• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

George Russel Simpson

jojonete said:
He's done in 2007, with the following result:

<snip>
Click to expand...


And this is the problem with the protocol he's proposed or even some of the variations suggested here: he can come back with, "well, you did it wrong," or, "you took too many steps," or, "your results are gibberish," or simply, "I don't understand you."

It's a waste of time trying to develop a workable protocol, IMO, when you're dealing with someone like him.

BTW, I commend you on digging up those quotes from all those thousands of posts, jojonete.
 
jojonete said:
He's done in 2007, with the following result:

George answers some other posts and ignores this, so prewitt81 quotes the previous message from blobru and asks:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. You will find me included among those posts, too, providing proof all of his proposals were sheer nonsense. My diligent efforts earned me a position on the now infamous Simpson 15. (See my signature, rut, rut, rut.)
 
AdMan said:
BTW, I commend you on digging up those quotes from all those thousands of posts, jojonete.
Click to expand...
Thank you. To be honest, it wasn't a very big effort as I followed that thread back in 2007 and I remembered a few quotes quite well, so it was just a matter of searching for "two" and "words". The main effort was the copy-paste of user names, post numbers and text.

When I found that thread for the first time, it was in page 33, and I naïvely posted the standard "could you give examples of two words that can't be translated into each other?". I can't remember who answered, but I remember the answer I got almost literally: "You're late to this party". Then it went on explaining how some members (Loss Leader was named, I think Locknar too, can't remember if someone else) had tried formal proofs, different number bases, etc. and asked me to read the thread from the beginning.

I did read the 33 pages then and, at this moment, I'm wondering how people like jsfisher "ETcorngods survivor" are still asking for two words that can't be translated into each other. Not that I try to tell jsfisher or anyone else how to proceed, just that I'm surprised people still have the moral to deal with this subject.

Also, yes, I do see the irony that I'm following this thread and still write the preceding paragraph. Who said I had to make sense? ;)

By the way, I can't see page 33 in the 2007 thread, it gives a server error. That's why I have to speak by memory about my own contributions to that thread, I just can't see or quote it.
 
jojonete said:
I did read the 33 pages then and, at this moment, I'm wondering how people like jsfisher "ETcorngods survivor" are still asking for two words that can't be translated into each other. Not that I try to tell jsfisher or anyone else how to proceed, just that I'm surprised people still have the moral to deal with this subject.
Click to expand...

There are the occasional threads that shows up in Forum Management about "Ban all trolls!!!!" Usually it is not quite phrased that way; the opening poster usually takes the moral high ground; but typically, it reduces to a "ban all trolls".

Personally, some trolls are very, very amusing. George was an amusing sort. Bat crap crazy, but amusing none the less. Trolls such as George will never be converted to sanity, but they provide multiple benefits for the rest of us. (1) Amusement. I'll admit it, George was amusing. (2) An object upon which to hone our skills of debate and discourse. Ok, mostly (1).

(Some trolls, not George, have an additional benefit. They are a great source of education., in that the counter-arguments provide such useful insight into whatever the subject is that the thread becomes a delight. Sadly, again, not George.)
 
AdMan said:
It's a waste of time trying to develop a workable protocol, IMO, when you're dealing with someone like him.

BTW, I commend you on digging up those quotes from all those thousands of posts, jojonete.
Click to expand...

If one is trying to figure out what the Corn Gods decoding system is, then trying to find a protocol is useless. But if one wants to test what was proposed some time back in this thread, decoding names to find birth dates when the names and date are not known to GS prior to the test, then there is a workable protocol, namely Protocol 3XTM.

Absent such a test, you are all correct: the rules are like the ones invented by kids just learning about games. The children invent rules as needed, without worrying about whether they are consistent with rules already in existence.

Nowhere have I seen that GS is or would be willing to attempt such a test.

Jojonete, I add my thanks also.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
It sounds like the protocol George is looking for, revised for reasonableness, is something like this:

1) George specifies the Corn Gods rules precisely. These rules will be based on the number 66, the elements, etc.

2) George and the testers specify another set of rules similar in scope to George's but different in number. These rules may be based on the number 65 instead of 66, etc.

3) George is supplied with a name or other word. Using the precisely specified rules ("the 66-based rules"), he produces a set of resulting words.

4) The testers verify that George's derivation contains no errors -- that is, he precisely follows the 66-based rules as agreed-upon.

5) A designated individual ("the opponent") is given George's resulting words and attempts to produce the exact same words using the second set of rules ("the 65-based rules").

6) The testers verify any derivation produced by the opponent in the same way as #4.

George passes the Challenge if and only if the opponent fails to reproduce his words using the 65-based rules.

If the opponent succeeds in reproducing George's resulting words using the 65-based rules, then George fails the Challenge.

How does that look, and how do you think it would strike George?
Click to expand...



