising to a Phenomenologist as myself – as the actualized, determined, past WAS the real.
So, I will end today’s post the same way I ended the post two days ago – It is good that the past can’t be changed – because – IF it could – it wouldn’t have been real. And, since REAL is only an attribute of NOW – the fact that mathematicians have solved the Grandfather Paradox – Doesn’t Matter.
More Phenomenology here –http://whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com/
Hmm…one can not return to ‘the real?’
But isn’t ‘real’ a property of ‘perception?’
That’s the trouble with this stuff, nobody really truly knows anything!
But as the wise man once said, “It’s not the destination, it’s the journey!”
My blog pal Rick Phillips of The Heavy Stuff has an unique take on the UFO phenomenon and it nearly matches my own theories.
BYOEs or ‘Billion Year Old Entities”
Recently, I’ve been having some fun commenting with Greg Bishop of Ufo Mystic and others – on my Ufo Disclosure Countdown Clock blog (I’ll put that link at the bottom) UDCC about `Billion’ – with a B – Billion year old entities. And, despite that post – I want to further expand upon the concept – and perhaps, tie it back into anomalous events humans experience.
Now, in my UDCC post and comments I stated that most probably any entity that we would encounter that was a Billion years old – would most likely be a `machine-hybrid’ that was most likely at one time `put into motion’ by a biological entity like a human or comparable creature on another planet hospitable to life. Which is really nothing more than classic science fiction that a species creates an `eternal representation’ of themselves that wanders the Universe with a set of purposes by the `beings’ who create such a machine to represent themselves in Long Time. Long time being that view of time that would try to outlast the very structure of time-space itself.
And, I will get to some specifics I’ve considered along these lines soon.
Meanwhile, I got to doing a little internet digging on this subject (finding that I was indeed number one on page one of google for `billion year old entities’) – looking for what type of life has been around on Earth for the longest time — 1 Billion Years — Green Algae
“Although the division between a colony with specialized cells and a multicellular organism is not always clear, around 1 billion years agothe first multicellular plants emerged, probably green algae.“
And, from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_life comes this
Various claims have been made about reviving bacterial spores to active metabolism after millions of years. There are claims of spores from amber being revived after 40 million years, and spores from salt deposits in New Mexico being revived after 240 million years. These claims have been made by credible researchers, but are not universally accepted. A Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) called Prometheus was measured by ring count at 4,862 years old when it was felled in 1964. This is the greatest verified age for any living organism at the time of its killing. The Hydrozoan species Turritopsis nutricula is capable of cycling from a mature adult stage to an immature polyp stage and back again. This means that there may be no natural limit to its life span. However, no single specimen has been observed for any extended period, and it is impossible to estimate the age of a specimen. The Antarctic sponge Cinachyra antarctica has an extremely slow growth rate in the low temperatures of the Antarctic Ocean. One specimen has been estimated to be 1,550 years old.
- As with all long-lived plant and fungal species, no individual part of a clonal colony is alive(in the sense of active metabolism) for more than a very small fraction of the life of the entire clone. Some clonal colonies may be fully connected via their root systems, while most are not actually interconnected, but are genetically identical clones which populated an area through vegetative reproduction. Ages for clonal colonies, often based on current growth rates, are estimates.
- A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea could be up to 100,000 years old. “
Whew, ………………… so let it be said, that when talking about Billion Year Old Entities – what I am going to be talking about is a `Space’ – an – `Object’ – that has literally been `in existence’ for one Billion years. Unlike anything on Earth has ever existed. So, perhaps almost obviously – our definition of `living’ – being ascribed to such an object is tentative – but – EXISTING – absolutely. Existing with a purpose – absolutely. With intentionalities. With actualization.
Such beings would be above us as we are above slime-mold. And they would have no trouble popping in and out of the Universe at will.
My variance on this theory is that these entities might very well be our own descendents, if we accept the idea that time is holistic, not linear. And that the idea of a Technological Singularity is possible, thus the result of it could bring about the uber-evolution of entities that can exist in the past, present and future simultaneously.
It could explain the lack of SETI results too.
Here’s more commentary about the “trickster” element of the UFO phenomenon and the possible nature of the “entities” involved.
