2001 Exhibit News |
| |
Volume 4 |
| |
March 27, 2002 |
| |
Issue 59 |
March 27, 2002:
Greetings from Dennis Gonzales
-
Getting away from website work was a change of pace for me while we upgrade
and update all month. I recently was invited to the concert by local "2001"
fan, Terry Boblet for my birthday to see the San Francisco Symphony at
the Flint Center in Cupertino, California March 21. She reviews the performance
for us.
Hugh Wolff Conducts Also Sprach Zarathustra:
The experience of having heard Also Sprach Zarathustra was most memorable, and worth the wait. The San Francisco Symphony played the entire Opus 30, which was about 20 minutes in length. Any "2001" fan would have appreciated hearing the orchestra capturing the diversities of the piece. All the roars and even subtle tones were well carried out. I paid close attention to every movement. I had always wondered how the drone sound at the very beginning of the famous sunrise was created. After seeing the concert and researching it on the Internet, we discovered it is indeed played on an organ. I admire this captivating masterpiece even more now that I have heard it live. Especially the sound of the kettledrum, which makes me, tingle all over. A very energizing experience and a welcome treat for the auditory senses.
"The sun rises. The individual enters the world, or the world enters the individual."
Richard Georg Strauss
Our local classical station, Kdfc.Com, will rebroadcast the concert on their San Francisco Symphony Capture Live show aired every Tuesday evening:
04/2/2002
Conductor: Hugh Wolff
Michael Grebanier, cello
CURRIER-Microsymph
ELGAR-Cello Concerto
STRAUSS-Also sprach Zarathustra
For fans outside the bay area, you can listen to the concert on the Internet at http://www.kdfc.com. You may even hear me yell out "Encore!" To learn more about the Captured Live show, visit http://www.kdfc.com/onair/sfSymphony.cfm
Website Update:
The website's navigation for the Timeline and Gift Shop is now fixed! I want to thank OpenCube.Com for helping me out with the DHTML JS code to improve the site’s navigation. I plan to add more sub navigation through out the site so visitors can experience the on-line exhibition without being lost. The sitemap has been updated as well. http://www.2001exhibit.org/sitemap
The press section, "The World Tonight" for the Month of March is updated:
http://www.2001exhibit.org/press/2002news_mar.html
I want to thank Larry Evans, President of Orange County Space Society, for helping me with the Technology section in Timeline. He has given the timeline category his wonderful research used in his "2001: A Space Odyssey" exhibitions. I also updated and upgraded the category and placed everything in frames for better maneuvering. The timeline category is a work in progress and you will see new and interesting things in the next couple of weeks. Revisit the timetime, http://www.2001exhibit.org/science/timeline.html
Incidentally, according to the "2001" timeline, here are the latest activities happening right now:
2002:
January-September
Discovery 1 crew undergoes final training. Commander and Pilot train in Houston, TX. Survey Team train separately in Huntsville, AL.
January-September
Survey Team launched from Kennedy Space Center to Space Station 5. They enter secure hibernation laboratory facility in newly opened second wheel of station.
Speaking of Larry Evans, I found a fan site that showcases the re-release of "2001" at the Egyptian Theatre and the "2001" exhibition held in December and this year. Visit http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/Joe2001.html
Many, many "2001" fans are contributing to the website every week in some capacity. And I am always looking for help to interview "2001" people, collectors or articles to fill up our categories. Look at the latest projects that are coming up on The 2001: A Space Odyssey Collectibles Exhibit at http://www.2001exhibit.org/press/2001projects.html
My old article about the future fashion is back on-line at Modern Matters:
http://modernmatters.com/style.asp?id=42
or it can be seen in the Style index:
http://modernmatters.com/style.asp
The Learning Channel "2001" Special Update:
"We are in editing now on our documentary. By the way, I will put in a special thanks to you in the credits for all the great contact names you gave me."
- From Alan Butler, WardTV.
For the past few days, I've been very busy tryng to bring the website up to speed and if I owe you a letter, package or email, they are on their way! Please forgive my bad habits. If you have "2001/2010" news to report to the World Tonight, please send them to me! Until then…
See you next Wednesday (Frank).
THE WEBBY AWARDS REPORT: 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY COLLECTIBLES EXHIBIT.
