Dan Burisch Interview- One of the Deepest Insiders

Spread the love

by Cpt. Danny B. Catselas Burisch


In the early part of 2001, information was leaked concerning Dr. Dan Burisch and his development of a new protocol for defining a “Genesis” mechanism, which could have profound effects upon our future human evolution.

The protocol was broken into six parts – seven if you consider 4a and 4b independently. Dr. Burisch gave a strong warning about the potential dangers should this protocol be converted into an actual experimental program.

Dr. Burisch’s Warning: Due to the potential for destruction of a fully functional and conjoined L, it is my suggestion that any direct evaluation be conducted in biocontainment levels normally associated with potentially hazardous “foreign” materials (AKA: another name for a “Native American baby“).

The vitality of the L should not be underestimated given its ability to conduct graded continuous creation/proliferative cytogenesis and the common instances of ancient DNA (aDNA) revitalization.

Update – August 2001: From the recent events that have unfolded, I think it’s safe to say that Dr. Burisch is steadfastly refusing to help them bring the halves together. His commanding officers are furious, as well as the ‘defacto’ project leader, Debbie.

As the project moved forward documents smuggled out of the project show that Dan has risked his safety and his life by refusing to provide the ‘powers that be’ with the keys uncovered in the Lotus research necessary to alter the human DNA and RNA and move their project forward.

He lives and works under heavy security; and there is documented evidence that they have orders to shoot him if he refuses to follow orders or attempts to flee.


Sections 1 through 6


Return to Dan Burisch

Return to Temas / Genetica

Return to Temas / Paraciencia

Return to Origen de La Vida y del Hombre

Subject: Protocol Section 1 of 6

Sent: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:13:01 -0800
To: mj01

The following is the first of six sections, in this protocol. The parts will be sent at a rate of one a day and will be sent out of order for security purposes……Debbie…….

SPECIAL MISSION RECITATION #01-04To my anticipated readers, the Platonic Academy Admonition:

“Only He Who is Familiar With Geometry Shall Be Admitted Here!”

If I know little, as a man upon this earth, I realize that the Ani papyrus speaks truth to each of us when reflecting that we are “…soul(s) inside of light, appareled in flesh, designed and created by divine forces.” You may have expected, by now, to be (dutifully with me) chanting a neo-Darwinian mantra, to written words only surviving an allegation of plagiarism through our little scientific society of self pleasuring.

Rather than boring you with a “premature” outcome (pun unfortunately intended), we are instead to travel back to the earth’s first age, once called the time of Ocelotonatiuh. What will we see when we gaze into the smoking mirror of Tezcatlipoca, when we are face-to-face with Quetzalcoatl? Will we see the beauty and grace of the introspective mermaid or the slowly wasted form of Narcissus? I assert the we will each see our unique reflection under the duality of nature, either of our light or of our vanity, while experiencing the bold truth. To the one true God, I bow in reverence and humbly announce that I come in peace.

DARWIN COULD NOT HAVE FORETOLD THAT WE ARE DESCENDED FROM VIRUSES AS WELL AS APES (Patience, C., et al., Review, Trends in Genetics, March 1997) And so this discourse begins, save the contention that we are beholden to a heritage with the genetic sequence to ‘monkey around’, well…okay…the readers all know about “1+1=1plus”, but that is another story, more meant for the “land of dreams.”

Many of us have taken refuge in the RNA paradigm from a “prebiotic soup“, mushroomed from raw material, and stand that RNA replication must have been the second phase in the development of a so called “RNA world” (Annotation from Reference, and used to follow: de Duve, Christian, “The Beginnings of Life on Earth“, American Scientist, 09-10/1995). From thence, DNA is theorized to have been put in order and that it announced the refinement of a cell’s information system.

DNA was mystically birthed from the interaction of a myriad of protein enzymes communicating with RNA, which in turn both resulted from and was dependent on a number of random mutations. Also as a result, and at the same time dependent upon, the protometabolism of the early cell began its dance of life. The plasma membrane’s constituents are factored into this mechanism, factored even in those instances where theorists regard cell membrane construction from the standpoint of consecutive phospholipid integration by rotational augmentation.

The tautology implicit within the abhorrent attempts to justify these beliefs through thioester logic and the explicit teleological import of the argument itself (begging for an autogenetic pocket-watch with autotelic expression) has been an object of snickering within the chamber of our quiet group for some time. It’s just technical enough to believed ‘qualified’ for public scientific debate and just referential enough to meet the criteria of weights and measures.

[Excuse my subtle plug for SI – I felt the hard working people at IP needed something after that little “Gallo”-phile arrangement, relative that IP (ah, I meant LTCB) isolate! Good God, something flies through their window and we still get part of the patent! Bernadine, Varmus, juice, perks, and star chambers! I love it!]

This atheistic approach allows the conceited to continue to devalue the complexity of the life-system. Pocket-watch parts have been found, and cellular membranes have been inferred. (Astronomical indication of preliminary cellular membranes inferred from icy mixtures of water, methanol, ammonia, and carbon monoxide, et al; Quick Reference Example: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/20/chemistry.of.life.ap/index.html .) So, where do we go? Have we attempted every solution to the riddle, short of applying religion? No. We are nearing the attempt to apply other ones, but you’ll have to keep reading.

As a matter of REQUIRED reference, the origins of life in the form of bacterial cells (publicly) currently dates to a little prior to 3.9 Billion Years Ago (BYA), quite an event for the early Archaean Eon, with promitochondrial endosymbionts seemingly entrenching to become mitochondria (proper) by 2 BYA, terrestrial cyanobacteria appearing near 1.4 BYA, and a significant taxa diversification of photosynthetic protoctists close to 1.3 BYA (correlated to the acquisition of symbiotic photosynthetic plastids).

(Annotation from Reference, and used to follow: See: Margulis, Lynn, “Symbiotic Planet” [2000] and “Five Kingdoms…” [1988]). Is it not interesting that the issue of the possible polyphyletic origins of those plastids remains open, yet dogma is pronouncing near certainty for the predecessor of mitochondria, or is it, really?

Let’s take a close look at the contentions of Dr. Margulis. In the search for mitochondrial origins, the varieties to look toward for guidance (according to Margulis, “Symbiotic…”) would be either bdellovibrio (a small 0.3 micrometer pseudomonad that is aggressive to larger bacteria and even burrows into them, which respires its food sources and releases carbon dioxide) or paracoccus (an oxygen respiring micrococcus of diameter 1 micrometer [individual sphere]).

The problem, here, is this:

As late as 1981, citations of Margulis’ work carried statements that a likely category of mitochondrial precursor was an anaerobic phototrophic bacteium (purple nonsulfur bacteria, that synthesize organic compounds by direct incorporation of carbon dioxide). A big difference? You bet your life! A crack in her theory? It is certainly a problem. The crack is not found in the relevance of the new biochemical findings, alone.

In the time from 1981 (really somewhere before and it was then cited in texts such as by Wallace, King, and Sanders in “Biology: the Science of Life“, before fourth edition) until now, research has been progressing on the contents of mitochondria, and a striking resemblance has been found between those contents and those of bdellovibrio. So, it appears that Margulis has moved her “chip of support” from the basic biochemistry of the purple nonsulfurs to the pseudomonads. This is the mistake! (Not that the purple nonsulfurs were the end-all in the debate! You will soon see, quite the contrary!) Under the current line of thinking, as the mutualistic symbiosis progressed between endosymbiont and host, redundancy was screened out of the endosymbiont.

The endosymbiont no longer used a large portion of its biochemistry (and conversely its genomic components), as independent existence allegedly became a thing of the past. Does this mean, necessarily, that the remaining “left over” biochemistry correlations (no matter how integral to the functioning of both the mitochondrion and that of the counterpart under question) must posit a singular direct taxonomic linkage between the two? Nope, not under serial endosymbiotic theory. Can this be akin to “cell apoptosis” for the theory? No. Not just yet. Is the correlation between the two (that is diminution of redundancy) correct? Probably so.

The complementary behavior between mitochondrion and nucleus would infer as much. Is the origin of the relationship, a macroevolution from a pair of independent organisms necessitated for us to now see the refinement from redundancy? No. What say you of evolution? Are the first acts of progressing organismic metabolism (a shared dance of catabolism and anabolism) one imbued with a negotiated hyperbolic peace between predator and prey (See: Margulis, Lynn, “Microcosmos“, 1997) or does life follow the apparent path of the Universe, a series of transparently stoic acts of Cosmos from Chaos? (Pick up a text of a creation myth.)

In defense of one or the other, I would reference to ” http://unisci.com/stories/19992/0621995.htm”  for hierarchy through “productivity” (Drossel, Barbara, University of Manchester in England), conservation of gene clusters (Andersson, Siv G.E. and Eriksson, Kimmo “Dynamcis of Gene Order Structures and Genome Architectures“, Department of Molecular Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Sweden; as published on the internet in  http://www.ima.mdh.se/personal/keo/Forskning/Gene , http://www.ima.mdh.se/personal/keo/Forskning/Orders0410.htm  ), and a refutation to the Dawkin’s “Selfish Gene Theory” as published by Unisci “Daily University Science News” (Efros, David R., [New England Complex Systems Institute], with an opinion defense by Dr. Bar-Yam, Yaneer, 04/25/2000).

I remain prepared (and would encourage) to debate the issuance of my opinions, relative the relevance between the aforementioned orders of magnitude.

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Subject: Protocol Section 2 of 6

Section 2 for your enjoyment…….. đŸ™‚
To: mj01


“I believe that the scientists, including Margulis (but no mistake I have great admiration for her work), are too busy focusing on the newer biochemistry, then jumping from one foot to another in the search for the closest present biochemical counterpart, all the while praying that Gregor Mendel will justify their beliefs with results of Polymerase Chain Reaction. I have been guilty of the same.

As little as two years ago I would have presented the following, in reaction to the above allegation:

“I would posit that it remains entirely possible that a completely different variety of eubacteria may have been the precursor (of mitochondria) and that the present likeness in biochemistry is the result of elimination of redundancy: that we are presently looking at the vestigial biochemistry of a variety completely different than what we would associate to present examples; that the present physiology of the mitochondrion has no present counterpart, or perhaps it (the unknown organism) may be the precursor of more than one of today’s phyla (and the mitochondrion).

To make matters worse, the protocists envisioned for study may have a more complicated history than the promitochondria. What their past incorporation of endosymbionts will mean to their present behavior is largely unknown. For these reasons, various bacterial types will be tested against various protocists, and we’ll look for patterns in their responses. As we were able to find patterns involving the oxygen and salinity content and selective incorporation of either a cyanobacteria or a respiring one, we may indeed find such patterns involving the retention of such varieties.

Should such patterns develop (and they may do so over a wide span of bacterial and protoctist types), we would then correlate to the known paleobiology. At the end of the day, we’ll relate back to the biochemical sequencing and use it with a purpose that doesn’t put the cart before the horse: verification of relation and redundancy elimination. Some scientists are still trying to build a cell from an at! om (their biochemistry), and are unable to do so. We’ll take a little more humble approach: ask the cell questions and maybe it’ll tell us a little about why it is the way it is.

It is also entirely likely that we may find that the selectivity under the aforementioned criteria (salinity variance and oxygen infusion) breaks down when studying potential endosymbionts. There may be no such defined patterns under that criteria. This may mean that our selection criteria was off, that the current endosymbionts somehow preclude further relationships, or that the precursor(s) of mitochondria (and possibly chloroplasts) are something totally different, something completely (forgive the term) “alien” to today’s world.”

In this 1999 quote, taken from my personal diary, I argue with myself (while committed to the evidence of endosymbiosis) about the next phase in research from Fresh-Brackish-Marine (FBM), results from which have been previously communicated and will be moderately restated in a few moments.

The thought begins with the idea that similarity between mitochondria and eubacteria may be a function of an elimination of redundancy between the endosymbiont and host, then ends (after an overly verbose passage…nothin’ unusual there!) with the notion that a present day counterpart to the original endosymbiont may not exist. The idea stream was built upon the mistaken thought that there existed nothing special at the point of apparent random food selection, 0.031% marine salinity at +/- oxygen infusion. “Mission Genesis” was to follow, carefully noting retention times and parameters altering phagocytic responses.

Did the 0.031% data mean nothing more than a cold number solute divided by 100? No. It turns out that there exists a relationship between 0.031 (conversely as the fractional solute equivalent 0.00031) and the Sequence of Fibonacci

(Reference to mathematical theory:  http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/Fibnat.html  with associated links).

That is 0.031 is 5.0161812% (notice 5.0″1618″12) of the 0.618 “phi” (lower case “p”) number (i.e. nearly exact 1/20). Of course, we know that “Phi” (the geometric golden section; Phi exp2=Phi + 1) is related to Fibonacci “phi” as {(sqrt 5 + 1) / 2} is to {(sqrt 5 -1) /2. Further, the geometric import extends to “pi” via James Gregory’s work (extension from Euler). As we are all students of the sciences here, I need to proceed no further (yet) having to do with the natural import of this relationship. Is there a “real relationship” between the FBM findings and the natural sequence to geometric convergence, you may ask?

Well, as you have read this far, there had better be, right? Become VERY RESTLESS, as the relationship does exist! A very careful scrutiny of the FBM (0.091%-1.001% marine salt salinity, inclusive) demonstrated some interesting points of data dispersion, each worth expressing in an assigned category.

(As this is a proposal for furtherance of study, and as the original FBM results are in front of you, no need here to rehash the standard deviations, “t“, “chi square” and “F” scores.)

With this description, the standard “hour-glass” plot shape should be kept in mind. In addition to the point of selection randomness, found at 0.031%, areas of high data-plot dispersion are found in the results. These areas demonstrate high scatter plot dispersion (away from the smooth plot lines and pulling the curve fits toward 100% and 0 % option selection). They (the dispersion points) appear as circular foci of data, with the density of same decreasing as the distance from the foci centers increase. The foci plot bilaterally symmetric to the centerline (point of randomness).

The points of salinity, independent of oxygen regimen (Also important!) are at 0.019%, 0.024%, 0.030%, 0.040%, 0.047%, 0.058%, 0.060%, 0.069%, and 0.076%. Further data dispersion is found after 0.091%, however; I believe that once the aforementioned numbers are interpreted, it will suffice for the purposes of this protocol. Statistical significance of the dispersions were verified. (See the FBM results under “Errant Data”.) A cursory inspection of the percentages revealed nothing. It was not until the percentages were grouped, that meaning developed.

Additionally, as statistical significance is demonstrated both within and between groups (but see the 0.076% analysis of foci differential), the ultimate interrelationship (found after group “Descriptions” and before the “Predictions” section) is easily observed.

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Subject: Protocol Section 3 of 6

Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 07:16:56 -0800
To: mj01

  • Group One      (The Golden Mean Group): 0.019%, 0.040%, 0.058%, and 0.076%
  • Group Two     (The Viral Code Group): 0.030% and 0.060%
  • Group Three   (The “Hypersea” or Geologic Timeline Group): 0.024%, 0.047%, and 0.069%


  • Group One (The Golden Mean Group)
    Each of these points has a direct relationship to the Golden Mean and the Ratio Convergence Sequence of Fibonacci as we see that the point of randomness (0.031) multiplied times that convergence sequence (0.618) equals 0.019 (1st. Percentage in this group, with rounding). Extending: 2 times (0.031 times 0.618) = 2 times 0.019 = 0.038 (2nd. Percentage in this group was 0.040). 3 times (0.031 times 0.618) = 3 times 0.019 = 0.057 (3rd. Percentage in this group). 4 times (0.031 times 0.618) = 4 times 0.019 = 0.076 (4th. Percentage in this group).

    Interpretation: With the understanding that salinity oscillation occurs even under the most rigorous laboratory conditions that involve dynamic systems, we can eliminate criticism of the small within-group variance. As one of the main data target points was 0.076%, one needs to address the density of the dispersion versus the density of the data that pulled the curve fit to the smooth hour-glass plot. Analysis of this issue revealed that the dispersion foci (above and below the curve fits – depending upon whether you are speaking to the photosynthetic or the respiratory foodstuffs) were only 0.05% as dense as the other dispersion foci. (You have the early data in front of you.) The difference between 0.076% and 0.031% (the point of randomness) is 0.045%. I understand that I am in hazard of your opinions with the statement that follows, however, may I remind the readers to evaluate sacred geometry issues, as presented in  http://www.danwinter.com/orion/orionheart.html  In that article, Mr. Winter directs attention to the Golden Spiral and Orion. Please look past the spurious references and to the issues at hand, including the presentation of “wratcheted dodecahedra and the DNA double helix.” In relation to same, http://www.meru.org  should be evaluated in regard to the issue of “Continuous Creation“. The information that follows will further the connection between those issues and this document.
  • Group Two (The Viral Code Group) Recent research has shown that the human genome may contain as much as 30% from retrotransposon action. (See: http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne6.htm  and Moran, John V., et al, “Exon Shuffling by L1 Retrotransposition,” p 1530-1534 v 283 Science, 5 March 1999.)

    [A note: Please accept my disgust at the presentation of ALH84001,0 resident on the same web page. For those that claim such non-faith-based foundations to their work, they certainly seem to be interested in the concept of “resurrection.” Now other SNC’s have what they (our Masonic Champions of Truth and the American Way, NASA) earlier praised as special to ALH84001,0. Hey, guys, remember your math identities? Any Real Number multiplied by zero = zero. 1996: 1(0)=0…time passes…2001: 3(0)=0. See? It product remained the same, “0”, didn’t it? They ought to be bent over a knee and spanked!]

    The original span of the FBM salinity tests ranged from 0.001% to 0.091%. 30% of the range (0.091-0.001 = 0.090) is 0.027, very near to 0.030, or 0.031%. Is this enough to firm up an opinion of definite relationship? Of course not! Let’s, however, take a close look at the percentages assigned to this group and the substrate control regimen applied in the FBM. Both 0.030% and 0.060% are multiples of 30% of the data range, when the data range is set at 0.100. Extrapolation fit to Brackish Low results. (See results you already have.)
  • Intepretation: The evolution of new genes may have their origin in the action of Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (L1s) as “…they insert into transcribed genes and retrotranspose sequences derived from their 3’flanks to new genomic locations…”, thereby promoting the movement of non-L1 sequences. As a corollary, retroviruses are noted as having possible origin as retrotransposons. The logical movement from the argument that places retroviruses as possible evolutionary outcasts to the plausible creation of the eukaryote genome by a retrovirus (or multiples of same) is not difficult. Of course, if one has an argument for the exclusivity of the direction of retrovirus creation or an effective discourse could be made against the idea as teleology, in the wake of this study, please present it. It is well defined that the eukaryote genome can carry endogenous retroviruses, given its intrinsic structure (Sverdlov, Eugene, “Perpetually Mobile Footprints of Ancient Infection’s in Human Genome“, p 1-6 v 428, Federation of European Biochemical Societies – Letters, 22 May 1998). This issue received further treatment in “Our Retroviral Heritage” by Clive Patience, et al (p. 116-120 v 13 n 3, Trends in Genetics, March 1977), and opens the possibility that the current genomic complement from such may contain as much as 40% (for mammals only; Wilkins, John, 8 March 1999, FEBS Letters). The differential of 10% may be accounted for by more recent retrotranspositions. Given the readers, it would be improper to present basic virology. Substrate controls were placed on the groups under evaluation, in the FBM (Please review your copy!), by applying various synthetic substrata (such as microcrystalline spheres) as well as washed natural alluvium to which the protoctists were normally accustomed. Results were NOT reproducible with any synthetic substrate or natural items (such as leaves). Only the natural substrate (independent of washing with solvents such as distilled water, saline, etc.) produced the precise behaviors. This leads us, by the nose, to an exclusive interaction between the protoctists, the foodstuff selection under salinity, and the resident substrate. Therein may lie a new paradigm of speciation.

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Subject: Protocol Section 4A of 6

A continuation of your enjoyment:

Debbie :

You are taking the next cognitive step without need of my further leading this dance. I am postulating the interaction between a viroid-like (possibly intracisternal) particle or integrated provirus and an activating particle from natural substrate with the observed behavioral component. The extent to which the behavioral component may also be mediated by localized metabiosis remains an object for study.

The high reaction cell liquid replacement, during FBM, should have precluded protoctist-protoctist chemotaxis as the source of data dispersion. Virusoids employing RNA-dependent RNA polymerase may account for some intermediate biochemistry involving object(s) in question (should the behavior not be a direct repercussion of a DNA or RNA artifact).

Another possibility may rest in the behavior being directed by an A-type Retrovirus. If the linkage exists between viral origin of the genome, the observed periodic behavior, and an A-type retrovirus; I would posit same to be mobilized and hiding as a retrotransposon within the “active” regions of the genome, with such retrotransposon having relation to ultimate species diversification (see available literature on 16S rRNA divergence).

All 22 varieties of holozoic protoctists demonstrated like data dispersion. Given control results of randomized food intake by the engulfers, within their normal microhabitat, genomic complement (together with some type of substrate interaction) is believed responsible for reaction to marine salinity pressures. No studies have been found, relating to reactions to salts present in marine water, that will accommodate the data.

Studies of grazing data versus prey size are available, but none would account for the responses given the size parity of foodstuffs. The combination of salts, in toto, seem to be the triggering factor at the percentages deployed. As you have already seen in the data in front of you, subcontrols using variant fractional combinations of salts did not elicit the same responses. If the periodic and reproduced results can be attributed to other factors, outside of anomalous genetic control, I would encourage response.

Given the like data, across species, we appear to be looking at something generic to theseeukaryotes. Should the potential of retrovirus expression be discounted, in relation to this data, you are invited to visit and subsume the data at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed  impeach theFBMexperimental design, then challenge the postulation with vigor.

  • Group Three (The “Hypersea” or Geologic Timeline Group)
    If the top two groups did not promote concern for significance, the like responses at 0.024%, 0.047%, and 0.069% I hope may. Public timelines place the age of earth between 4.56 to 4.60 BYA. Some other timelines exist.

    {A treatment of those other timelines and issues such as the COSMIC “D. of the C.T.P.” requires a degree of control over this document that may not exist within the passage of electronic mail. So, should you wish me to play the position of advocacy against my hypothesis for the sake of argument, we would require another method of communication. Should the control authority decide that this medium is acceptable, I am prepared to proceed along that line.}

    I have wondered, within the context of a possible viral genomic origin to the responses, whether some of the data may have relationship with geologic time. If, in fact, the data are representative of a complex code being projected into the present, could not the code be bound to its origin? Numerous factor combinations were tabulated against the percentages assigned to this group. 4.56 and 4.60 were multiplied against 0.618, that pesky number from above (double-entendre suggested). The result: 0.228 and 0.230. I, therefore, noted a discrete range of 0.228-0.230, with 0.229 as the mean (0.230 rounded). A view of the data dispersion points within this group reveals the foci at 0.024, 0.047, and 0.069. The FBM range is rounded to 0.100%. 0.100(0.230)= 0.023, 2(0.023)=0.046, and 3(0.023)=0.069. Set against each other in a Product vs. Data format, we have:
    • Product:      Data:
      0.023         0.024
      0.046         0.047
      0.069         0.069
  • Interpretation: In a word: Hypersea! (See: McMenamin, Mark and Diana, “Hypersea – Life on Land“, Columbia University Press, 1996.) The Hypersea hypothesis (now possibly a theory with this document) treats the up swelling of minerals from the ocean, a goddess-like extension of the ocean to new vistas. The relationship between the precise mineral components found in marine water, the behavior of the organisms under scrutiny, and the periodic response to factors involving the predicted age of the earth and natural sequences points a strong finger. Not since the binding between a creation myth and the society within which it may dwell, has such a strong nexus been attributed to life and the (eternal) ocean (our mother). This gives reason to pause. Are we hearing an echo of an evanescence of the darkness that was upon the face of the deep, or seeing the waters swarm-forth living souls?

    We see, in this data, a clear artifact/demonstration of the connection between modern eukarya and the origin of the earth. Is the connection a direct function of the genomic programming to the timeline, or is it derived as a reaction of the eukaryote to other factors (relating to the age of the earth, environment, etc.) that we have not yet seen?

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Subject: Protocol Section 4B of 6


Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:09:13 -0800
To: mj01

> >Once again: Deb

PREDICTIONS (my humble discourse):

It is at this point that I must sue with apologetics! This is not a publication meant for the modern journals. Rather, it is something that we are encountering that requires more than the recounting of previously published material, and is to be viewed within the context of the quiet truths with which we, of the Maji, are entrusted. This is new ground, or perhaps it is a loud demonstration of very old ground. Continued confirmation of the FBM results will require a four-tier design, two levels of which can be performed by this writer, two by more restrictive laboratory facilities.

  • Tier One: “Wide Spectrum Analysis of Protocist Behavior, Over Variant Geologic Substrata, to Isolate and Confirm More Ancient Periodicities.”

The Experimental Design is in your possession. (Reference: Mission Genesis Design 1999, as filed and amended to the Maji, January 1999. *Please note: The generalized design shall be sequentially repeated over the various geologic strata, with retention codes used.)

The Frenchman Mountain Complex (FMC) will supply six geologic segments (

http://datawebman.bizland.com/rainbowgardens/StrataDesc.html  in order that we may test somewhere between (public data) +/- 1/15 to +/- 1/16 of earth history.

1.7BYA, 570-510 MYA, 409-330 MYA, 330-245 MYA, 245-200 MYA, and less than 20 MYA. As I am inclined to accept the clues given from the FBM, I would expect that the responses of the modern organisms to the substrate may change, as the general age of the substrate changes. To wit, I predict that responses will be revealed over the predictable range, with the oldest strata mediating behavior at a closer distance to marine salinity, moving toward a mathematical limit between 3.000% and 4.000% salinity (marine salts mixture).

Using easy extrapolation, and dividing the predictions between Low, Medium, and High groups; random foodstuff selection is expected at the following salinities (in percents): > >BYA: LOW EXPECTANCY MEDIUM EXPECTANCY HIGH EXPECTANCY > >1.840 0.194 0.206 0.217 >1.610 0.154 0.162 0.171 >0.690 0.062 0.063 0.064 >0.460 0.050 0.050 0.050 >0.230 0.040 0.040 0.040 >0.000 0.031 0.031 0.031 > >Original interpolation was conducted at 0.230 B.Y. increments with the mean salinities factoring to the 3.000% and 4.000% with the use of original factors, Low End: 1.255 and 1.260, and High End: 1.275 adn 1.276. (Complete Interpolation Available Upon Request.) > >

As we are discussing a two-piece puzzle with evidenced predictable periods, we can postulate the devaluation of the genomic component in a similar manner. Taking the argued 30% retrotransposition as the current internal artifact (or secreted provirus particle), and accepting a predictable period (evidenced Hypersea) as an intelligent movement from marine salinity to fresh water (ultimately a movement from ocean to land), the point of randomness may be defined in relation to viral component.

Yes, I am postulating that a multivariant viral structure seeded the earth (in agreement with the now understood “unnerving details” VERY DEEP PUN INTENDED!) encapsulating the mobius-like reality of Adam {‘the’ Red Earth} within Eve {Life}, and that such viral structure purposively motivated its totipotency to produce an exemplar cellular structure, the same requiring further phagocytic behavior, as time passed, to maintain sufficient genetic diversity to mobilize the internally consistent biosphere humanity now perturbs.

For purposes of further identification, the cellular component of the LOTUS (abbreviated as “L”) will henceforth be termed “V” for “the VISHNU ” in historical respect, after the tradition of “…the great maintainer and preserver.” (See internet citation: 


The lithospheric component (natural state unknown) of the L will be termed “S” for “the SHIVA” in historical respect, after the tradition of “…a reproductive power which restores what has been dissolved.” (See internet citation:

http://www.gurjari.net/ico/mystica/html/shiva.htm) The communication medium (or particle{s}) will be called “G(s)” for “the GANESH ” in historical respect, after the tradition of “The remover of obstacles”.

(See internet citation: 

http://www.hindu-gods.com   The functions and natures of that hypothesized virus-seed is the subject of Tier-2.

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Subject: Protocol Section 5 of 6

Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:14:29 -0800
To: mj01

Section 5 of 6, a little ahead of schedule……Debbie.

  • Tier 2:  “Evaluate and Contrast the Possible Structure and Function of Each Half of the Lotus through Protoctist’s Variant Phagocytic Behaviors in Response to Foodstuffs of Known Genetic Composition.”

In essence, Mission Genesis, as originally envisioned in 1999 is reborn. Please review the Bacillus subtilis/Spirulina platensis sequencing compendia and see the quote of previous pages, then add to it the opportunity to substrate with numerous geologic strata. Should predictable periodic progression be plausible (as with Hypersea), the percent at which random foodstuff selection is made (with original random percent being postulated at 3.500) may be hypothesized at a reduction of +/- 20 % joined viral component (L) for every +/- 1% decrease at the point which random selection is maximized.

A short interpolation follows. Should the complete mathematical scheme be required, please request same.

      %        RANDOMNESS MAXIMUM:
100.000                   3.500
80.313                     2.524
60.625                     1.549
39.844                     0.519
30.000                     0.031

Confirmation of the L component and the primary through quarternary structures of the V, the S, and the G(s) are the aims of Tiers 3 & 4. I leave the experimental methodology and design parameters in your hands.

[Due to the potential for destruction of a fully functional and conjoined L, it is my suggestion that any direct evaluation be conducted in biocontainment levels normally associated with potentially hazardous “foreign” materials (AKA: another name for a “Native American baby”). The vitality of the L should not be underestimated given its ability to conduct graded continuous creation/proliferative cytogenesis and the common instances of ancient DNA (aDNA) revitalization.

(See: Joint Symposium Details: Cano, R., et al., “Beyond Jurassic Park: Assessing Genetic Information Hidden in Herbaria and Archival Plant, Microbe, and Insect Specimens,” American Phytopathological Society and the Entomological Society of America, November 8-12, 1998. Further results may be located at 

http://www.comic.sbg.ac.at/staff/jan/ancient/aDNA library.html)
This protocol would not be complete without a short presentation of an idea stream concerning the nature of the original L. Until confirmation/isolation occurs, please maintain my hypothetical stream as “straight-away guesses.” After it (the L) is verified – you are invited to change my position as having stated I was 100% sure! (A little joke! Yes,…I know,…VERY LITTLE!)

A believed central role for the L would be its original ability to not only promote the first viable cellular structure, but also maintain its own internally consistent vitality (fit expression mechanisms) through the expanse of time. Should the search bear out this triumvirate vehicle of genesis, it is anticipated that a key to its role (over geologic time) is that it can orient a cells’ ability to adjust under varying conditions.

We know that energy-dependent proteolytic systems involving multicatalytic proteases (ex. steps in ubiquitination) are central to this notion. (See: Maupin-Furlow, Julie A., et al., “Proteosomes in the Archaea: From Structure to Function,” Frontiers of Bioscience, 5, d837-865, September 1, 2000.) Further, high turnover proteins are directly related to metabolic nodes. Such proteolytic systems are based upon “ring” structures that unfold proteins and facilitate their insertion into the appropriate catabolic processes. (Relate this also to attached scissor mechanisms on a synthetic helix.)

It is this ring-associated structural basis, relating to both eukarya (now) and prokarya (now and in the Archaean) that gives us a few more clues to L structure, and possibly an originally non-endosymbiotically-based origin for mitochondrial cDNA. Viroids, usually described as naked circular pieces of infectious RNA that fold back and anneal to form stable structures, are not affected by proteases or DNAse treatment. It is only with RNAse that viroids are destroyed. What could be a better progenitor system for the aforementioned proteosomal mechanisms? You may have ascertained, by now, that we are slowly reconstructing a theoretical L, from constituent parts: the V, the S, and the G(s).

The mechanism for viroid replication is poorly understood. Known viroids need no helper function and create havoc through cellular damage. A viroid, presented to the cytosol, via the action of a retroviral provirus may constitute the postulated V. Direct therapeutical advantages have been demonstrated, in experiment, with the use of retroviruses, that assimilate into the host genome and modulate mRNA’s.

As a matter of stating the required information: viral-based gene therapy is commonly practiced with retrovirus vectors as a gene induction system. (See:


Should the V be a combination of such a provirus and a viroid devoid of cytopathological aspirations (pardon the personalization), Defective Interfering Particles (DIPs) may be assayed in response to cells undergoing a simultaneous environmental stressor and a coinfection by a well-established viral gene replacement vector, such as an amphotrophic or polytrophic murine retrovirus. The possible association between the resultant DIPs and the mitochondrial cDNA may still be out of reach due to packaging capacity.

The produced DIPs would have to closely scrutinized. (Forgive my intervention into your Tiers.)”

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Subject: Protocol Section 6 of 6

Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:02:51 -0800
To: mj01

Here’s the last one…….just as you asked………Debbie.

“The conjecture of the lithospheric component, the S, leads us into the discussion of the selected respiratory foodstuff: Bacillus subtilis. This unique bacterium has had a long and very interesting relationship with human beings. (No. It was not by chance that it was picked for the original FBM study, some years ago. Yes. I had a “heads-up” on what I might find. I must, however keep that information a “Captive” of my mind and soul. You must understand, some things shared between “friends” that respect each other should remain in confidence until the “future” time is right.) Yes, what an interesting relationship!

May I refer the readers to the 1941 Nazi German medical corps’ interactions with, and their subsequent approval of the gobbling of warm camel dung? (See:  http://upwardquest.com/crit1.html   for some light cell-mediated immune response and humoral activation folklore.) Should that not suffice for reference, call JPL, they know just about “everything” concerning the Nazi’s, yes they do!. Why, where else do you think they obtained the policy to feed faeces to people?

The biological point here is this: Bacillus subtilis relates in some special manner to normal human-involved ecosystem biology. The critter has the ability to positively interact with human cytophysiology (while being taken internally), but is nominally only resident in soil. Further, I have previously theorized an association between research conducted on the YER057c/YjgF protein family (involving Bacillus subtilis biosynthetic PurA) and modulation of polycationic histone proteins binding to exterior phosphate groups on DNA (a communicating membrane transduction device, a key to extracellular control over nDNA, m/cDNA, and RNA synthesis…we’re a-talkin’ with cells! Please take a look at the theoretical transcriptions I produced at the “site”. I believe the nexus here is enough, now. If they say anything interesting involving the collective unconscious, ask them to tell my brain to let me know, okay?)

Isn’t the holographic Universe a beautiful place to be! See, also: Mission Genesis Discourse, June 2000, R4808) If we are to postulate a Bacillus subtilis type bacteria, within the strata, we would need to justify its residence. As I am sure that a dissertation on desert soil microbial community chemistry or viral absorption standards would bore you, I will continue. I would submit negative chemotaxis to ozone for the promotion of the niche, and a graded niche size relating to geophysical history. (See: Kim, J.G., Department of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University, “Inactivation of Bacillus subtilis Spores by Ozone in Combination with Heat or Pulsed Electric Field”, 2000 IFT Annual Meeting, 78F-3.)

Although spores of Bacillus subtilis are resistant to physical and chemical assaults, the addition of ozone appeared to sensitize the spores to heat. This is relevant as we understand that the unfolding of life’s progress demonstrates the procession from the thickest blanket of protection from ultraviolet radiation (deep ocean and deep geology) to a thinner one (euphotic, land, limnology, shallow geology, free-atmosphere and cloud-borne).

Simply put, this may be an artifact of the constraint of life to its proper place at proper times. Lest we forget: the public placement of the first mutualistic endosymbiosis of that which we call mitochondria is set only 100 M.Y. after our regarding the ozone shield sufficiently thickening, and the fossil record of such as Gunflintia, Huronospora, and Leptoteichus golubicii becoming a reality. Putting all of this together, we seem to be looking at a variety of bacteria that remains a candidate for the vehicle of the S, whether it acts as a mediator from an imbedded crystal protein, or directs relevant membrane transduction with the S being a resident item.

The G(s) are to be the greatest isolation difficulty and may only be realized indirectly, by the affirmative identification of the V, the S, and the behavior between the two. It may be as simple as a shuttle system, involving an organism such as Bacillus subtilis, Bdellovibrio bacterivorus, a Wolbachia-like type, or the like. It could also be as elusive as a phantom’s whisper.


With this information on our minds, what may have the original L have been? As a consequence, if we are to take the new direction of original viral totipotency, prokaryote and eukaryote development may have had no need for original endosymbiosis.

Future, successive endosymbioses (possibly with graded intracellular retention times) may then have acted (and still may do) under a “natural law” of sorts that increases internal variation, as such suppressing unfavorable or recessive traits. (Applaud for Darwin, here!) The intracellular symbioses may also act, in some yet unknown way, to support the protection the originally “planned” progression.

As to the reproductive strategy, we see it commonly, but may have been interpreting it from an incorrect bias. In the framework being expounded, the L was seeded in that mythic “time-before-time” as a “genesis egg” that provided the original unicellular differentiation program, similar to the spore development checkpoints in Bacillus subtilis; wherein the L’s capsid evaginated (See, also, meru.org on the Flower of Life) and provided the necessary phospholipid and proteinaceous materials to invaginate and compartmentalize the contents of the L as a communicating membrane-bound cell (i.e. a dual-ring heterochiral cDNA retrovirus absorption ‘metamorphosis’, based with a reverse-transcriptase like functional unit).

As the evagination progressed, it is postulated that the two rings of cDNA became separated through progressive intracellular invagination, each then becoming encased within their own environment (organelle), the original D-type-cDNA becoming the division driver of a new item, a mitochondrion, and the L(laevorotary)-type-cDNA undergoing homochiral transition as the driver of another organelle: the eukaryotic nucleus. (See: Speculative Intermediate Biochemistry,  http://sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm)

The almost frightening observation, implicit within this scenario (but commonly found in pattern by the present day virion), is the creation of prokaryotes from eukaryotes. Let your theoretical minds go wild under punctuated equilibrium scenarios and frantic with new notions of phyletic grandualism! This idea is heresy, so be it, and so the Sun no long spins about the earth, and the spirits fall inward through the time of gnosis. You have asked of me, so let it be.

For supportive concepts, look to the newer constructs of dissipative/replicative structures,  http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/pofdisstruct.html  and to this understandings’ ability to confront ancient cell size issues, 

Special Creation? Intelligent design?

Concluding Notes:

This protocol was not intended as a step-by-step analysis within an experimental design. That is not what was requested of the author. Rather, the “offer” was made to present a global idea stream so that all the “biscuits” were in plain view. The overall approach to the notions elucidated within this discourse offers the possibility of a new paradigm (albeit one that will NEVER see the halls of polite discussion).

It may give us clues as to why we see a Universe replete with structure conservation and sacred pattern repetitions. Recent work has been conducted by the “Procloners (as I like to call them)” on the back-engineering of stem cells from fully differentiated ones — their dedifferentiation into embryonic totipotency. What totipotency is this, however? Not only mammalian, but human, not generic eukarya.

This constraint is demonstrative of a contention that the L is not present in fullness under the experimental design, yet sequencing argues slight subunit differentiation between we and the chimps. (See Recent Developments: PPL Therapeutics.) From thence, no other so-called “species” can be made. In other words, we are still stuck in a macroevolution paradigm that is not proved, in either direction.

If we have proved that:

  1. A. We cannot assemble a logic string that requires 1 to 2 to 3 (ranging in temporally increased complexity);
  2. We cannot take the same reality of 1, 2, and 3, then dismantle them as 3 to 2 to 1 (ranging in decreased temporal complexity);
  3. We CAN associate them as 3 to 2 to 1, as a “progressive” system (this protocol);
  4. Why are we kneeling at the altar of a NeoDarwinian religion?

Does this ring old bells and light up old bulbs, guys? Sadly, it did with me. Add to all of this the genetic potential being holographic resonance between sequences of base pairs, and we have a case for a migraine, a case within which we are all incompetent.

So, then, I ask those of you “in the know”: why can’t we solve our future “problem” by stepping back (in respect for the Designer) and label our regard for the “problem” in terms of a “warning” rather than an issue to be “wrestled into reality”? Illusion. Have we not fallen from this before? Is this future, this “chimeric possibility”, not the true reason for imprisonment of truth-finders? Yes, I know the reasons.

They are written, they are foretold. It is sad that the “tear from the eye” on the red sands teaches you nothing as you watch those underfoot become awashed in the flood of history. I expect nothing as I cannot expect one to conduct a search of the soul after consummation of a “bargain”. I will never give up, for my soul travels and is given to Christ. I hear the screams of those yet unborn, in concert with the angels making indictment of humanity for the crimes being conducted upon the innocent and “innocence” in these, the “special” days.

I must give a warning, concerning those that may seek to rejoin the Lotus, once fully understood:

“And so He drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life. Gen. 3:24”

It’s time for me to go digging and to once more peer with the reticules of artisans. I feel in this research both the dwelling peace of Christ and the arrogance of that one who would aspire to place himself above the stars of heaven. I do this research because my soul is driven to encounter truth, no matter what “cell” into which I become “evolved”.

Should the Lotus be confirmed, the power will exist to humbly ask for forgiveness of our transgressions onto the boundary of Eden, and to wipe away the stain we have so arrogantly placed upon our future. That is my reason, my hope. Decide wisely. The one of avarice still seeks the Throne, the unattainable, and would revel in our continued destruction. I am caught between the need to help and a reason not to assist. I would be simply honored beyond my worth to have a glimpse at its beauty, never to touch.

The Tree of Life is reserved for the hand of God.

Cpt. Danny B Catselas Burisch,

Ph.D. (U.S.M.C., Ret.)


Leave a Reply