text:
Category Archives: UFO
Five thousand inventions in limbo and under "secrecy orders" at the US Patent Office
I wrote and posted this article in 2018. I recently revisited it and confirmed how important this information, gathered by Steve Aftergood, is.
For decades, people have been accusing the government of hiding advanced technology. Here we have a serious clue. Something in the record and on the record. It is only a very small piece of the puzzle, but it's a potent piece, if you'll stop and think about it.
The world is waking up to censorship of information by the press, by corporations, and by government. Here we have what amounts to a US government POLICY of censoring certain inventions, groundbreaking inventions.
Here is my brief 2018 piece:
How many of these patents, if granted, would be game changers for planet Earth? Who knows?
Buckle up. Here we go.
From FAS (Federation of American Scientists), Secrecy News, Oct. 21, 2010, "Invention Secrecy Still Going Strong," by Steven Aftergood:
"There were 5,135 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office told Secrecy News last week. It's a 1% rise over the year before, and the highest total in more than a decade."
"Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if government agencies believe that disclosure would be 'detrimental to the national security'."
"The current list of technology areas that is used to screen patent applications for possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act is not publicly available and has been denied under the Freedom of Information Act. (An appeal is pending.)…"
"Most of the listed technology areas are closely related to military applications. But some of them range more widely."
"Thus, the 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction IF THE PHOTOVOLTAICS WERE MORE THAN 20% EFFICIENT. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction IF THEY OFFERED CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES 'IN EXCESS OF 70-80%'." (Emphasis is mine.)
"One may fairly ask if disclosure of such technologies could really have been 'detrimental to the national security,' or whether the opposite would be closer to the truth. One may further ask what comparable advances in technology may be subject to restriction and non-disclosure today. But no answers are forthcoming, and the invention secrecy system persists with no discernible external review."
If you're one of those people who maintains that advanced technology is being held away from the public, here is an overall smoking gun that validates your stance.
And you can see that breakthrough energy tech, which would radically lessen the need for oil, would be on the secrecy-do-not-release list.
What else is on the list? Old Tesla patents, for example?
The US Patent Office is an official chokepoint for the "planned society"—or should we say the "restricted society."
But this is not to say advanced technology is always shelved or scuttled. The patent applications, in suspended animation at the US Patent Office, can be quietly disclosed, for example, to government researchers engaged in black-budget projects, where the data and the research are turned to "other uses."
Innovative inventors, who can revolutionize society for the good, incur risks if they submit their patent applications to the State. Getting trapped in limbo, while outright theft of their research occurs, is one of those risks.
On the other hand, if a giant corporation has an invention that deploys the genetic engineering of food crops, and adds millions of tons of toxic pesticides to the environment, its patent application sails through review at the Patent Office…
10 Comments Posted in Government Fraud, UFO
In light of the resurgence in the news this past week regarding President Trump's announcement of a proposed 'Space Force', as a new, sixth branch of the military (see here and here), I'm re-posting my article on secret patents… For many individuals, the notion of being in outer-space on various missions, brings their imaginations and energy to the fore, in tremendous ways — as in, The Flood. And, when that happens, then things start to happen — for the betterment of all of us. President Trump is reminding us of the imagination and energy inside each of us — and that, in-and-of-itself, is a gesture that should never be underestimated. With that said, what are some of the technologies needed for various successfully-conducted space missions? And, how many of those technologies are currently being withheld from the public in secret?
How many of these 5,000-plus patents, if granted, would be game changers for planet Earth? Who knows?
On the other hand, if a giant corporation has an invention that deploys the genetic engineering of food crops, and adds millions of tons of toxic pesticides to the environment, its patent application sails through review at the Patent Office.
(To read about Jon's mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
12 Comments Posted in Government Fraud, UFO Tagged Patents, Space Force
(To read about Jon's collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)
32 Comments Posted in Government Fraud, Technocracy, UFO Tagged Patents
Head of secret Pentagon program says UFOs can "warp space-time"—what?
Luis Elizondo, former head of a secret Pentagon program studying UFOs, is now extending his recent remarks about craft witnessed in our skies…
In an interview with the UK Daily Star (2/8), Elizondo made the following boggling comments:
"For the first time, we have a compelling picture that what we are seeing is explained in our current understanding of physics, advanced physics, and quantum mechanics."
"We do believe all these observables we've been seeing, sudden and extreme [UFO] acceleration, hypersonic velocities, low observability, trans medium travel, and last but not least, positive lift, anti-gravity – is really the manifestation of a single technology."