The Webby Awards review phase, and a short list of those with the highest scores in each category have been passed on to the Nominating Judges for consideration. This doesn’t mean we made that list but if we didn’t, consider thousands of entries were received from 36 countries and 44 states! It’s a very hard number to be considered but you never know. Nominees will be announced on Tuesday, April 29, 2002.
As you know, the Webby Awards is about recognizing websites with good content in a category. Since we are non-profit, the fee is 95.00 to enter the event and we are asking 5.00 per mailing list member to send to us to cover costs if they want to. We’ve been given an extension to apply but the organizers have given the "2001" Exhibit.Org a place for the awards without fee for the time being. For details about the awards, visit http://www.webbyawards.com
My address is, Dennis Gonzales, 82 N. Ellsworth Ave. #B, San Mateo CA 94401. Donors will be noted on the special page or anonymously.
Two excellent radio/Internet shows tonight and tomorrow night on the Art Bell Show. If your curious about the latest status of Brian Walker’s trip into space, dial in tonight or visit http://www.artbell.com
To get an update on the latest in Cybernetics technology, listen to Professor Kevin Warwick tomorrow night or visit http://www.artbell.com
Posted by, Dennis Gonzales
More HAL / A.I. information found by Mike Jackson. An interview with Rodney Brooks and a great article By Michael Hiltzik," AI REBOOTS."
http://www.techreview.com/articles/qa0402.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LORD OF THE ROBOTS
Q&A with Rodney Brooks
April 2002
The director of MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab says the age of smart, mobile machines is already beginning. You just have to know where to find them— say, in oil wells.
"Computer! Turn on the lights!" Rodney Brooks, director of MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory—the largest A.I. lab in the world—strides into his ninth-floor office in Cambridge, MA. Despite his demand, the room stays dark. "Computer!" he repeats, sitting down at the conference table.
"I’m…already…listening," comes a HAL-like voice from the wall. Brooks redirects his request toward a small microphone on the table, this time enunciating more clearly: "Turn on the lights!"
A pleasant tweeting sound signals digital comprehension. The lights click on. Brooks grins, his longish, graying curls bouncing on either side of his face, and admits his entrance was a somewhat rough demonstration of "pervasive computing." That’s a vision of a post-PC future in which sensors and microprocessors are wired into cars, offices and homes—and carried in shirt pockets—to retrieve information, communicate and do various tasks through speech and gesture interfaces. "My staff laughs at me," says Brooks, noting he could have simply flicked the light switch, "but I have to live with my technology."
In the not-too-distant future, a lot more people may be living with technologies that Brooks’s lab is developing. To help make pervasive computing a reality, researchers in his lab and MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science are developing—in an effort Brooks codirects called Project Oxygen— the requisite embeddable and wearable devices, interfaces and communications protocols. Others are building better vision systems that do things like interpret lip movements to increase the accuracy of speech ecognition software.
Brooks’ A.I. Lab is also a tinkerer’s paradise filled with robotic machines ranging from mechanical legs to "humanoids" that use humanlike expressions and gestures as intuitive human-robot interfaces—something Brooks believes will be critical to people accepting robots in their lives. The first generation of relatively mundane versions of these machines is already marching out of the lab. The robotics company Brooks cofounded—Somerville, MA-based iRobot—is one of many companies planning this year to launch new robot products, like autonomous floor cleaners and industrial tools built to take on dirty, dangerous work like inspecting oil wells.
Of course, autonomous oil well inspectors aren’t as thrilling as the robotic ervants earlier visionaries predicted we’d own by now. But as Brooks points out, robotics and artificial intelligence have indeed worked their way into everyday life, though in less dramatic ways (see "A.I. Reboots," TR March 2002). In conversations with TR senior editor David Talbot, Brooks spoke (with occasional interruptions from his omnipresent computer) about what we can expect from robotics, A.I. and the faceless voice from the hidden speaker in his wall.
TR: The military has long been the dominant funder of robotics and A.I. research. How have the September 11 terror attacks influenced these fields?
BROOKS: There was an initial push to get robots out into the field quickly, and this started around 10 a.m. on September 11 when John Blitch [director of robotics technology for the National Institute for Urban Search and Rescue in Santa Barbara, CA] called iRobot, along with other companies, to get robots down to New York City and look for survivors in the rubble. That was just a start of a push to get things into service that were not quite ready— and weren’t necessarily meant for particular jobs. In general, there has been an urgency to getting things from a development stage into a deployed stage much more quickly than was assumed would be necessary before September 11. I think people saw there was a real role for robots to keep people out of harm’s way.