My concern is that it invites George to say that the person using the 65-based (or whatever) rules didn't do it right.


ETA: As jojonete's post demonstrates.
 
This discussion brings back a lot of memories. LossLeader, myself and many others (re the Simpson 15) went round and round re the "code"; decoding based on his rules only to be told we were doing it wrong (because we didn't get the results he wanted).

Ultimately, it was clearly demonstrated during the discussion exactly as AdMan indicates above.

The rules of the "code", and how they are applied, are 100% arbitrary. Added to this, at one point I am pretty sure George indicated the "code" could not be used for predictive means (which ties into the results that he wants aspect), though I am not motivated to track this reference down (be it here or on his site).

All else aside, if it is truly a code that we simply are not grasping...IMO it would be as any other code and NOT a paranormal, supernatural or an occult power/event and thus not qualify for the MDC.

There is nothing to test.
 
Last edited:
What is or are GS's challenges?

Locknar said:
[...]

All else aside, if it is truly a code that we simply are not grasping...IMO it would be as any other code and NOT a paranormal, supernatural or an occult power/event and thus not qualify for the MDC.

There is nothing to test.
Click to expand...

It would not qualify unless GS could demonstrate that the Corn Gods exist and provided him with his decoding method.

Hmm. In that case I suppose the challenge would relate to the Corn Gods, wouldn't it?
 
I'm pretty sure evidence that aliens had manipulated our history and language for centuries would qualify as "paranormal".
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm pretty sure evidence that aliens had manipulated our history and language for centuries would qualify as "paranormal".
Click to expand...

I'm still not clear on this: did the corn gods get the Vikings and the Normans to invade England purely to affect the language? Were aliens behind Grimm's Law? The Great Vowel Shift? Surely there are easier ways for them to get their message across. Perhaps it's just me, but the ET Corn Gods language/game makes crop circles seem sensible in comparison.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm pretty sure evidence that aliens had manipulated our history and language for centuries would qualify as "paranormal".
Click to expand...
How so? If we define paranormal as experiences that lie outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation; that UFO/aliens had done this could be scientifically explained.

However, I do not believe that is his claim; the claim is mankind's destiny has been predetermined vs being manipulated. After 27 years he has yet "decode" anything predictive with by far the bulk of the "decoded" work being gibberish, dealing with himself, female anatomy, insults and slurs.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to feel like the official quote-digger for this subject:
Locknar said:
at one point I am pretty sure George indicated the "code" could not be used for predictive means (which ties into the results that he wants aspect), though I am not motivated to track this reference down (be it here or on his site).
Click to expand...
George said:
Haven't been able to make the Code work for predictions. Maybe 22 years isn't enough to learn that.
Click to expand...


Lucian said:
I'm still not clear on this: did the corn gods get the Vikings and the Normans to invade England purely to affect the language? Were aliens behind Grimm's Law? The Great Vowel Shift? Surely there are easier ways for them to get their message across. Perhaps it's just me, but the ET Corn Gods language/game makes crop circles seem sensible in comparison.
Click to expand...
George said:
I didn't say that English was god's chosen language, it is the language which has been precoded to contain meanings not possible through the application of the "History of the English Language". The language didn't evolve, it was deliberately constructed as is suggested by the word "PREDICTION".
Click to expand...
Whatever that means.
 
jsfisher said:
Personally, some trolls are very, very amusing. George was an amusing sort. Bat crap crazy, but amusing none the less. Trolls such as George will never be converted to sanity, but they provide multiple benefits for the rest of us. (1) Amusement. I'll admit it, George was amusing. (2) An object upon which to hone our skills of debate and discourse. Ok, mostly (1).
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say it WAS amusing at the beginning. Then it got tiring. Then it got damn boringly tiring. Keeping with my quote-mining trend (all quotes from the same thread), I'll pick George's typical response to one typical question (of yours ;) ):
George said:
jsfisher said:
Did you miss the part about that the other code you proposed (with one based on 48)? It, too, can produce any result from anything?

Please comment on why you think your code is so special, since you can get any result you'd like from it.
Click to expand...
That 48 code didn't produce anything except your fantacy.
Click to expand...

It's easy to find several examples of similar question-answer quotes in each and every one of the 38 pages in that thread. I'd expect someone like you, who actively followed the thread, to be not "amused" any more. I'd expect you to be saying the things Locknar says (i.e. "LossLeader, myself and many others (re the Simpson 15) went round and round re the "code"; decoding based on his rules only to be told we were doing it wrong", "I am not motivated to track this reference down", "There is nothing to test", etc.).

On a different subject, I wouldn't call George a "troll". As far as I can tell (and I think you'll agree), he never had the intention of wasting other people's effort and resources, he was only (as you put it) "bat crap crazy". I don't consider that fits the definition of "troll" but I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on such definition.
 