"So it's not five exotic technologies we're trying to figure out, it's one, and we think we know that one too."
"We believe it has to do with a high amount of energy and the ability to warp space-time, not by a lot, but by a little."
The Sun also obtained a comment from Elizondo's colleague, physicist Hal Puthoff: "Puthoff came to the conclusion that the [UFO] craft can effectively create their own time-space bubble, which allows them to fly at such incredible speeds."
My, my.
A space-time bubble? Warping space-time?
Elizondo claims such stunning capacities can be understood by Earth physics—but at what level? Speculative? Conceptual? Or in a way that would allow American engineers to build their own craft capable of performing staggering feats and maneuvers? It's easy to say, "We understand this," when no assembly is required and you just spin hypotheses. I can come up with a hypothesis which explains how multi-ton stones were transported up a mountain road, centuries ago in Peru, and fitted together perfectly, with primitive technology—as long as I don't actually have to replicate the feat now, using ancient means. I can blow that kind of smoke.
As I've discussed in several previous articles, Elizondo (a former intelligence officer who ran clandestine operations in Latin America), and a host of other former Pentagon and CIA players, are now attached to rock musician Tom DeLonge and his fledgling To the Stars Academy.
This odd marriage raises questions. For example, are the high-level players using DeLonge to disseminate the UFO story as a THREAT-FROM-SPACE SCENARIO, requiring gigantic new sums of money to build defenses against extra-terrestrial attacks?
The Pentagon-CIA nexus has always positioned "UFO disclosure" in those terms. "We have a battle to fight, and we must prepare ourselves against potential alien forces. Give us more money."
Elizondo has now doubled down. He's claiming scientists understand how UFOs do what they do.
Let's see some evidence.
Not just concepts and abstract equations, but hardware—located, perhaps, at the famed and walled-off Lockheed Skunk Works in Palmdale, California.
Or is Elizondo merely passing along sensational-sounding "information," designed to rope in a new generation of UFO enthusiasts, and lead them to accept a "threat-from-space" story?
Is the "warp" really about a space-drive, or is it about Elizondo's distortion of facts?
52 Comments Posted in UFO
"UFO Disclosure": a covert op to discredit real disclosure
The current Tom DeLonge disclosure happened in a most curious way. Suddenly, several high-level ex-CIA spooks and Pentagon insiders joined Blink-182 rocker DeLonge's team, a start-up company called "To the Stars Academy." One of the team members, Luis Elizondo, rolled out information on a UFO Pentagon program he headed up.
But Elizondo, for years, ran clandestine covert ops in Latin America for the US intelligence community.
Another DeLonge team member, Steve Justice, was once the program director of the Lockheed Skunk Works in Palmdale, California, where super-secret aerospace (and UFO?) research is carried out.
Jim Semivan, another DeLonge team member, "retired from the Central Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Operations after 25 years as an operations officer, both overseas and domestically," states the Academy website.
Chris Mellon "served 20 years in the federal government, including as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and Bush Administrations."
Paul Rapp's "past honors include a Certificate of Commendation from the Central Intelligence Agency for 'significant contributions to the mission of the Office of Research and Development'." (Note: This office, ORD, was where the CIA's MKULTRA mind control program secretly landed, in 1962, after it purportedly ended.)
Norm Kahn—"Dr. Kahn had over a 30-year career with the Central Intelligence Agency…"
This is an impressive team of insider heavy hitters, with extensive backgrounds in deception.
In order to roll out secret information about UFOs, they COULD HAVE FORMED AN INDEPENDENT GROUP OF THEIR OWN, WITH NO AFFILIATION, AND LAUNCHING FROM THAT PLATFORM, THEY COULD HAVE GAINED INSTANT CREDIBILITY WITH THE PRESS AND MUCH OF THE PUBLIC.
That's how UFO disclosure could have happened.
But no. Instead, they chose to align themselves with a rock musician who has stated: "Hello, my name is Tom DeLonge from the Blink-182. I have brought together an elite team from CIA, DOD and the FMR Director of Advanced Programs at Lockheed Martin's SkunkWorks. We are aiming to build this ElectroMagnetic Vehicle to Travel INSTANTANEOUSLY through Space, Air and Water BY ENGINEERING THE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME. Our company is called To The Stars… and you can invest in our plan to revolutionize the world with technology that can change life as we know it." [emphasis added]
Compare how these government insiders COULD HAVE done disclosure as opposed to how they actually DID disclosure.