TR: What else besides…
COMPUTER: I’m… already… listening.
BROOKS: Go to sleep. Go to sleep. Go… to… sleep.
COMPUTER: Going… to… sleep.
BROOKS: As long as we don’t say the "C" word now, we’ll be okay.
TR: Did any other robots get called for active duty?
BROOKS: Things that were in late research-and-development stages have been pushed through, like iRobot’s "Packbot" robots. These are robots that a soldier can carry and deploy. They roll on tracks through mud and water and send back video and other sensory information from remote locations without a soldier going into the line of fire. They can go into rubble; they can go where there are booby traps. Packbots were sent for search duty at the World Trade Center site and are moving into large-scale military deployment more quickly than expected. There is more pressure on developing mine-finding robots.
TR: How are you balancing military and commercial robot research?
BROOKS: When I became A.I. Lab director four and a half years ago, the Department of Defense was providing 95 percent of our research funding. I thought that was just too much, from any perspective. Now it’s at about 65 percent, with more corporate funding.
TR: What’s the future of commercial robots?
BROOKS: There has been a great deal of movement toward commercial robots. Last November, Electrolux started selling home-cleaning robots in Sweden. They have a plan to sell them under the Eureka brand in the U.S. There are a bunch of companies that plan to bring out home-cleaning robots later this year, including Dyson in the U.K., Kärcher in Germany and Procter and Gamble in the U.S. Another growing area is remote-presence robots; these are being investigated more closely, for example, to perform remote inspections above ground at oil drilling sites. Many companies are starting to invest in that area. IRobot just completed three years of testing on oil well robots that actually go underground; we’re now starting to manufacture the first batch of these.
TR: How is that different from other industrial robots, like spot welders, that have been around for years?
BROOKS: These robots act entirely autonomously. It’s impossible to communicate via radio with an underground robot, and extreme depths make even a lightweight fiber-optic tether impractical. If they get in trouble they need to reconfigure themselves and get back to the surface. They have a level of autonomy and intelligence not even matched by the Mars rover Sojourner, which could get instructions from Earth. You don’t need a crew of workers with tons of cable or tons of piping for underground inspections and maintenance. You take this robot—which weighs a few hundred pounds—program it with instructions, and it crawls down the well. You have bunches of sensors on there to find out flow rates, pressures, water levels, all sorts of things that tell you the health of the well and what to do to increase oil production. They will eventually open and close sleeves that let fluids feed into the main well pipe and make adjustments. But the first versions we’re selling this year will just do data collection.
TR: The computer that turned on the lights is part of MIT’s Project Oxygen, which aims to enable a world of pervasive computing. As codirector, what are your objectives?
BROOKS: With Project Oxygen, we’re mostly concentrating on getting pervasive computing working in an office environment. But the different companies investing in Project Oxygen obviously have different takes on it. Philips is much more interested in technologies to make information services more available within the home. Delta Electronics is interested in the future of large-screen displays—things that can be done if you have wall-sized displays you can sell to homeowners. Nokia is interested in selling information services. They call a cell phone a "terminal." They want to deliver stuff to this terminal and find ways we can interact with this terminal. Already, Nokia has a service in Finland where you point the cell phone at a soda machine and it bills you for the soda. In Japan, 30 million people already browse the Web on their cell phones through NTT’s i-mode. All these technologies are providing services from computing in everyday environments. We are trying to identify the next things, to see how we can improve upon or go beyond what these companies are doing.
TR: To that end, Project Oxygen is developing a handheld device called an "H21" and an embedded-sensor suite called an "E21." But what, exactly, will we do with these tools— besides turn on the lights?
BROOKS: The idea is that we should have all our information services always available, no matter what we are doing, and as unobtrusive as possible. If I pick up your cell phone today and make a call, it charges you, not me. With our prototype H21s, when you pick one up and use it, it recognizes your face and customizes itself to you— it knows your schedule and where you want to be. You can talk to it, ask it for directions or make calls from it. It provides you access to the Web under voice or stylus command. And it can answer your questions rather than just giving you Web pages that you have to crawl through. The E21s provide the same sorts of services in a pervasive environment. The walls become screens, and the system handles multiple people by tracking them and responding to each person individually. We are experimenting with new sorts of user interfaces much like current whiteboards, except with software systems understanding what you are saying to other people, what you are sketching or writing, and connecting you with, for instance, a mechanical-design system as you work. Instead of you being drawn solitarily into the computer’s virtual desktop as you work, it supports you as you work with other people in a more natural way.