Evidently, neither the ET Corn Gods nor George can do basic arithemic:

UfoEtBlog said:
M is 1000, 100, “C”.
Add 0+66+66 .. = “Mt”, book 40, 1 AD, an.
U is 21, 2+1 = 3.
add 0+66+66 … = “UL”, backwards is “Lu”.
add o+66+66 = “ng”
Therefore:
Summer = “Su Lung Cancer”
S is age. (a I+66)
21 is 2+1, 3.
Add 0+66, 66.
6 is vi, I = ix, x is 24, 2+4 = 6.
Therefore;
66 = 666.
66 +66+66.. = “or”, backwards is ro, book 45, backwards is 54, 54+66 = “at”.
Add 0+66+66 .. = “of”
Therefore:
Summer = “at age 66 of Cancer”.
Click to expand...


Donna Summer was 63.
 
Several posts have been moved to FC. Please keep in mind that the thread in this sub-forum is for discussion of the MDC, possible protocols, etc., and not for carrying out a dialogue with a banned member.
Posted By: LashL
 
The challenge will never happen, for obvious reasons, but in case it does (let's play make believe), just what the heck is the claim? That George can convert words into other words based on random numbers and rules he makes up? Anyone can do that.
 
I would wonder "with all the people in the world who have the same name (there's more than one "Michael Jackson"), how does he determine the death cause for any one of them. What's his protocol to ensure he gets the right one?

In fact, let's suppose that we could find two people with a reasonably common name who have known marriage records and causes of death. Perhaps the protocol could be to accurately distinguish one from the other (and it should be something dramatic, like "died of typhoid at age 6 and died of motorcycle accident at age 23 and died of pneumonia at age 86" -- people with different personalities from different parts of the world.

A name like "William Smith" for instance. Or a name like "Rutherford."

Or a concept like "immunoreactive atrial natriuretic" or "scalar field" or "Dirac interaction" or even "Yukawa interaction."

The one I'd love to see (perfectly doable) is "chiral Majorana spinors". In such an important and usable concept there should be encoded information (including stuff we already understand) plus additional concepts of a very sophisticated form.

The beauty here is this:
* chiral Majorana spinors are signficant in the understanding of a number of concepts
* it's not something you can learn in 5 minutes of googling. Or ten minutes. Or an hour.
* ask any group of physicists to explain it, and you'll get the same explanation (so there is an agreed upon understanding of what they are, and what they do.) This would serve as a check and balance -- have someone unaware of the project assess words to see if they actually apply specifically to chiral spinors.
* the concept leads to a number of theoretical avenues (and some which are not correct.) So inept waffling will be immediately obvious to anyone trained in the field.

Something like that where a garbage answer would stand out.
 
I see George posted a spot on accurate translation for Andy Griffith. Which got me to wondering how he does it. I'd love to blog about it. For example, David Horowitz has been in the news. That would be a fascinating test for the million dollar prize.
 
Yes, it is truly amazing that after Griffith died George was able to not only "translate" the date of his (Griffith's) death, but that he had also been a actor, director, gospel singer, comedian/comedy. It is almost as if he knew, or had foreknowledge of, the outcome before he "translated" the word/phrase. Oh wait...he did.

If only he could accurately "translate" something before it happened; for example the outcome of his lawsuit (and the date of said outcome) re the MDC, or when is Abe Vigoa going to die. Certainly as he has demonstrated, a persons death date is in their name according to his "predetermined code"....seems a trivial task.
 
Stacko said:
How do you develop a protocol for something that gets a different result for the same word?

http://ufoetblog.com/?p=6217

http://ufoetblog.com/?p=6430
Click to expand...


It just shows you how important the Corn Dogs predictions are. The translations tell you what's true today, right now. Who cares about the long distant past of a few weeks ago.

A lesser person might just dismiss the Corn Dog translations as just expressions of George's own bigotry and intolerance. Not me. I can see they are far more than that.
 
I wonder if more mundane matters are encoded also - would George be able to work out the Olympic Mens 100m athletics gold medal winner and time. I'd love to know Usain Bolt's time is encoded into his name, that would prove it to me at least
 
DrDave said:
I wonder if more mundane matters are encoded also - would George be able to work out the Olympic Mens 100m athletics gold medal winner and time. I'd love to know Usain Bolt's time is encoded into his name, that would prove it to me at least
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that on August 6th George will be able to predict reverse engineer the time encoded in whoever the winner will be was.
 
Spindrift said:
I'm pretty sure that on August 6th George will be able to predict reverse engineer the time encoded in whoever the winner will be was.
Click to expand...

That would be amazing.

I've put the name Usain Bolt through the corn gods translator, and while I'm not an expert I got the exciting result:

Gold, rut rut rut, 9.5s winner GRS new record

I'm off to put a tenner on it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom