by Chuck Moulton
"Hey, look! 'Gullible' is too in the dictionary!"
-Professor Bug
For those of you who aren't familiar with my persona, I'm notorious for spinning elaborate tales of whimsy -- no, that's not what I mean -- rather, they are outright lies -- complete fabrications of not reality, but some warped alternative universe with absolutely no relation to the world we all know and hate. In fact, these fanciful stories are produced randomly with no provocation whatsoever and are buffered by a facade as straight as a ruler and as unmoveable as a fat man at an all-you-can-eat buffet. The long monologues I pull out of my butt are so integrated with normal conversation that I have been known to maintain them for hours on end, crushing my friends' fragile grasps on the fine line between fact and fiction when I casually mention in parting that everything I have been telling them for the past day was utterly wrong. Strangely, some of them are quite annoyed by this tendency of mine to stretch the truth to a degree that would make a contortionist fashioned out of playdough go insane. Why, you ask, would I do such a thing? Because people are stupid.
One would assume that our readers are intelligent enough to distinguish a bad joke from a real life story. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to e-mail me immediately after smoking a lot of crack -- at least, that's the only possible explanation I can produce for their idiotic questions and comments. Case in point, some time ago I received an e-mail about the contents of a biography attached to one of my Swing Machine articles. Hereafter I relate the said conversation verbatim. Note the evolution of his gullibility as I slowly persuade him that I know how to fly.
The original biography (
http://www.swingmachine.org/issue4/juggling.htm):
Chuck Moulton is a rebellious theoretical physicist who repudiates gravity and many other fundamental laws of nature held sacred among scientific circles. He subscribes to a theory wherein each big bang is followed by a big crunch facilitated by huge black holes. Said black holes create new universes slightly more susceptible to the formation of black holes. Those black holes that make universes most susceptible to the formation of more black holes spawn the most new universes. Thus the laws of Physics are in a constant state of evolution geared towards the promotion of black holes. Chuck believes that the universe as we know it will ultimately become one big black hole and the only way to prevent that from happening is to repeal the fundamental laws of physics and draft new ones less conducive to black holes. To demonstrate the merit of his ideas, he can often be found floating in mid-air challenging other scientists to debates on the mechanics of this feat. Most refuse, but those that are stupid enough to make the attempt are invariably found at the end of the argument suspended as if by magic five feet off the ground looking depressed and annoyed. He regularly proposes his "amendments" (it's really a complete redraft) at meetings of the Royal Society of London, the National Federation of Scientists, and the National Academy of Science, but the reception thusfar has been negative, to say the least.
s
t
e
v
e
|
"Steve's" initial query:
im not sure about your theory aboutthe neverending "black hole cycle"
and if you are right there is realy no way to change these "laws" well
your story was pretty cool. were you trying to imply the notion that
PARADOXES are everywere?? thast what i got from it . it was funny to
do you realy float??? well PLEEEEASE email me back
well just an
aspiring young scientist
steve
|
c
h
u
c
k
|
My first response:
>
> im not sure about your theory aboutthe neverending "black hole cycle"
It's not my theory, it's a documented fact. As for where it's
documented, don't ask me, but I'm sure it is somewhere in some language
I don't know how to read, but looks strangely like pornographic
hyroglyphics drawn by a sarcastic linguist on crack. Also, Stephen
Hawking talks about it in his book. I don't trust Stephen Hawking
though. He looks like a limp body in a wheelchair and talks through a
voice synthesizer. Who's to say that it isn't just some really smart
computer (with good AI, capable of passing the Turing test) who has
rigged up some dead guy as a puppet, employing ventriloquism to exploit
him, deceiving a prejudiced public unwilling to recognize the merits of
a higher electronic intelligence? It does lend the computer some
credence, you've gotta admit.
> and if you are right there is realy no way to change these "laws"
Sigh, they've already indoctrinated you, I see. Throw off the shackles
of oppression and think freely. Besides, superstring theory supercedes
all of physics, so after I build my quantum computer and start
manipulating superstings, all will be well. I'm not quite sure how to
build a quantum computer, but I have a lot of paperclips -- and that's a
good start.
> well
> your story was pretty cool. were you trying
> to imply the notion that
> PARADOXES are everywere??
I believe some things are apparently contradictory, but nonetheless
true; however, I don't belive in paradoxes.
I don't imply anything. If you read between the lines, you'll see that
I explicitly say it -- and by reading between the lines I'm not referring to
that interpolation crap; rather, it is actually there in a one point
font. View the source; you'll see.
> thast what i got from it . it was funny to
That's "too," genius (unless you're using a different language than I'm
accustomed to). I invented such a language and employed it in school
assignments. Whenever my teacher pointed out an error, I'd whip out my
Grammar book (in my alternative language, which acts exactly like
English without stringent grammar requirements) and prove that it was
perfectly legal. Of course, I failed, but that's just because English
professors are all ethnocentric conformists.