TR: How common will pervasive computing become in the next five years to 10 years?
BROOKS: First we have to overcome a major challenge— making these devices work anywhere. As you move around, your wireless environment changes drastically. There are campuswide networks, and cell phones in different places with different protocols. You want those protocols to change seamlessly. You want to have these handheld devices work independent of the service providers. Hari Balakrishnan [an assistant professor at MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science] and students have demonstrated the capability— which has had great interest from the corporate partners —in having a totally roaming Internet, which we don’t have right now. That’s something I expect will be out there commercially in five years.
TR: And in 10 years?
BROOKS: In 10 years, we’ll see better vision systems in handheld units and in the wall units. This will be coupled with much better speech interfaces. In 10 years the commercial systems will be using computer vision to look at your face as you’re talking to improve recognition of what you are saying. In a few years, the cameras, the microphone arrays will be in the ceiling in your office and will be tracking people and discriminating who is speaking when, so that the office can understand who wants to do what and provide them with the appropriate information. We’re already demonstrating that in our Intelligent Room here in the A.I. Lab. I’ll be talking to you— then I’ll point, and up on the wall comes a Web page that relates to what I’m saying. It’s like Star Trek, in that the computer will always be available.
TR: What is the state of A.I. research?
BROOKS: There’s this stupid myth out there that A.I. has failed, but A.I. is everywhere around you every second of the day. People just don’t notice it. You’ve got A.I. systems in cars, tuning the parameters of the fuel injection systems. When you land in an airplane, your gate gets chosen by an A.I. scheduling system. Every time you use a piece of Microsoft software, you’ve got an A.I. system trying to figure out what you’re doing, like writing a letter, and it does a pretty damned good job. Every time you see a movie with computer-generated characters, they’re all little A.I. characters behaving as a group. Every time you play a video game, you’re playing against an A.I. system.
TR: But a robotic lawn mower still can’t be relied upon to cut the grass as well as a person. What are the major problems that still need solving?
BROOKS: Perception is still difficult. Indoors, cleaning robots can estimate where they are and which part of the floor they’re cleaning, but they still can’t do it as well as a person can do. Outdoors, where the ground isn’t flat and landmarks aren’t reliable, they can’t do it. Vision systems have gotten very good at detecting motion, tracking things and even picking out faces from other objects. But there’s no artificial-vision system that can say, "Oh, that’s a cell phone, that’s a small clock and that’s a piece of sushi." We still don’t have general "object recognition." Not only don’t we have it solved— I don’t think anyone has a clue. I don’t think you can even get funding to work on that, because it is just so far off. It’s waiting for an Einstein— or three— to come along with a different way of thinking about the problem. But meantime, there are a lot of robots that can do without it.
The trick is finding places where robots can be useful, like oil wells, without being able to do visual object recognition.
TR: Your new book Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us argues that the distinctions between man and machine will be irrelevant some day. What does that mean?
BROOKS: Technologies are being developed that interface our nervous systems directly to silicon. For example, tens of thousands of people have cochlear implants where electrical signals stimulate neurons so they can hear again. Researchers at the A.I. Lab are experimenting with direct interfacing to nervous systems to build better prosthetic legs and bypass diseased parts of the brain. Over the next 30 years or so we are going to put more and more robotic technology into our bodies. We’ll start to merge with the silicon and steel of our robots. We’ll also start to build robots using biological materials. The material of us and the material of our robots will converge to be one and the same, and the sacred boundaries of our bodies will be breached. This is the crux of my argument.
TR: What are some of the wilder long-term ideas your lab is working on or
that you’ve been thinking about?
BROOKS: Really long term— really way out— we’d like to hijack biology to build machines. We’ve got a project here where Tom Knight [senior research scientist at the A.I. Lab] and his students have engineered E. coli bacteria to do very simple computations and produce different proteins as a result. I think the really interesting stuff is a lot further down the line, where we’d have digital control over what is going on inside cells, so that they, as a group, can do different things. To give a theoretical example: 30 years from now, instead of growing a tree, cutting it down and building a table, we’d just grow a table. We’d change our industrial infrastructure so we can grow things instead of building them. We’re a long way away from this. But it would be almost like a free lunch. You feed them sugar and get them to do something useful!