I listened to just a few minutes of last night’s program, and found last night’s guest Christopher O’Brien extremely interesting. (Who mentioned Tonnies by the way, in terms of researchers, thinkers and writers considering the alien-ETH vs. Trickster/Something else idea.) O’Brien has a new book: “Stalking the Trickster”, which of course I will have to read. (I wonder why O’Brien didn’t mention George Hansen and his work, The Trickster and the Paranormal? Maybe he did and I didn’t catch it.) O’Brien, who has been investigating UFO, cattle mutes and other UAD’s, high strangeness in general, etc. in Colorado, is the author of several articles on these events as well as three books about the strange happenings in Colorado’s San Luis Valley. O’Brien, who has had his own UFO experiences, has come to a place where he thinks much more is going on than a simplistic ET explanation. yet. Isn’t is possible it’s both? Maybe I want to cling to this idea because I find both possibilities equally intriguing: space beings from Mars, and ultra/inter dimensional, terrestrial other . . .
Round and round we go it seems, for no one can dismiss the Trickster behavior in so much of UFO and other weird areas (Fortean, paranormal, etc.) and yet… and
Or, it could be some of the aliens are capable of manifesting such behaviors so ancient and convoluted they appear to be beyond what’s now become a jaded explanation for some: the ET. I think some consider ET to be advanced technologically, but don’t go beyond that. Aliens, some of them anyway, could very well be exceedingly capable of performing all kinds of feats that appear almost magical to us, and so, we call them angels, or demons, or Tricksters, or inter-dimensional whatevers. And maybe some of the ETs are all of those things, and it’s all in the naming. Angels and demons are ET, or the aliens are angels and demons? Same thing, different names, different human created constructs made to control and indoctrinate. Meanwhile, the ETs/angels/demons are doing their thing, and they don’t care what we call them.
Ancient time warping groovy effects inter-dimensional, or aliens from space? Why couldn’t the space-man from Mars be perfectly capable of performing tricks for our entertainment? Why force the space being into a box; aliens are supposed to act this way, and if they don’t, they’re something else. Why do we think we can figure them out, predict their behaviors, assume their motivations, presume their cultures and their abilities?
It’s possible some ETs mimic other non-human behaviors: ghosts, or who knows what. Fairies, angels, gods. . . an alien very well might want to confuse us, or maybe, it’s just playing around. They could know how to manipulate things that stress our credibility: we can accept there are aliens on Mars (or wherever) and can travel in UFOs, but they can’t visit us on the astral plane. When that happens, we shift from alien to something else; angel, god, ultra terrestrial, etc. Maybe it’s as simple as it seems: aliens can manipulate a lot more than we think.
Often when we talk about ET we present it as if there is just one kind of ET. “ET” we say, as if it’s a single entity. It seems pretty obvious there are many kinds of ET (Dr. Greer’s didactic list of specific numbers excluded) and some of these aliens are advanced not just technologically, but in so many other ways as well.
Again, these beings might or might not be material at all, thus prompting the question whether their very nature isn’t material at all, they only take the material from our environment when they manifest themselves.
Metaphysical essayist Bruce Duensing puts forward a theory that is interesting and what some would conclude is impossible.
Do the dead dream that they are alive?
Do they dream at all?
Chickens as Eggs In Embryo
I am about to suggest to you, based on my own experiences, which one can either take or leave as either a psychic set of impressions of an afterlife or an imaginative construction that is the creation of myself as an observer of my own model of reality, that there may be a truism veiled in this account, that death as well as life is a combination of the imaginative realm toward itself, as well as having a parallel of weaving a spiders web in tandem in which we become exposed, naked to our own assumptions as to what or whom we may be.
Perhaps this is as much of a cautionary tale to you as it is to it’s author, but then in some sense, I am only a correspondent whose narrative portends a fever dream or a eyewitness of self fulfilling prophecies or then again, perhaps both.
More specifically, death is not a singular state… but the many, from those allegedly dead to our world who are imagining they are alive, imagining one is in a environment that is free standing and existential, imagining delimited self expression .. as I now recall in hindsight within my childhood as recalled as “my Father’s house has many mansions.” Indeed. A chilling thought is that we unawares may be encasing ourselves in amber.