Getting the picture?
They aligned themselves with the perfect person who would bring down the scorn and mockery of the press.
Because clean and credible and convincing disclosure wasn't their number-one objective.
What was their objective?
Obviously, to attract a certain amount of negative reaction.
In the world of intelligence ops, this would be called a limited hangout with a twist.
You put out a few tidbits of information, thus concealing the largest part of the truth—and at the same time you associate yourself with a bizarre source who will surely stain the quality of your limited hangout.
Again, Elizondo, the point man for recent UFO revelations, could have stepped up to the podium at a global press conference and said, "I want to introduce you to my elite team of former government insiders. After discussions, we've decided to form OUR OWN group and tell the truth about UFOs. We represent no one in government or outside government. We need no mouthpiece or promoter. We're simply here to reveal hidden reality…"
But instead, he and the other insiders signed on with Tom DeLonge, a man they didn't need and whose reputation would do them no good.
If you believe that choice was a simple error in judgment, committed by long-time CIA and military spooks with large ops experience, I have condos for sale on Venus.
The plan was to disclose and smear the disclosure. Confess and stain the confession. Admit and cast doubt on the admission.
If that isn't so, if there is some other reason for these insiders to join forces with DeLonge, let's hear it.
UFOs, Tesla, DeLonge, ETs, covert ops
(UFO archive, here)
"I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device." — Nikola Tesla, Brooklyn Eagle (10 July 1931)
This is a "what if" story. But it's also based on decades of experience analyzing propaganda and cover stories.
It's based on the knowledge that military and intelligence operatives are trained to lie, and they like to lie, and they get up in the morning, licking their chops, because they know they're going to lie during another day in paradise.
Is Tesla and his breakthrough science the hidden element in UFO research? Is he being buried under a welter of cover stories? In any event, cover stories ARE being floated in great numbers.
Nikola Tesla and other outlier scientists were researching anti-gravity in the 20th century. Upon his death, Tesla's research papers were stolen by the government and never released.
What has the US government been doing at secret research facilities since World War 2— such as the famed Lockheed Skunkworks in Palmdale, California—and whose technology have they been using?
Have they been advancing Tesla's (and other outlier scientists') work? They would certainly try.
Would this US research be pointed toward building military craft capable of extraordinary speeds and maneuverability? Certainly.
Could this technology, at the root, have other applications—such as new modes of energy production that would eliminate the need for an oil economy? Possibly.
That would be a key reason for secrecy. Absolute secrecy.
If secrecy was the goal, extensive cover stories would have been developed and pushed—to this day.
And what better way to disseminate those stories than through government insiders, who feed information to UFO spokespeople?
"The UFOs are ET alien."
I'm not saying this notion must be entirely false—I'm saying it can be USED to bury the root truth.
If secret technological advances—from science and scientists here on Earth—in the areas of energy, transportation, and space travel—would a cause a revolution in society—because a vast abundance of energy would be available for all—how would this fact be managed by oligarchs who rule through scarcity, war, and destruction?
One: float the story that advanced tech comes from ETs.
Two: wrap the ET story up in speculative fairy-tale mythologies, thus creating an occasion for scorn and mockery.
Three: via guilt by association, reject the entire idea that advanced secret technology exists, because it is married to comic book tales of ETs.
Note: the above step-operation works, whether or not ETs exist and have visited Earth.
Read this:
"For example, a new concept of spacecraft and aerospace flight arises from the possibility of the electromagnetic control of the gravitational mass. The novel spacecraft called Gravitational Spacecraft possibly will change the paradigm of space flight and transportation in general. Here, its operation principles and flight possibilities…will be described. Also it will be shown that other devices based on gravity control, such as the Gravitational Motor and the Quantum Transceivers, can be used in the spacecraft, respectively, for Energy Generation and Telecommunications." ("The Gravitational Spacecraft" (full paper), Fran De Aquino, Maranhao State University, Brazil, December 3, 2013, from the Electric Space Craft Journal 27)
I'm not asserting these statements are true. I'm merely illustrating one of hundreds of articles and papers that have appeared on the subject of advanced technologies outside the realm of conventional science.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, and even earlier, researchers have been studying and writing about such technologies. It would be a mistake to think that military tech centers have blithely ignored this body of literature.
As they deride it, they examine it, and they use what they can.
In secret.
In secret, because they want to protect what they learn from their military enemies. And also because technology which could crack too many barriers and overturn the control of society must be kept in darkness.
Tesla, 1892: "Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."
Suppose there are two entire bodies of scientific research: the one we know about, which is displayed in published studies, media articles, and press releases from governments and corporations; and a second body, which is separate and secret and more advanced, conducted in government and corporate facilities shielded from view. This would create a significant problem. How is the second body protected and denied?
That problem falls into the lap of disinformation specialists. A long-range program must be developed. It must contain many vectors.
Unidentified Flying Objects exist. Whatever their origin(s), they appear in the skies. They execute maneuvers at speeds that are "impossible." Their actions prove that advanced technology exists.
So, One, the UFOs need to be explained. And Two, they provide an occasion for disinformation.
Who will present that official disinfo? Why, officials, of course.
Where will they come from? The intelligence establishment. The military establishment. Because those departments and people "have been investigating the aerial phenomena."
Over the years, these high-level officials will, while remaining in the shadows, pass along "secrets" to independent UFO researchers. The names of these military/intelligence officials will occasionally surface. Rumors about them will abound.
Every tidbit they offer to UFO researchers will be accepted and adored like a superior Christmas gift under the tree.
In no case will the leakers say, "We've developed astounding technology based on the work of Earth scientists, and we're keeping this tech secret."
Of all the leaks, that won't be one of them.
Instead, the implication will be: we here on Earth couldn't have developed such engineering capability. Out of the question.
Finally, in 2017, a whole group of elite ex-intelligence and military officials will step forward, together, as a "team" connected to a fledging Academy in the private sector. Its spokesman will be Tom DeLonge, a rock musician.
These ex-officials will confirm that remarkable UFOs exist, and the technology they exhibit surpasses anything known about on Earth.
Again, the engineering "could not have been developed by and from Earth scientists (working in secret)."
What does exist is "a highly exotic program to analyze off-planet UFOs."
Over time, this latter assertion will be met with scorn. And mainstream journalists will wonder aloud about the Academy, the rock musician, and the bizarre gathering of ex-government officials around the musician.
Mainstream reporters will (as Daniel Liszt, the independent Dark Journalist has already pointed out) realize how strange it is, for example, that "recovered materials from UFOs" are being kept in a Las Vegas warehouse, under the control of billionaire, Robert Bigelow, instead of at the nearby Area 51 labs.
Other anomalies will surface. The whole UFO Disclosure episode will take on a woo-woo quality.
It's called "blown cover as cover." You admit secrets, thus appearing to blow your cover, but at the same time you're hiding the deeper truth.
"Look, boys, we need to explain these UFOs whizzing around. We need to exclude ourselves as the primary secret engineers of these craft. So we paint ourselves as the somewhat befuddled and amazed recipients of technology from ET civilizations. That's all we are. We're trying to figure out what we've been handed on a silver platter. We don't know what we're doing. We're children playing with adult machines. We're, in a sense, victims. See? This plays into the whole op about humans as weak, incapable, and certainly unable to achieve genuinely heroic feats. Now, we're not going to admit to the ET scenario out in the open. No. Officially, we don't know anything about that. But we are going to give the green light to a few of our own guys to step forward and push the ET story. They'll do it in a way that avoids any kind of blame directed at them or us. They'll just throw up their hands and say the technology behind these UFOs is light years beyond anything that exists on Earth. They'll say the universe is so big there must be other life out there. They'll leave the rest to the imagination. And then, maybe, just maybe, they'll say YES, these flying craft ARE ET, as if they can't hold back the truth any longer, as if they've been painted into a corner and have to confess. At that point, the press will go after them. The press will call them fabulists and fakers and wild exaggerators. And once again (we've done this before), the house of cards will fall apart. The press and the government and the public will shake their heads and move away from the UFO story and advanced secret technology to other things…"
Consider this recent statement Tom DeLonge made about his new Academy:
"Hello, my name is Tom DeLonge from the Blink-182. I have brought together an elite team from CIA, DOD and the FMR Director of Advanced Programs at Lockheed Martin's SkunkWorks. We are aiming to build this ElectroMagnetic Vehicle to Travel INSTANTANEOUSLY through Space, Air and Water BY ENGINEERING THE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME. Our company is called To The Stars… and you can invest in our plan to revolutionize the world with technology that can change life as we know it." [emphasis is mine]
How likely is it that these "elite team members" have gathered around DeLonge with confidence that he is the right person to disclose the truth about UFOs?
They certainly knew his views before they joined up. Why did they pick him?
What are the "Vegas odds" on this venture succeeding with the press and public?
Isn't it likely the operation was put together in order to fail?
In order to bring a new level of scorn down on the heads of UFO disclosers in general?
I'll give you an analogy. Suppose you were an important mainstream vaccine researcher, and after long and hard reflection, you decided you were going to step forward and blow the whistle on the enormous dangers of vaccination. You notice there is a civilian out there who is making quite a stir about the issue. He, too, is against vaccination—BECAUSE, HE SAYS, HUMAN DISEASE IS REALLY BEING CAUSED BY VIRUSES FROM OUTER SPACE, AND NO VACCINES CAN PROTECT THE HUMAN FAMILY AGAINST THAT THREAT.
Would you sign on with him? Would you allow him to front for the vaccine issue and represent you?
On the other hand, if you were that vaccine researcher, and you were SENT out, on purpose, to present anti-vaccine views, with the express purpose of making those views appear ridiculous, and you could eventually walk away and obtain a plum job in the private sector or win a series of grants, and everyone would forget about your brief misadventure in the "anti-vaccine movement," you would certainly seek out this person who talks endlessly about viruses from outer space, and you would make a temporary deal. You would, for a short time, be "the leaker." As a working disinformation pro, you would take one for the team. The real team: the medical cartel.
UFOs exist.
They're real.
They exhibit very advanced tech.
They're designed to work.
But the elite propaganda about them is designed to fail.
Top questions and doubts about UFO whistleblower, Luis Elizondo
"The day of final UFO revelation is at hand! Glory! The government heroes in the shadows have stepped forward with the good news! All hail! Let us praise these insiders and bow down! Our efforts have not been in vain!"
No kid gloves, no fawning gratitude toward sources.
For far too long, government insiders who offer UFO "revelations" have been given a free pass.
They should be treated like any other sources for breaking stories. "Your information is fascinating, but I have lots of questions about you and your background."
There is a history of these insiders spreading disinformation or lies mixed with truth. This is how intelligence and propaganda operatives work. For instance, they could present tidbits about actual UFO sightings along with false claims about recovering "alien bodies." Those latter claims would be part of their covert agenda.
Suppose secret government/corporate programs have been using the stolen work of Tesla and other outlier researchers to achieve advanced propulsion technology? They cover up that fact by spinning tales about alien ET tech. I'm not asserting that's what happened, but it would illustrate why they would float lies…
Journalism—by which I mean independent journalism—should be miles past the point of asking softball questions and naïvely accepting "breakthrough revelations" from government sources.
In the wake of recent NY Times UFO disclosures from Luis Elizondo, a former intelligence operative who headed up a secret Pentagon program to study UFOs, many questions arise. Not one reporter who has gained access to Elizondo has publicly queried him at length about his suspect background in the intelligence community.
It would be more than interesting to get serious answers from Mr. Elizondo. They would provide a new jumping off point for further investigation.
Vetting a government insider isn't easy. You ask many questions, you observe how he answers them, you keep pressing and probing and form your best assessment of the person. You don't just lie down and accept him running you over like steamroller.
Here are questions Mr. Elizondo should respond to:
* Mr. Elizondo, in your extensive high-level work as an intelligence case officer, did you ever plant stories in the press? False stories? If not, let me put it to you this way: if you had seen the value of planting a false story, in order to move a covert operation forward, would you have done it?
* Mr. Elizondo, you resigned from the Pentagon in October. Almost immediately, you began revealing secret UFO information to the public and the press. What about your non-disclosure agreements with the government? You violated them, didn't you?
* Did you have permission from the government to ignore those agreements? If so, how did you arrange that?
* If not, what has the government told you about your violations?
* It appears the Pentagon wanted you to speak publicly about UFOs. True? If so, why?
* According to Pentagon sources, you took several UFO videos with you when you resigned. You originally obtained these videos, in order to train pilots on how to respond when they encountered UFOs—but then you turned around and used the videos to inform the press and public about the reality of UFOs. Is this true? Has the government communicated with you about this?
* In your interviews, you mention that the government, or one of its sub-contractors, has been studying materials from UFOs. What specific materials? How were they obtained? From captured UFOs? Crashed UFOs? Where are these UFOs now? Did the reporters at the New York Times ask you about this?
* Is it true that scientists have been unable to analyze the composition of "UFO metals?"
* Why, after decades of denial and silence, did the New York Times suddenly use you as a main source for a UFO story? Did the Times have a green light from the Pentagon?
* You state that the secret Pentagon program, under your leadership, studied reports of UFOs and compared the probable technological capability of those vehicles to the technology the US possesses. Did you probe what has been going on at the Lockheed Skunkworks in Palmdale, California? What have you discovered about advanced secret technology at the Skunkworks and other facilities?
* As a "whistleblower," have you decided to parcel out what you know in small pieces, over time? If so, why?
* How did you move from working as a case officer, running clandestine operations in Latin America, to heading up a secret Pentagon program on UFOs? The shift seems odd, to say the least?
* Surely you understand that, because intelligence operatives are trained to lie and deceive, there are doubts about your veracity now. Your comments?
* Why did the New York Times suddenly break a huge UFO story? Why now? It certainly appears that you, the Times, and the Pentagon are operating in concert, bypassing the usual secrecy, denial, and skepticism. What's going on?
* Your background includes "Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, with research experience in tropical diseases." Where did you study these subjects? For what purpose?
* You're now a member of Tom DeLonge's team at To the Stars Academy. Several members have significant medical backgrounds. Here are quotes from the Academy's website:
Dr. Norm Kahn's career with the CIA "culminat[ed] in his development and direction of the Intelligence Community's Counter-Biological Weapons Program."
Dr. Paul Rapp "is a Professor of Military and Emergency Medicine at the Uniformed Services University."
Dr. Garry Nolan "is the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine…He holds a B.S. in genetics from Cornell University, a Ph.D. in genetics from Stanford University."
Dr. Adele Gilpin, "is a scientist with biomedical academic and research experience as well as an active, licensed, attorney."
Dr. Colm Kelleher "is a biochemist with a twenty-eight-year research career in cell and molecular biology currently working in senior management in the aerospace sector. He served as Laboratory Director at biotech company, Prosetta Corporation, leading several small molecule drug discovery programs focused on viruses of interest to the United States Department of Defense. He worked for eight years as Deputy Director of the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), a research organization using forensic science methodology to unravel scientific anomalies. From 2008-2011, he served as Deputy Administrator of a US government funded threat assessment program focused on advanced aerospace technology. Dr. Kelleher has authored more than forty peer reviewed scientific articles in cell and molecular biology, immunology and virology as well as two best-selling books, "Hunt for the Skinwalker" and "Brain Trust". He holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Dublin, Trinity College."
* What are all these medical people doing on your team? Are we about to be treated to warnings about "viruses from outer space?" What is the bio-medical component of UFO disclosure? Are you looking for huge government funding for new programs in this area? Is THIS a covert agenda behind your breakout story about UFOs?
* If you were running a UFO disinformation op on the public, what is the most important lie you would float, and why?
* Would you agree that such disinformation ops have been run in the past? Give us an example or two.
* Your Academy has released a statement which claims "there is sufficient credible evidence of UAP [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena] that proves exotic technologies exist that could revolutionize the human experience." Are some of those technologies already under the control of the Lockheed Skunkworks? One member of your new team is Steve Justice, who "is the recently retired Program Director for Advanced Systems from Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs – better known as the 'Skunk Works'." He should know the answer to that question. What does Steve have to say? How would you suggest we check his statements?
Mr. Elizondo, I'm asking all these questions, because the mainstream press isn't.
If you claim we are in a new era of honest Disclosure, that honesty should include you answering these and other inquiries. After all, you're the prime source of the current story. As such, you should be willing to open up and address doubts.
Or are you banking on naïve public acceptance of your assertions?
If that's the case, you're only adding to the decades of obfuscation surrounding the UFO issue.
I'm here, I'm ready, able, and willing to have you lay your cards on the table.
No, I don't expect you to contact me. But I do air these questions so people can compare them to what reporters will ask you in the months to come.
Which brand of whistleblower are you? The limited-hangout variety, or a no-holds-barred truth teller?
Certainly, you know we are used to hearing from government limited-hangout artists, and the truth tellers are rare, to say the least.
If you want to be recognized as authentic, you'll have to go the extra mile.
To put it another way, if a career intelligence officer, who has worked with the US Army, the DOD, the National Counterintelligence Executive, the Director of National Intelligence; who has conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world; who has acted as an intelligence case officer running clandestine operations in Latin America and the Middle East—if such a person approached me with secret information about UFOs, I would naturally want do everything I could to vet him.