TR: Project Oxygen. Robots. Growing tables. What’s the common intellectual theme for you?
BROOKS: It all started when I was 10 years old and built my first computer, in the early 1960s. I would switch it on and the lights flashed and it did stuff. That’s the common thread— the excitement of building something new that is able to do something that normally requires a creature, an intelligence of some level.
TR: That excitement is still there?
BROOKS: Oh yeah.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.techreview.com/articles/hiltzik0302.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A.I. REBOOTS
By Michael Hiltzik
March 2002
Stacks of facts: Bit by bit, Doug Lenat and his team at Cycorp are teaching a computer how to make sense of the world.
"Artificial intelligence" used to mean robots that think like people; now it means software for rejecting junk e-mail. Low expectations could yield better applications, sooner.
It was the spring of 2000. The scene was a demonstration of an advanced artificial-intelligence project for the U.S. Department of Defense; the participants were a programmer, a screen displaying an elaborate windowed interface and an automated "intelligence"—a software application animating the display. The subject, as the programmer typed on his keyboard, was anthrax. Instantly the machine responded: "Do you mean Anthrax (the heavy-metal band), anthrax (the bacterium) or anthrax (the disease)?"
"The bacterium," was the typed answer, followed by the instruction, "Comment on its toxicity to people."
"I assume you mean people (homo sapiens)," the system responded, reasoning, as it informed its programmer, that asking about People magazine "would not make sense."
Through dozens of similar commonsense-ish exchanges, the system gradually absorbed all that had been published in the standard bioweapons literature about a bacterium then known chiefly as the cause of a livestock ailment. When the programmer’s input was ambiguous, the system requested clarification. Prompted to understand that the bacterium anthrax somehow fit into the higher ontology of biological threats, it issued queries aimed at filling out its knowledge within that broader framework, assembling long lists of biological agents, gauging their toxicity and strategies of use and counteruse. In the process, as its proud creators watched, the system came tantalizingly close to that crossover state in which it knew what it did not know and sought, without being prompted, to fill those gaps on its own.
The point of this exercise was not to teach or learn more about anthrax; the day when the dread bacterium would start showing up in the mail was still 18 months in the future. Instead, it was to demonstrate the capabilities of one of the most promising and ambitious A.I. projects ever conceived, a high-performance knowledge base known as Cyc (pronounced "psych"). Funded jointly by private corporations, individual investors and the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, Cyc represents the culmination of an 18-year effort to instill common sense into a computer program. Over that time its creator, the computer scientist Douglas B. Lenat, and his cadres of programmers have infused Cyc with 1.37 million assertions—including names, abstract concepts, descriptions and root words.
They’ve also given Cyc a common-sense inference engine that allows it, for example, to distinguish among roughly 30 definitions of the word "in" (being in politics is different from being in a bus).
Cyc and its rival knowledge bases are among several projects that have recently restored a sense of intellectual accomplishment to A.I.—a field that once inspired dreams of sentient computers like 2001: A Space Odyssey’s HAL 9000 and laid claim to the secret of human intelligence, only to be forced to back off from its ambitions after years of experimental frustrations. Indeed, there is a palpable sense among A.I.’s faithful— themselves survivors of a long, cold research winter— that their science is on the verge of new breakthroughs. "I believe that in the next two years things will be dramatically changing," says Lenat.
It may be too early to declare that a science with such a long history of fads and fashions is experiencing a new springtime, but a greater number of useful applications are being developed now than at any time in A.I.’s more than 50-year history. These include not only technologies to sort and retrieve the vast quantity of information embodied in libraries and databases, so that the unruly jungle of human knowledge can be tamed, but improvements in system interfaces that allow humans and computers to communicate faster and more directly with each other— through, for instance, natural language, gesture, or facial expression. And not only are artificial-intelligence-driven devices venturing into places that might be unsafe for humans— one fleet of experimental robots with advanced A.I.-powered sensors assisted the search for victims in the World Trade Center wreckage last September— they’re showing up in the most mundane of all environments, the office. Commercial software soon to reach the market boasts "smart" features that employ A.I.-based Bayesian probability models to prioritize e-mails, phone messages and appointments according to a user’s known habits and (presumed) desires.
These and other projects are the talk of artificial-intelligence labs around the United States. What one does not hear much about anymore, however, is the traditional goal of understanding and replicating human intelligence.
"Absolutely none of my work is based on a desire to understand how human cognition works," says Lenat. "I don’t understand, and I don’t care to understand. It doesn’t matter to me how people think; the important thing is what we know, not how do we know it."
One might call this trend the "new" A.I., or perhaps the "new new new" A.I., for in the last half-century the field has redefined itself too many times to count. The focus of artificial intelligence today is no longer on psychology but on goals shared by the rest of computer science: the development of systems to augment human abilities. "I always thought the field would be healthier if it could get rid of this thing about ‘consciousness,’" says Philip E. Agre, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It’s what gets its proponents to overpromise." It is the scaling back of its promises, oddly enough, that has finally enabled A.I. to start scoring significant successes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Posted by
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
http://guide.net/~mental/
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
Dear Friend and Supporter of the Disclosure Project,
Since 9/11, much has been said and written about US National Security and world peace, and the various threats to both.
Missing from this analysis is a frank discussion about illegal, so - called 'black' projects that escape constitutionally required oversight of the Congress and the President.
As the senior counsel for the Senate Appropriations Committee told me in 1994, the varsity team of illegal black projects - projects
that he could not penetrate with a subpoena or a top-secret clearance- deal with the UFO subject.
The reasons such operations are a threat to the national security are not obvious at first glance. Indeed, the entire subject is generally brushed aside as irrelevant, silly and fringe. Or so those controlling such projects would like our policy-makers to believe.
The reality is quite different: Tens of billions of dollars are siphoned off illegally into black projects and corporate special programs that impoverish conventional military and intelligence operations. Operational readiness, as it is called, has been eroded for years by the extravagant and wasteful spending in unsupervised and illegal black projects dealing with UFOs, Extraterrestrial – connected projects and advanced energy and propulsion research related thereto.
Back in 1994, this senior official with the Senate Appropriations Committee admitted that, conservatively, such black, illegal projects were in the $40 billion to $80 billion range annually! God only knows what they are today - maybe double that.
This means that conventional reconnaissance, interception, security screening, intelligence analysis, border security, etc, have been robbed for years by such large sums being illegally shunted into these illegal operations. As we discovered on 9/11, the cost has been unacceptably high.
But all of this is the least of the problem. The real threat of such projects arises from the unseen consequences of illegal secrecy:
The ruthless suppression of energy, propulsion and other technologies that could have replaced fossil fuels, oil, coal, public utilities and the like many decades ago. The result is the world we have: environmentally ravaged, increasing poverty that destabilizes societies and breeds resentment and an avoidable, tragic growing hatred of the West.
We can and must do better.
The Disclosure Project is dedicated to bringing forward the information, government insider testimony, government documents and related evidence that will focus world attention on this overlooked matter.
We have also formed a company to identify, test, prove and build so-called over-unity energy generation systems and disclose these to the public so that the people can choose to move away from global destruction and embrace a sustainable future. This company, Space Energy Access Systems, Inc., or SEAS (www.SEASPower.com) is already working to practically solve these problems. (If you or someone you know has such a technology and wants help in bringing it quickly to the public, please contact us at the above website address.)
We, the people, should not wait another moment for the government to solve these problems. Big Brother is too slow and hidebound on these issues for us to passively wait for action from those quarters. It is clear that we must act to bring clarity to the real threats facing the world and to promulgate the solutions.
Will you join us?
Steven M. Greer MD
Director, The Disclosure Project
Albemarle County Virginia
26 March 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING EVENT SCHEDULE: http://www.disclosureproject.org/Events.htm
March 29, 2002 Dr. Greer lecture at the Christ Light Festival in Colorado (Hosted by Sarayon)
April 24, 2002 Disclosure Project Event in Portland, Oregon
April 25, 2002 Disclosure Project Event in Eugene, Oregon
April 26, 2002 Disclosure Project Event in Ashland, Oregon
April 27, 2002 Dr. Greer lecture at the WESAK conference in Mt.Shasta
April 28, 2002 Dr. Greer lecture at the San Francisco New Age Expo
May 3-5, 2002 Dr. Greer lecture at the IIIHS conference in Montreal
Oct-Nov 2002 Disclosure Project Annual conference in San Mateo, CA
Posted by, Dennis Gonzales
Posted by:
Dennis Gonzales
2001: Exhibit