Let me explain this strange perspective by way of an experiential account lacking any proof, any tangible artifact other than the hand that selects the letters that are arranged to express this chain of events, both in the prosaic and in the metaphysical sense.
Further,this wayward and seemingly random account has a pattern as apparent to me as a leaf thst begs the question; Is reality, in it’s highest intermediary sense formed in the eye of the beholder?
Is there not one heaven but an infinite variety of them, all of which are constructed by what we have sewn together from the material, the defining of what oneself may be as a purpose entirely invented, created by the observer and of course, no two observations in the subjective nature of him or her are similar, unlike a leaf or a automobile, sentience apparently not only borrows form, but mimics it’s objectively rote nature with the freedom only limited by our own trans-personal models of Self, and many.. as I experienced… have none whatsoever.
In these proverbial soap bubbles, each a universe onto themselves, these membranes of our own making once blown from the bubble pipe of the young lady or man on a summer day that is but a shadow of another yet to come, a faux escape, that are only to be carried by the wind, suspended in the atmosphere of a realm we can scarcely imagine. Or, then again, do we do so every day, imagine what we are? And thus make a body of work that is our world as we have experienced it? And so begins my account from the early hours of this day, “stuck inside a mobile with the memphis Blues again..” Am I the inadvertent chronicler of this parallel world or have I been played? Perhaps both.
Years ago I read a short story by Robert Charles Wilson titled ‘Divided By Infinity’ in which the protagonist experiences a kind of twisted immortality by continuously commiting serial suicide.
To him, there’s no relief by death, only universes where he’s only becoming more ‘unlikely’ to exist.
Which, I think, is a kind of Purgatorive Nightmare.
Duensing’s Dreaming Dead is kind of like that I think.
My old friend James Essig has written an open letter to the Augustine Panel on America’s spaceflight future asking them to consider nuclear power for rockets:
Dear Folks at NASA;
You all live the dream of human space exploration and manned space flight. Many of you grew up in the era of the Star Trek and Star Wars movie series, as I have. If we are honest with our selves, we have to admit that we all love dream about the future possibility of mankind’s travel among the stars that might be realized for our decedents. Some of you, as I do, have a dream that we might travel to other star systems this very century, but due to the rationality and the here and now approach that must necessarily be at least part of the institutionalized research and development programs of a very large Federal Government organization such as NASA which is ultimately funded by the American tax-payers, I understand that you must at times feel the need to subjectively repress the desire to express your interest in a bold initiative that would enable human civilization to launch manned space expeditions to our nearest stellar neighbors by some time this century if not by mid-century. I offer some plausible rationalized and mildly mathematical arguments why we should not dismiss such ideas and why known physics may enable us to reach very high relativistic gamma factors in terms of manned space craft, whereupon perhaps novel kinematical and/or unknown space time topology altering effects might be manifest due to any unspecified break down in the principles of special and/or general relativity for macroscopically spatial and rest-mass wise objects traveling at such high velocities such as perhaps future manned spacecraft.
I haven’t the heart to tell him they wrapped up shop August 12th and that they’re giving Mr. Obamanator the final report September 14th or 15th.
And speaking of the Augustine Commission…
NASA Needs More Money to Meet Space Goals, Panel Finds, Washington Post“Don’t try to put astronauts on Mars yet — too hard, too costly. Go to the moon — maybe. Or build rockets that could zip around the inner solar system, visiting asteroids, maybe a Martian moon. Keep the International Space Station going until 2020 rather than crash it into the Pacific in 2016. Help underwrite commercial space flight the same way the United States gave the airline business a boost in the 1920s with air mail.”
“A blue-ribbon study group is urging the Obama administration to rely on private enterprise to reduce costs and accelerate broad access to low Earth orbit, comparing budding entrepreneurial space efforts to the 1920s, when air-mail contracts sparked a boom in U.S. commercial aviation.”
Augustine panel tells White House NASA needs a new plan — and more money, Orlando Sentinel
“A presidential panel told the White House today that NASA is on an “unsustainable trajectory” and to preserve a “meaningful” human spaceflight program, NASA needs an additional $3 billion annually and a mandate to work closely with other countries and private companies.”