> do you realy float???
Yes. I'm quite good at that now, but it took a lot of practice and
studying to master. Don't try this at home, kids. It's a matter of
density; all I have to do is create a low pressure area over my head.
There are many ways to do this, but I perfer the Gretark method. If
you're really interested in the subject, read a few books on it and try
some of the examples. The technique is beyond the scope of this email.
In fact, I doubt whether I could explain it at all. My pawtry teaching
skills could hardly do it justice. Anyway, the books are hard to find
in America as it is. Most of them origninate in China or India. There
are a few translations floating around and you might even be able to
special order one from one of the big bookstores like Barnes and Noble
or Amazon.com, yet it would probably be far less of a hassle in the end
to learn Chinese like I did and go directly to the source. Not that I
learned Chinese specifically to read the books I mentioned... it was
just an added bonus. As far as the article is concerned, I was being
facetious when I mentioned that other scientists would start floating
just because they lost an arguement. That would be absurd! I do,
however, use the floating technique to fool people into thinking that
gravity is all in their heads. I know it's deceptive to trick them, but
sometimes I have to make the integrity sacrifice and do things like that
to get my point across. Don't tell anyone I told you that. It's better
if the public draws their own conclusions.
> well PLEEEEASE email me back
No, I refuse.
> well just an
> aspiring young scientist
Why be a scientist when you can be a mad scientist? Trust me, it's
much more fun.
>
steve
-Chuck
|
s
t
e
v
e
|
His followup question:
ok please be serious do you realy float ????????? i think you dont but
what di i know??
|
c
h
u
c
k
|
My explanation:
> ok please be serious do you realy
> float ?????????
> i think you dont but what di i know??
I jest you not, Steve. It's not one of those "mind over body" things,
nor is it some weird "levitation" concept that magicians and psychics
claim to be capable of; it is simply a physical excercise. Don't let
the "simply" in my last sentence fool you though; it is really quite
complex. In truth, it took me eight years (of very hard work) to
acquire even rudimentary floating abilities, and that was only about two
inches off the ground for less than five minutes. Now I have been
practicing for eleven years and can sustain (my best record) a height of
two and a half feet for thirty minutes. Usually, I get distracted and
fall far less of that top effort. The process is only possible through
an immense amount of concentration, very precise motions, and the
capacity to stand a little pain (it is very minor pain, but over a
period of say on average ten minutes it can really be quite
overwelming). Supposedly, another technique known as the Rhecurk
position works without the pain, but, as I said, I myself have settled
on the Gretark method and it is too late to switch now (I'd almost have
to start from scratch since the methodologies are entirely dissimilar).
Incidentally, the names I am using for the techniques are spelled
phonetically based on what I've heard (from other Americans who are more
experienced floaters -- and I do know other floaters); that's the reason I
know there are translations of the books; they had them). Obviously,
the Chinese names are completely different and I can't type them with my
keyboard. Anyway, I seem to be getting off the subject. Floating is
not as impossible as you might think. Planes operate on the same
principle (i.e. creating low pressure areas overhead). It is quite
simple for humans to float and fly like birds; the real dilemma is in
doing it with only what we are given naturally (arms, legs, etc.). One
way would be to mimic the wings of birds or the air pockets of fish, but
this is quite difficult as you might imagine. The Chinese on the other
hand have a different solution. It involves quick small motions of the
appendages coordinated in such a way as to minimize weight by applying
tourque about a central axis and regulating the moment of inertia so as
to apply a slight upwards force. While this is all well and good, it
doesn't by itself achieve very much at all. The real problem lies in
removing the air immediately above your head. You know how tornadoes and
hurricanes work, right? That's the general idea here. The air begins
to spin due in part to a whipping motion of the hair (long hair is a
must), but mostly due to the spinning I previously mentioned (the
tourque). It all sounds rather unlikely when you read about it, but a
demonstration is usually adequate proof for even the staunchest of
skeptics (e.g. a scientist who happens by). Then it is simply a matter
of giving an (incorrect) explanation suited to my goals (persuading
people that gravity doesn't exist). I hope that sheds some light on the
matter.
-Chuck
|
s
t
e
v
e
|
His answer:
hey chuck im sure you are getting annoyed with me BUT this is my last
mail to you this is about 2 thing
1) would you please tell me wetre i could look for anything on this
levitation????
2) could you please send me a picture of you in this levitated state if
that is possible i promise i would delete it immediatly but i just cant
help but be sceptical even though you have no reason to lie it just goes
against everything i have read and was brought up to believe
THANKS
steve
|
c
h
u
c
k
|
My reply:
> hey chuck im sure you are getting annoyed
> with me BUT this is my last mail to you
> this is about 2 thing
Yeah, a bit, but that's okay. It's nice to know people are reading my
articles.
> 1) would you please tell me wetre i could
> look for anything on this levitation????
Like I said, translated materials are hard to come by, but they're
around if you look hard enough. Admittedly, I don't know exactly where
to find them because I know Chinese and thus have no motivation to
look. I stress however that I have been told that there are translated
books available if you look hard enough, and I don't see any reason why
they would lie. I'm fairly certain that they don't know Chinese, so the
only way they could've learned in the first place is to find books
written in English. Again, all facts point to the existence of English
books somewhere. Now that I think about it, with the emergence of the
web there might be some Indian or Chinese sites dedicated to the topic.
I guess that doesn't do you any good, but I myself might gain some
further insight from such pages. I think I'll look around on the web a
bit...
> 2) could you please send me a picture
> of you in this levitated state if that
> is possible i promise i would delete it
> immediatly but i just cant help but be
> sceptical even though you have no reason
> to lie it just goes against everything i
> have read and was brought up to believe
Hmm, one of my friends did take a few pictures of me, but I'm at
college now (finally getting around to earning a degree), so it'd be
kinda hard to get the pictures until summer, though not impossible.
Then there's the problem of scanning them and sending them
electronically... maybe he has already scanned them, or can scan them
himself and send them to me... I'll ask him, but I'm not sure right now
how quickly I can get them, given the obstacles. I could have someone
else take new pictures, I guess. Well, anyway, I don't have any scanned
pictures right now. I'll try to get some for you, but -- to be perfectly
frank -- justifying myself to you is not very high on my priority list
right now. I would suggest looking for those books (or web pages, if
there are any). They have very helpful diagrams -- and even a few
illustrations -- in there. Anyway, I'm sure you would still be skeptical
even if I sent you a picture. You'd insist it could've been doctored up
or something. The best route for you is to find someone who can do a
live demonstration, though people with this ability are very hard to
come by. What state do you live in? If you're close, perhaps I could
show you sometime.
> THANKS
> steve
No problem.
-Chuck
|
s
t
e
v
e
|
Him:
well i understand you dont need to prove yourself and it definently
shouldent have it as a priority i just was wondering. well i live in
Kansas by kansas city if you could show me that would be cool but no
need thanks again for all of your help and advice stay in touch
Steve
|
c
h
u
c
k
|
Me:
> well i understand you dont need to prove
> yourself and it definently shouldent
> have it as a priority just was wondering.
> well i live in Kansas by kansas city if
> you could show me that would be cool but
> no need thanks again for all of your help
> and advice stay in touch
I live in New York (Rochester), so I guess it's out of the question for
now. If you're ever going to be in the area, email me and I'll try to
arrange a demonstration.
I emailed Nathan, a friend of mine, and asked him which books he read to
get started. He referred me to a few titles, but all of them seemed to
be either out of print or frivolous glints over historical examples --
often both. One that I was actually surprised to find on the list was
Levitation : What It Is, How It Works, How to Do It by Steve Richards,
which, interestingly enough, I owned at one point, but sold at a garage
sale some years back because most of the text was filled with "mind over
matter" nonsense. It dealt primarily with levitation which is quite
different from what I do in that levitation is purely a mental
excercise, while my "floating" (for lack of a better English
translation) is mostly physical. (Incidentally, I noticed later that in
your last email you referred to what I did as levitation and I failed to
correct you. As you can see from my statement two sentences ago,
levitation and "floating" are quite different. I'm sure you recognize
that; it was probably just a failure to understand the definition of the
words that caused you to substitute one for the other.) It did touch
briefly on the techniques I discussed previously, but just to enumerate
them, not to describe them. The reason I mention the book is that I
remember a rather thorough bibliography was included which might point
you to better sources. I emailed Nathan to ask him to type up the
bibliography and send it to me, but I'm not sure how accessible the book
is (he's quite a messy fellow).
I can send you the full list he mentioned in his email, if you want,
but you seem to be losing interest in the subject, if your tone is any
indicator. Please tell me if this is no longer important to you so I
and my friends don't waste any time that could be better spent
elsewhere.
> Steve
-Chuck
|
s
t
e
v
e
|
The final word:
no i am still very interested and would be very gratefull for any
assistance in finding these books REALY!!! i dont know what you meant
about ?tone?
well you have gone above and beyond what i had expected from a stranger
on the net
those bibliographies would be very apriciated thanks again chuck
steve
|
Well, there you have it: proof positive that I have way too much spare time. I welcome further input relating to my submissions, such as the quality literature you are now partaking in, but lay off those drugs, kids.
Signed, Chuck Moulton
|
