Hi everyone,

As you now know, I haven't misrepresented anything I've written about my math/science breakthroughs or other innovation ideas to the best of my knowledge; it is in my interests to be thorough, careful, accurate, and honest when describing my activities.

My latest idea, which is fully developed, from a bird's-eye-view perspective, but not fully confirmed to work yet, is my idea for bringing people back to life. There are two phases: 1) Data gathering, from the right physical area, and 2) Physical manipulation of a room-like area to recreate the living body of a person who has died.

Of course, I can't confirm that my ideas are right yet. Most likely, given the physics and chemistry expertise I would need, coupled with safety/regulation concerns, I would eventually have to publish the ideas related to this in an academic journal to get the ideas used to bring people (and dogs, etc.) back to life. I will probably publish someday, if I'm released, which is probably much more likely to happen and soon because I confirmed the existence of economics strategy model and how it works, after various shocking and outraging political issues are resolved.

Some of the best news about it is that if theory is correct and someone hypothetically chose to build the machines needed to perform this task, the financial cost of it would very likely be much less than $1 million / unit, including equipment, overhead (reasonably priced) software development, and overhead R&D related to science issues that might need to be resolved before building the units properly and safely. By "unit" I mean all machines with software loaded into them to do the task of bringing people back to life from the past. I have neglected real estate (building and land purchase) costs in this assessment.

The sooner I'm released, the better it will be for people looking forward to happy outcomes in the future, especially those based on rather-low-cost resolution of human rights issues and high-tech innovation.

Please remember, I've proved my detractors wrong! It would not be in my interests to lie about the innovative work I've done, and readers can see that I'm competent enough to express myself about my ideas and my approximately accurate level of confidence about them very accurately. I am going to withhold some things, but nothing truly extremely important, like climate change ideas or disease-cure-related ideas or bringing-people-back-to-life ideas are going to be withheld forever. It is very worth it to push to have me released as soon as possible. I will not be seen to have been lying; you've seen the correctness of my Hodge Conjecture proof, SAC problem proof, compression idea, and other ideas I've presented if you're mathematically literate enough, so you know that I'm extremely talented at STEM.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 03:19:34 UTC+8, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you now know, I haven't misrepresented anything I've written about my math/science breakthroughs or other innovation ideas to the best of my knowledge; it is in my interests to be thorough, careful, accurate, and honest when describing my activities.
>
> My latest idea, which is fully developed, from a bird's-eye-view perspective, but not fully confirmed to work yet, is my idea for bringing people back to life. There are two phases: 1) Data gathering, from the right physical area, and 2) Physical manipulation of a room-like area to recreate the living body of a person who has died.
>
> Of course, I can't confirm that my ideas are right yet. Most likely, given the physics and chemistry expertise I would need, coupled with safety/regulation concerns, I would eventually have to publish the ideas related to this in an academic journal to get the ideas used to bring people (and dogs, etc.) back to life. I will probably publish someday, if I'm released, which is probably much more likely to happen and soon because I confirmed the existence of economics strategy model and how it works, after various shocking and outraging political issues are resolved.
>
> Some of the best news about it is that if theory is correct and someone hypothetically chose to build the machines needed to perform this task, the financial cost of it would very likely be much less than $1 million / unit, including equipment, overhead (reasonably priced) software development, and overhead R&D related to science issues that might need to be resolved before building the units properly and safely. By "unit" I mean all machines with software loaded into them to do the task of bringing people back to life from the past. I have neglected real estate (building and land purchase) costs in this assessment.
>
> The sooner I'm released, the better it will be for people looking forward to happy outcomes in the future, especially those based on rather-low-cost resolution of human rights issues and high-tech innovation.
>
> Please remember, I've proved my detractors wrong! It would not be in my interests to lie about the innovative work I've done, and readers can see that I'm competent enough to express myself about my ideas and my approximately accurate level of confidence about them very accurately. I am going to withhold some things, but nothing truly extremely important, like climate change ideas or disease-cure-related ideas or bringing-people-back-to-life ideas are going to be withheld forever. It is very worth it to push to have me released as soon as possible. I will not be seen to have been lying; you've seen the correctness of my Hodge Conjecture proof, SAC problem proof, compression idea, and other ideas I've presented if you're mathematically literate enough, so you know that I'm extremely talented at STEM.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

I don't think I like to make zombies.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-4, wij wij wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 03:19:34 UTC+8, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As you now know, I haven't misrepresented anything I've written about my math/science breakthroughs or other innovation ideas to the best of my knowledge; it is in my interests to be thorough, careful, accurate, and honest when describing my activities.
> >
> > My latest idea, which is fully developed, from a bird's-eye-view perspective, but not fully confirmed to work yet, is my idea for bringing people back to life. There are two phases: 1) Data gathering, from the right physical area, and 2) Physical manipulation of a room-like area to recreate the living body of a person who has died.
> >
> > Of course, I can't confirm that my ideas are right yet. Most likely, given the physics and chemistry expertise I would need, coupled with safety/regulation concerns, I would eventually have to publish the ideas related to this in an academic journal to get the ideas used to bring people (and dogs, etc.) back to life. I will probably publish someday, if I'm released, which is probably much more likely to happen and soon because I confirmed the existence of economics strategy model and how it works, after various shocking and outraging political issues are resolved.
> >
> > Some of the best news about it is that if theory is correct and someone hypothetically chose to build the machines needed to perform this task, the financial cost of it would very likely be much less than $1 million / unit, including equipment, overhead (reasonably priced) software development, and overhead R&D related to science issues that might need to be resolved before building the units properly and safely. By "unit" I mean all machines with software loaded into them to do the task of bringing people back to life from the past. I have neglected real estate (building and land purchase) costs in this assessment.
> >
> > The sooner I'm released, the better it will be for people looking forward to happy outcomes in the future, especially those based on rather-low-cost resolution of human rights issues and high-tech innovation.
> >
> > Please remember, I've proved my detractors wrong! It would not be in my interests to lie about the innovative work I've done, and readers can see that I'm competent enough to express myself about my ideas and my approximately accurate level of confidence about them very accurately. I am going to withhold some things, but nothing truly extremely important, like climate change ideas or disease-cure-related ideas or bringing-people-back-to-life ideas are going to be withheld forever. It is very worth it to push to have me released as soon as possible. I will not be seen to have been lying; you've seen the correctness of my Hodge Conjecture proof, SAC problem proof, compression idea, and other ideas I've presented if you're mathematically literate enough, so you know that I'm extremely talented at STEM.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> I don't think I like to make zombies.

You are not the right person to debate or discuss this with me. If someone at least ostensibly ethical and non-extremist would like to discuss/debate things with me, such a person may. You may not.

-Philip White