“A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA’s return-to-the-moon plan just won’t fly. The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA’s current $18 billion annual budget. “Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable,” panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.”
“It’s pretty clear NASA needs more money,” said Dr. Ed Crawley, panel member. “We basically said human exploration beyond low Earth orbit is not obtainable within the fiscal year 2010 budget. We did not find a credible plan that would fit within the budget.”
Panel: No moon or beyond for NASA without new funds, Houston Chronicle
“NASA has not been given resources matched to the tasks it has been asked to undertake,” said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology. “That has to change.” That message was echoed by Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, the ranking Republican on the House panel that has jurisdiction over NASA. “The benefits of human spaceflight to our nation are innumerable, and as such our financial commitment to NASA and to the aerospace industry should not waiver and in fact should be increased to meet these worthy objectives,” Olson said.”
“I’m very curious about what the administration is going to do with a report like this,” said Marcia Smith, a former space expert for the Congressional Research Service and founder of spacepolicyonline.com. The “committee has made a stark case. … They’re saying it’s $3 billion if you want to do almost anything.”
Panel Calls Program of NASA Unfeasible, NY Times
“A blue-ribbon panel said Tuesday that a lack of financing has left NASA’s current space program on an “unsustainable trajectory” and that the Obama administration should consider using private companies to launch people into low-Earth orbit.”
The above is from NASA Watch.
I don’t hold hope of “UFO Disclosure” of any type, but this interview is as entertaining as any Gene and Dave have ever done. Enjoy.
In quantum mechanics, a vanguard of physics where science often merges into philosophy, much of our understanding is based on conjecture and probabilities, but a group of researchers in Japan has moved one of the fundamental paradoxes in quantum mechanics into the lab for experimentation and observed some of the ‘spooky action of quantum mechanics’ directly.
Hardy’s Paradox, the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth, poses a conundrum that quantum physicists have sought to overcome for decades. How do you observe quantum mechanics, atomic and sub-atomic systems that are so small-scale they cannot be described in classical terms, when the act of looking at them changes them permanently?
Interesting conundrum. Just how does one do this?
According to the New Journal of Physics, the scientists used “a form of “weak measurement” that observes entangled photons at the same time without interfering with their path.”
So, one cannot create their own reality by just observing it?
I don’t know about that, but this little post from Physorg.com just might confirm that hypothesis:
…while scientists have experimentally observed the failure of local realism in laboratories, no one has ever observed any non-local or non-realistic system on the macroscopic scale. Physicists have usually attributed this fact to decoherence: when quantum systems become macroscopic, they unavoidable interact with their environment, causing them to rapidly lose their quantum features. More recently, physicists Johannes Kofler and Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna in Austria have suggested an alternative view: that the classical world emerges from the quantum world because our measurements of classical systems are too fuzzy, or coarse-grained, to detect quantum features of nature.
If I understand correctly, because our rulers and yardsticks only measure to the 1/32nds, we cannot tell whether the wood quarks in the 2 x 4 we just cut exist in this Universe or the one next to us.
Makes sense to me….
But…but…what about this?
It’s almost a year since Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva announced that they had calculated that a human eye ought to be able to detect entangled photons. “Entanglement in principle could be seen,” they concluded.
That’s extraordinary because it would mean that the humans involved in such an experiment would become entangled themselves, if only for an instant.
Gisin is a world leader in quantum entanglement and his claims are by no means easy to dismiss.
Now he’s going a step further saying that the human eye could be used in a Bell type experiment to sense spooky-action-at-a-distance. “Quantum experiments with human
eyes as detectors appear possible, based on a realistic model of the eye as a photon detector,” they say.
One problem is that human eyes cannot se single photons–a handful are needed to trigger a nerve impulse to the brain.
That might have scuppered the possibility of a Bell-type experiment were it not for some interesting work from Francesco De Martini and buddies at the Universityof Rome, pointing out how the quantum properties of a single particle can be transferred to an ensemble of particles.
That allows a single entangled photon, which a human eye cannot see, to be amplified into a number of entangled photons that can be seen. The eye can then be treated like any other detector.
So which is it, does the simple act of intelligent observation affect reality or not?
Obviously the jury is still out!
Today I have decided to do reposts from other sites that seem to have a good handle on the type of reality the NWO wishes to impose upon Humanity and the choices ( as long we still have them ) to be made if we wish not to have such self-proclaimed masters rule us.
A Call to Awareness – A Time to Choose
But we have a choice. And this choice is real. Live happily ever after or destroy the planet. This is why I have been pursuing the issues of 9/11. These issues are central to it all. 9/11 was a demonstration of free energy technology. It can be used for good, but we need to make that choice and help others to as well.— Dr. Judy Wood
As a side note, Geezerpower talks about Dr. Wood’s research at his site: http://mosnas2.blogspot.com/
Over the last 25 years, I have come to realise that the world is not as I thought it was. For me, the pace of realisation rapidly increased with advent of the Internet and was catalysed by the ability to do accelerated research and correspondence with people around the world.
I write this piece as a call to all readers, researchers and activists – particularly in the “alternative knowledge” community – to realise connections – and research a wider set of evidence than they might have done up to now. I say this because I strongly feel there is a great need to raise awareness of the choices we now have available to us. I have given the title “alternative knowledge” to all the types of topics that are rarely taught in schools, college or universities but nevertheless there is strong evidence to demonstrate the validity of this knowledge.
If we are to change our future, the first stage must be to realise – as fully as possible – the predicament we are now in. Whilst it is true that existing power structures and institutions will not acknowledge the truths discussed here (in any meaningful way), it is also true that the “alternative knowledge” community itself does not seem able, on the whole, to “deal with” some of the evidence which these truths can be deduced from.
I now feel that there is sufficient evidence “on the table” to state, with confidence, that parts of the alternative knowledge community are being “managed”, in subtle ways, so that the rate at which information flows – and connections are made – is slowed down, or that same flow is abruptly arrested or even reversed, in certain quarters. Seemingly, confusion and fear is injected at regular intervals and “in fighting” among various “factions” is deliberately started. This can prevent curious people from discovering the truth, as they are distracted from (or do not have time for) peering “through the clouds of confusion” that have been wafted around. I have concluded elsewhere that one of the best ways to determine who is telling the truth is to focus on evidence – verifiable pictures, measurements, practical “real world” knowledge, volumes of publicly available witness testimony, data and video gathered even by oneself. Indeed, in science and in legal matters, this is (or should be) the way truth is established.
But what is the truth? What is my motivation for saying all this? In 2003, I became much more aware of black projects involving advanced technology, such as anti-gravity – discussed by people like Bob Lazar, David Adair, John Hutchison, Nick Cook and many others. Not long after, I became aware that the official story of 9/11 was completely bogus and, later, that no hijackers or planes were involved in the events which caused the destruction at the WTC, The Pentagon and Shanksville. It still took me over 2 years more to realise there was a connection between black technology and 9/11. This connection was made for me by the research of Dr. Judy Wood. She has shown a large (and still growing) body of evidence that the World Trade Centre complex in New York was destroyed using some type of directed energy weapon (DEW). To those who consider this conclusion “outlandish” or “unsubstantiated”, I reference Dr. Wood’s legal challenges to NIST – in the form of a “Request for Correction” (RFC) and a “Qui Tam” case against NIST contractors. In both of these, she includes the evidence that leads to the conclusion that an undisclosed type of energy weapon was indeed used to destroy the WTC complex.
Dr. Wood’s later research now strongly implicates a class of technology which operates on principles similar to those discovered by John Hutchison, whose experiments were investigated by a team from Los Alamos National Laboratories – headed by Col. John Alexander – in 1983.
Of similar significance, . Not only that, but the path the Hurricane took was very unusual – travelling in quite a straight line from Bermuda, North West, towards New York.
The importance of the evidence that Dr. Wood has uncovered, when put in context, cannot be overstated – it forms a nexus point – joining several areas of research and crystallizing an overall picture to a level of clarity never before realised. It exposes the operation of a global group – one that employs black technology to achieve its objectives.
Read the rest of the post here.
And now, as the Highwayman would say, is a word from the President.
The one last real President that is:
“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”
As HW said one time, “Don’t take my word for it, others smarter than I have warned of the elitists’ plans!”
John Kennedy was a “tinfoiler” too, eh?