Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The Long Morrow
The Twilight Zone (Repeat)
304 KXLYDT2: Tuesday, February 28 12:30 AM [ 12:30 AM Tuesday 28 February 2017 Pacific Time USA ]
Anthology, Science fiction, Fantasy, Suspense
The Long Morrow
An astronaut returns from a 30-year mission to find that his girlfriend hasn't aged at all.
Cast: Robert Lansing, George Macready, William Swan, Mariette Hartley, Edward Binns Director(s): Robert Florey Producer(s): William Froug
Original Air Date: Jan 10, 1964
The Twilight Zone Season 5 Episode 15
The Long Morrow
Aired Unknown Jan 10, 1964 on CBS
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: 11/03/10 6:09 AM
In that line of thought last weekend about Kerry Burgess, which all happened, I feel certain before I watched the premiere of the "The Walking Dead" television series, I thought over in my mind of the things he and I talked about. He was supposed to make contact with some group, which in some line of thought would immediately show up here and knock on the door and ask for him, while other times he would make the contact first to that group. We talked about the differences he could see from what he knew from 16 years ago and by far the greatest change are the flat screen monitors and television and we discussed some other technology details, such as flash drives, but not much else had really changed that much.
One consistent line of thought that I thought over several times probably over the course of about a day, was that he was the one who would drive me out to Tiger, Washington, and he didn't know why but that was what he was going to do. He made a call, got some transportation and we drove out through the night in a white Toyota pickup truck that I guess was the Tundra model. He didn't know why we were going there but when we got there, we stopped at that Riverside Cemetery. I walked out into the cemetery and the dead people started rising from under the ground and they were restored to the appearance when they died. They were mingling around and I talked to the first one and that dead person could not see Kerry Burgess as he stood near the pickup truck near the highway but that dead person could see a person who had wandered nearby and was looking at us. The dead person went over to that other person and something happened in that the dead person took over the body of that unidentified person who had wander over to look at us. The person then became a bloodthirsty zombie who still could not see Kerry Burgess and I guess that zombie then went off to infect other humans. As I walked through the cemetery, other dead people began to rise from under the ground and they mingled around until I told them they were free and they all went off somewhere. Kerry Burgess drove me back to here although we stopped at another cemetery along the way and the process repeated it and when we got back here I walked out into that cemetery nearby and the same thing happened there too and I thought about a lot of details and I don't think that line of thought extended beyond that point. Oh, yeah, Kerry Burgess had access to a house and I stayed there in that house and I watched the news for developments.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 03 November 2010 6:09 AM excerpt ends]
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Posted by H.V.O.M at 1:25 PM TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 02, 2010 - http://hvom.blogspot.com/2010/11/second-you-dont-respect-this-it-kills.html
"The second you don't respect this, it kills you."
I have not had any similar aches and pains as this problem with my shoulder, which still lingers slightly, in a long time. The funny part about this is that in the days leading up to this observation, over the span of several hours during two days, as best I recall, I was experiencing an extensive line of thought about Kerry Burgess having returned. The real Kerry Burgess and not me pretending and lying about being Kerry Burgess and lying because I do not have any alternative except to maintain this identity and who can prove anyway that I am not Kerry Burgess?
The extensive line of thought was that Kerry Burgess suddenly appeared in my living room and he was almost in a state of shock because, for him, the Stargazer aircraft had just made contact with the ground after spiraling down to the Earth from forty thousand feet above and then being vaporized by the sudden impact. I walked over to him and explained that he was all right and he called me "Tom" but he wasn't sure because I look a lot different now and I explained that I am not Tom and that I am supposed to be him, Kerry Burgess, and I have the memory of Kerry Burgess, until 1990, but I have specific knowledge of Tom Reagan, and so I am neither. I am someone completely different. We discussed how I am one of the undercover identities that was created for Kerry Burgess and that he helped design.
The real Kerry then wanted to know where Tom was and I explained that I think Tom does not exist right now, similar to how you did not exist in this world until a few minutes ago and that this is the year 2010 and you have not existed in this world since the year 1994. I also explained that Tom Reagan emerged from the 27 June 1994 crash almost immediately after the crash but then Tom died again in 1998. Instead of the real Tom Reagan emerging again in 1998, this person I am now emerged and I went to work in this identity.
I was also thinking about where Tom Reagan went in 1998 and he did emerge but he is very far away and has been there by himself all this time and he is on his way back. Unlike the real Kerry Burgess that emerged after 16 years, Tom Reagan has aged naturally and he looks normal as he would have for someone who has aged 16 years. Kerry Burgess emerged at the same age as he was in 1994.
So the funny part is that, during all that thinking, sometime, I am pretty certain was on 30 October 2010, Kerry Burgess was standing in my living room and he wanted to know why I had the matches laid out on my keyboard.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 02 November 2010 6:09 AM excerpt ends]
From 7/16/1963 ( Phoebe Cates the United States Army veteran and the Harvard University graduate medical doctor and the world-famous actress and the wife of my biological brother Thomas Reagan ) To 11/2/2010 is 17276 days
17276 = 8638 + 8638
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 6/27/1989 ( Alfred Jules Ayer deceased ) is 8638 days
From 1/10/1964 ( premiere US TV series episode "The Twilight Zone"::"The Long Morrow" ) To 1/9/2009 ( premiere US TV series episode "Forbidden Science" ) is 16436 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 11/2/2010 is 16436 days
From 2/14/1997 ( as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-82 pilot astronaut I begin repairing the US Hubble Telescope while in space and orbit of the planet Earth - extravehicular activity #1 ends ) To 11/2/2010 is 5009 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/21/1979 ( my biological brother Thomas Reagan and my sister-in-law Phoebe Cates are lawfully married in the state of Vermont ) is 5009 days
From 10/28/1949 ( premiere US film "Deputy Marshal" ) To 10/28/1994 ( premiere US film "Stargate" ) is 16436 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 11/2/2010 is 16436 days
From 11/2/2010 To 3/16/2013 ( the untimely demise of Kerry Burgess 2005 ) is 865 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/16/1968 ( the My Lai Massacre ) is 865 days
[ See also: http://hvom.blogspot.com/2016/09/arlington-road.html ]
STS-82 Day 4 Highlights
Back to STS-82 Flight Day 03 Highlights:
On Friday, February 14, 1997, 6:00 a.m. CST, STS-82 MCC Status Report # 7 reports:
Astronauts Mark Lee and Steve Smith worked throughout the night in the cargo bay of the Shuttle Discovery, conducting a spacewalk lasting six hours and 42 minutes to upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope, which now contains new science instruments for an expanded view of the universe.
The first spacewalk of the second servicing mission of the Telescope began at 10:34 p.m. Central time Thursday night when Lee and Smith switched their spacesuits over to battery power. The spacewalk was slightly delayed to enable ground controllers to assess the unexpected movement of one of Hubble's solar arrays, which slewed from a horizontal to a vertical position as Discovery's airlock was depressurized. The motion was created by an apparent gust of air from the airlock, but caused no damage to the array which was repositioned horizontally.
Once outside, Lee and Smith went right to work, opening the aft shroud doors on Hubble to remove the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph and the Faint Object Spectrograph. The telephone-booth sized instruments slid out of their compartments and were replaced by two brand new instruments, the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer. STIS was installed in Hubble shortly before 1 a.m. Central time, followed almost two hours later by the NICMOS. Payload controllers send commands to check the health of the two instruments, which were declared alive and well and ready for calibration over the next several weeks. The aft shroud doors were finally closed as Lee and Smith stowed the old science gear in protective containers for the trip back to Earth. With their work successfully completed, Lee and Smith returned to Discovery's airlock at 5:17 this morning
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Posted by H.V.O.M at 10:40 PM Tuesday, November 02, 2010
From 8/24/1960 ( Steven Wayne Lindsey ) to 1/21/1976 ( date hijacked from me:my first landing on planet Mars and my documented and lawful exclusive claim to the territory of planet Mars ) is: 5628 days
5628 = 2814 + 2814
From 3/3/1959 ( date hijacked from me:my birth date US ) to 11/15/1966 ( date hijacked from me:Gemini 12 spacecraft splashdown and I was Gemini 12 spacecraft astronaut returning from orbit of planet Earth ) is: 2814 days
From 8/24/1960 ( Steven Wayne Lindsey ) To 7/21/1979 ( date hijacked from me:my wife Phoebe and I are married ) is 6905 days
From 7/16/1963 ( another threat sent to me against my wife ) To 6/11/1982 ( date hijacked from me:premiere US film "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" ) is 6905 days
From 8/24/1960 ( Steven Wayne Lindsey ) to 5/21/1969 ( date hijacked from me:I am Princeton University Medical Doctor degree graduate ) is: 3192 days
3192 = 1596 + 1596
From 3/3/1959 ( date hijacked from me:my birth date US ) to 7/16/1963 ( another threat sent to me against my wife ) is: 1596 days
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 02 November 2010 excerpt ends]
Date of Birth 16 July 1963, New York City, New York, USA
Birth Name Phoebe Belle Cates
Sir A.J. Ayer
Sir A.J. Ayer, in full Sir Alfred Jules Ayer (born October 29, 1910, London, England—died June 27, 1989, London), British philosopher and educator and a leading representative of logical positivism through his widely read work Language, Truth, and Logic (1936). Although Ayer’s views changed considerably after the 1930s, becoming more moderate and increasingly subtle, he remained loyal to empiricism, convinced that all knowledge of the world derives from sense experience and that nothing in experience justifies a belief in God or in any other extravagant metaphysical entity. His logical views alone, expressed in an elegant, crystalline prose, would have ensured him a place in the history of modern philosophy. But Ayer, playful and gregarious, was also a brilliant lecturer, a gifted teacher, and a successful broadcaster, as ready to offer his opinions on politics and sports as on logic and ethics. Named a fellow of the British Academy in 1952 and knighted in 1970, he became one of the most influential British philosophers of the 20th century.
Language, Truth, Logic, and God
The following excerpt was published in Language Truth and Logic (1946).
by A. J. Ayer
The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false. If, on the other hand, the putative proposition is of such a character that the assumption of its truth, or falsehood, is consistent with any assumption whatsoever concerning the nature of his future experience, then, as far as he is concerned, it is, if not a tautology, a mere pseudo-proposition.
The sentence expressing it may be emotionally significant to him; but it is not literally significant. And with regard to questions the procedure is the same. We inquire in every case what observations would lead us to answer the question, one way or the other; and, if none can be discovered, we must conclude that the sentence under consideration does not, as far as we are concerned, express a genuine question, however strongly its grammatical appearance may suggest that it does. As the adoption of this procedure is an essential factor in the argument of this book, it needs to be examined in detail. In the first place, it is necessary to draw a distinction between practical verifiability, and verifiability in principle. Plainly we all understand, in many cases believe, propositions which we have not in fact taken steps to verify. Many of these are propositions which we could verify if we took enough trouble. But there remain a number of significant propositions, concerning matters of fact, which we could not verify even if we chose; simply because we lack the practical means of placing ourselves in the situation where the relevant observations could be made.
A simple and familiar example of such a proposition is the proposition that there are mountains on the farther side of the moon. No rocket has yet been invented which would enable me to go and look at the farther side of the moon, so that I am unable to decide the matter by actual observation. But I do know what observations would decide it for me, if, as is theoretically conceivable, I were once in a position to make them. And therefore I say that the proposition is verifiable in principle, if not in practice, and is accordingly significant. On the other hand, such a metaphysical pseudo-proposition as "the Absolute enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress," [F.H. Bradley, Appearance and Reality] is not even in principle verifiable. For one cannot conceive of an observation which would enable one to determine whether the Absolute did, or did not, enter into evolution and progress. Of course it is possible that the author of such a remark is using English words in a way in which they are not commonly used by English-speaking people, and that he does, in fact, intend to assert something which could be empirically verified. But until he makes us understand how the proposition that he wishes to express would be verified, he fails to communicate anything to us. And if he admits, as I think the author of the remark in question would have admitted, that his words were not intended to express either a tautology or a proposition which was capable, at least in principle, of being verified, then it follows that he has made an utterance which has no literal significance even for himself. […]
It should now be clear that the only information which we can legitimately derive from the study of our aesthetic and moral experiences is information about our own mental and physical make-up. We take note of these experiences as providing data for our psychological and sociological generalisations. And this is the only way in which they serve to increase our knowledge. It follows that any attempt to make our use of ethical and aesthetic concepts the basis of a metaphysical theory concerning the existence of a world of values, as distinct from the world of facts, involves a false analysis of these concepts. Our own analysis has shown that the phenomena of moral experience cannot fairly be used to support any rationalist or metaphysical doctrine whatsoever. In particular, they cannot, as Kant hoped, be used to establish the existence of a transcendent god.
This mention of God brings us to the question of the possibility of religious knowledge. We shall see that this possibility has already been ruled out by our treatment of metaphysics. But, as this is a point of considerable interest, we may be permitted to discuss it at some length. It is now generally admitted, at any rate by philosophers, that the existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic religion cannot be demonstratively proved. To see that this is so, we have only to ask ourselves what are the premises from which the existence of such a god could be deduced. If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstratively certain, then these premises must be certain; for, as the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in the premises, any uncertainty there may be about the truth of the premises is necessarily shared by it. But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable. It is only a priori propositions that are logically certain. But we cannot deduce the existence of a god from an a priori proposition. For we know that the reason why a priori propositions are certain is that they are tautologies. And from a set of tautologies nothing but a further tautology can be validly deduced. It follows that there is no possibility of demonstrating the existence of a god.
What is not so generally recognised is that there can be no way of proving that the existence of a god, such as the God of Chrisianity, is even probable. Yet this also is easily shown. For if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. And in that case it would be possible to deduce from it, and other empirical hypotheses, certain experiential propositions which were not deducible from those other hypotheses alone. But in fact this is not possible. It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails to more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; and no religious man would admit that this was all he intended to assert in asserting the existence of a god. He would say that in talking about God, he was talking about a transcendent being who might be known through certain empirical manifestations, but certainly could not be defined in terms of those manifestations. But in that case the term "god" is a metaphysical term. And if "god" is a metaphysical term, then it cannot be even probable that a god exists. For to say that "God exists" is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.
It is important not to confuse this view of religious assertions with the view that is adopted by atheists, or agnostics. For it is characteristic of an agnostic to hold that the existence of a god is a possibility in which there is no good reason either to believe or disbelieve; and it is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least probable that no god exists. And our view that all utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical, so far from being identical with, or even lending any support to, either of these familiar contentions, is actually incompatible with them. For if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion is that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted. As for the agnostic, although he refrains from saying either that there is or that there is not a god, he does not deny that the question whether a transcendent god exists is a genuine question. He does not deny that the two sentences "There is a transcendent god" and "There is no transcendent god" express propositions one of which is actually true and the other false. All he says is that we have no means of telling which of them is true, and therefore ought not to commit ourselves to either. But we have seen that the sentences in question do not express propositions at all. And this means that agnosticism also is ruled out.
Thus we offer the theist the same comfort as we gave to the moralist. His assertions cannot possibly be valid, but they cannot be invalid either. As he says nothing at all about the world, he cannot justly be accused of saying anything false, or anything for which he has insufficient grounds. It is only when the theist claims that in asserting the existence of a transcendent god he is expressing a genuine proposition that we are entitled to disagree with him.
It is to be remarked that in cases where deities are identified with natural objects, assertions concerning them may be allowed to be significant. If, for example, a man tells me that the occurrence of thunder is alone both necessary and sufficient to establish the truth of the proposition that Jehovah is angry, I may conclude that, in his usage of words, the sentence "Jehovah is angry" is equivalent to "It is thundering." But in sophisticated religions, though they may be to some extent based on men's awe of natural process which they cannot sufficiently understand, the "person" who is supposed to control the empirical world is not himself located in it; he is held to be superior to the empirical world, and so outside it; and he is endowed with super-empirical attributes. But the notion of a person whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all. We may have a word which is used, as if it named this "person," but, unless the sentences in which it occurs express propositions which are empirically verifiable, it cannot be said to symbolize anything. And this is the case with regard to the word "god," in the usage in which it is intended to refer to a transcendent object. The mere existence of the noun is enough to foster the illusion that there is a real, or at any rate a possible entity corresponding to it. It is only when we enquire what God's attributes are that we discover that "God," in this usage, is not a genuine name.
It is common to find belief in a transcendent god conjoined with belief in an after-life. But, in the form which it usually takes, the content of this belief is not a genuine hypothesis. To say that men do not ever die, or that the state of death is merely a state of prolonged insensibility, is indeed to express a significant proposition, though all the available evidence goes to show that it is false. But to say that there is something imperceptible inside a man, which is his soul or his real self, and that it goes on living after he is dead, is to make a metaphysical assertion which has no more factual content than the assertion that there is a transcends god.
It is worth mentioning that, according to the account which we have given of religious assertions, there is no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science. As far as the question of truth or falsehood is concerned, there is no opposition, between the natural scientist and the theist who believes in a transcendent god. For since the religious utterances of the theist are not genuine propositions at all, they cannot stand in any logical relation to the propositions of science. Such antagonism as there is between religion and science appears to consist in the fact that science takes away one of the motives which make men religious. For it is acknowledged that one of the ultimate sources of religious feeling lies in the inability of men to determine their own destiny; and science tends to destroy the feeling of awe with which men regard an alien world, by making them believe that they can understand and anticipate the course of natural phenomena, and even to some extent control it. The fact that it has recently become fashionable for physicists themselves to be sympathetic towards religion is a point in favour of this hypothesis. For this sympathy towards religion marks the physicists' own lack of confidence in the validity of their hypotheses, which is a reaction on their part from the anti-religious dogmatism of nineteenth-century scientists, and a natural outcome of the crisis through which physics has just passed.
It is not within the scope of this enquiry to enter more deeply into the causes of religious feeling, or to discuss the probability of the continuance of religious belief. We are concerned only to answer those questions which arise out of our discussion of the possibility of religious knowledge. The point which we wish to establish is that there cannot be any transcendent truths of religion. For the sentences which the theist uses to express such "truths" are not literally significant.
The Concept of a Person
Can There be a Private Language ?
A. J. Ayer
In a quite ordinary sense, it is obvious that there can be private languages. There can be, because there are. A language may be said to be private when it is devised to enable a limited number of persons to communicate with one another in a way that is not intelligible to anyone outside the group. By this criterion, thieves’ slang and family jargons are private languages. Such languages are not strictly private, in the sense that only one person uses and understands them, but there may very well be languages that are. Men have been known to keep diaries in codes-which no one else is meant to understand. A private code is not, indeed, a private language, but rather a private method of transcribing some given language. It is, however, possible that a very secretive diarist may not be satisfied with putting familiar words into an unfamiliar notation, but may prefer to invent new words : the two processes are in any case not sharply distinct. If he carries his invention far enough he can properly be said to be employing a private language. For all I know, this has actually been done.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: 01/09/09 1:37 PM
That maintenance worker for this building said something to me earlier in the elevator as I was going to do my laundry that Paris Hilton must always be seen smiling because she never has to do her own laundry.
A short while ago, as I was trying to fall asleep for a nap, which I just now gave up on trying to fall asleep, I remembered a dream I had just before waking up this morning about being in some kind of underground facility and I was restrained by two people and they were going to put me into a washing machine. At some point, after waking up, I guess, I pondered briefly over how that person in the dream, that I represented, was actually that maintainence worker. So anyway, I had been fighting earlier with those two guys and the point with the washing machine seemed to be a point where they had subdued me and was looking for some place to further restrain me so, I guess, I could not get away. There had been several other scenes before in that dream but I cannot articulate any of those earlier scenes in a fashion that is relevant to this part of the dream. One scene I do remember well enough to describe to a certain degree is that at some point, I also seemed to exist in the form of some kind of unmanned surveillance drone that was hovering around in that facility and I was looking at the scenery of that facility from the perspective of that drone. I saw myself hover up through a rough hole in the top of that facility that looked more similar to a hole in the ground than anything else and that suggests to me that facility was underground. I remember also from the dream that there was a nuclear bomb next to that hole and I remember something about how I was, in my physical body form, supposed to escape through that hole, that was the roof of that underground facility, and then the nuclear bomb was going to collapse that hole so that the people chasing me could not escape and would be trapped in that underground facility. So then in the dream, I was back in that area with the two guys I had been fighting and I commented that I would drown if they put me into that washing machine. I have pondered over that washing machine several times since I have been awake especially because I could visualize it well and it was actually a rectangular structure instead of a round structure as you would expect from a washing machine. It seems important to note that I am not recording the actual sequence of how these thoughts and notion developed in my mind today after I have been awake from the dream, and I think the final notions developed in my mind as I was trying to fall asleep again, but I arrived at the notion that I was actually dreaming of a torpedo tube that a nuclear-equipped Tomahawk missile was being loaded into. The reason I saw it as a rectangular structure, I assume, is because Tomahawk are transported in rectangular containers and Tomahawks are also fired from rectangular containers when those missiles are external-mounted, similar to Harpoon missiles. But the distinction with Harpoons are that, as far as I know, Harpoons have no nuclear capabilities and Harpoons are always in round canisters, which could confuse me into thinking I saw a Harpoon being loaded into a round torpedo tube, which is possible, but I was not supposed to assume that I saw a Harpoon being loaded into a torpedo tube because Harpoons are not nuclear-capable. The reason I made the commented about drowning is because the torpedo tube floods with the outside ocean water when the torpedo tube doors are opened which has to happen because the ordnance in the torpedo tube can be fired from the torpedo tube.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 09 January 2009 excerpt ends]
Forbidden Science (TV Series)
USA 9 January 2009
Forbidden Science (2009– )
TV-MA 30min Sci-Fi, Thriller Episode aired 9 January 2009
Season 1 Episode 1
Two beautiful women have to start their lives over; one after a devastating divorce, the other after having been murdered. Yes, murdered. She's brought back as a clone.
When his wife Stephanie is killed in a car accident, Michael White turns to the 4Ever Corporation to have her cloned. Bethany Montrose has just joined the company and is still dealing with the ethical issues involved with cloning but sets that aside when it becomes obvious to her that White is having an affair with his lawyer, Monica Donovan. It seems that White has a very specific reason for the regeneration of his late wife, especially her memories, which hold the password that will give him access to a major technological breakthrough.
Release Date: 9 January 2009 (USA)
Shut Up and Die Like an Aviator (2009)
USA 9 January 2009 (Los Angeles, California)
From 7/16/1963 ( Phoebe Cates the United States Army veteran and the Harvard University graduate medical doctor and the world-famous actress and the wife of my biological brother Thomas Reagan ) To 11/2/2010 ( Homeless Veteran of Microsoft - Kerry Burgess: "The second you don't respect this, it kills you." ) is 17276 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/19/2013 is 17276 days
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1996
David M. Lee, Douglas D. Osheroff, Robert C. Richardson
Robert C. Richardson
Born: 26 June 1937, Washington, DC, USA
Died: 19 February 2013, Ithaca, NY, USA
Affiliation at the time of the award: Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Prize motivation: "for their discovery of superfluidity in helium-3"
When certain substances are cooled to extremely low temperatures, they become superfluid, flowing without any friction. This applies to helium-4, the most common form of helium, but for a long time the superfluidity of helium-3 was in dispute. The different types of helium are described by different quantum mechanical rules and equations under which helium-4 has a whole-number spin while helium-3 has a half-number spin. In 1972 Robert Richardson, .David Lee, and Douglas Osheroff verified that helium-3 also becomes superfluid at extremely low temperatures
The Twilight Zone
I i had to speak to you first. I'll try to make this as brief as possible. Commander stansfield suffered a communications failure. It probably occurred within the first 12 hours after his departure. There was only sporadic contact made during the entire flight both there and back.
He reached the other solar system.
Yes, he reached it. He landed, he took off, he returned. He found no life. But we found that 20 years ago. That's one of the ironies of progress, miss horn. Could have saved the trip. Could have saved him his anguish
USA 28 October 1994
Deputy Marshal (1949)
USA 28 October 1949
Deputy Marshal (1949)
Janet Masters: Do you always come breaking into your room with a six-gun in your hand?
Deputy Ed Garry: Only when I'm expecting company.
Janet Masters: You knew I'd be here?
Deputy Ed Garry: Had an idea somebody'd be here when the clerk switched keys on me. I'm glad it turned out to be you.
[Janet whips out her pistol as Ed holsters his gun]
Janet Masters: Maybe you won't be.
The Twilight Zone
And i, uh a long time ago i woke up one morning and some inner voice told me that i would meet a girl with a stricken look who would drop papers in corridors.
Humans Season 2 Episode 3
Aired Monday 10:00 PM Feb 27, 2017 on AMC
Season 2, Episode 3
Good morning, Dr Morrow.
Leave us. Hello, baby. Hello.
I said leave us.
We have to talk.
The Twilight Zone - The Long Morrow - Season 5 Episode 15 - Aired Jan 10, 1964
Sandra Horn: Oh subtle astronaut. It's been an honor meeting you.
Astronaut Commander Douglas Stansfield: I, um I don't suppose the space agency could do without your services for a couple of hours this evening, just long enough for dinner.
Sandra Horn: Well despite the fact that I am invaluable and that the whole space program rests on me alone, I think a two- or three-hour period could be carved out. I'm in the book, Commander. Please phone.
Astronaut Commander Douglas Stansfield: No, I won't call - I'll pick you up. I'll be there at 8:00. Arrivederci, lady from the space agency.
Sandra Horn: At 8:00, astronaut.
- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 02:49 AM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Tuesday 28 February 2017
Posted by Kerry Burgess at 2:49 AM