Well, that person is you. That is your resume.
You should be willing to answer a very large number of pointed and specific queries.
A UFO encounter for the ages (don't worry, nothing happened, go back to sleep)
In my work as a reporter over the past 35 years, I've studied how major media cover stories. One of their consistent blunders:
Failure to follow up.
But it isn't really a blunder.
There is a boundary, and reporters aren't allowed to cross it.
Therefore, it looks like these reporters are inherently stupid. They don't ask the right questions. They back away from a story just when it becomes vital.
Well, many of them are stupid—but it's often a trained response. Over time, they learn to act as if they're clueless; and then, after years, they are.
What is this boundary? It's the line beyond which "important people" would be damaged and exposed, if the reporter followed his instincts and pressed forward.
Important people, important institutions are like giants standing on slippery mud. Give them a push, and they fall. Start digging around in the mud, and they fall.
Official reality falls.
The underlying dictum of the press is: Official reality must never fall.
Here is a stunning example of a day when it did—a UFO encounter for the ages.
On March 18, 2001, Jeff Rense (rense.com) published an article by Frank Altomonte, headlined: "SIX 'SAUCER-SHAPED' UFOS AND FACE-TO-FACE ET CONTACT IN LA IN 1957."
Altomonte dug up a November 6, 1957, article from the LA Times. Not just any article. Page one, under a huge black banner headline at the top of the page: MYSTERY AIR OBJECTS SEEN IN SKY OVER LA.
Read these 1957 quotes, and remember, this is the LA Times, the most important newspaper in Los Angeles, and one of the leading papers in the US—during a time when print journalism was still the main source of information for the public.
"They (USAF personnel) spotted six 'saucer shaped flying objects' at an altitude of about 7000 feet at the base of a cloud bank about 3:50 p.m."
"Those unidentified flying objects first reported over Texas and Gulf of Mexico arrived over Southern California yesterday."
"Personnel at Los Alamitos Naval Air Station reported unidentified objects in sight almost continuously between 6:05 and 7:25 p.m."
"Lt. Richard Spencer, a flying officer, saw the object from the ground. 'It was not a star and it was not an airplane', he said. He admitted, however, that it appeared to be 'starlike,' and added that it glowed in varying colors, changing from bright to dim and back again."
"Airport Tower Operator Louis D. Mitchell and a sentry on duty, Hospitalman Charles Kreiger, also observed the object. Almost all observers were agreed that the object moved slowly — almost imperceptibly, across the sky. Most were agreed that the direction of travel was north or northwest."
"Lending credence to the reports was the fact that…Air Force weather observers, including the commanding officer of the unit, acknowledged sighting unidentified phenomena over Long Beach Municipal Airport."
"They spotted six 'saucer shaped flying objects' at an altitude of about 7000 feet at the base of a cloud bank about 3:50 p.m."
"Maj. Louis F. Baker, commanding officer of the weather observation post, who sighted the objects with his assistants Airmen Joseph Abramavage and William Nieland said: 'They were circular and shiny like spun aluminum changing course instantaneously without loss of speed like planes in a dogfight,' Maj. Baker said. He said the objects were larger than a twin engine C-46 aircraft and were in sight for about a minute and a half."
"The objects also were observed by 10 military personnel waiting to board an airplane at the airport, the spotters reported. Maj. Baker said he rejected the theory that the objects were sheet ice in a cumulonimbus cloud because of their regular circular shape."
"An electronics executive, Merlin G. Perkins, 1102 N. Wright St., Santa Ana, said he observed an object though binoculars for almost a half hour as it moved slowly overhead finally fading away into the reflected light above the Santa Ana business district. It appeared to be round and it winked slowly from dim to bright, with a reddish glow, Perkins said."
The November 6, 1957, LA Times also ran a short piece from the Associated Press, dated a day earlier. AP is, of course, one of the two or three largest news wire services in the world.
"New Orleans, Nov 5 (AP) — The Coast Guard cutter Sebago sighted an unidentified flying object over the Gulf of Mexico at 5:21 a.m. today. The object, seen for about three seconds, resembled a brilliant planet moving at tremendous speed."
There is much more to Altomonte's article, but you're getting the picture.
As far as the LA Times was concerned, back in 1957, what happened next? What did they do?
No follow-up.
One of the most significant events in modern times occurs over the skies of Los Angeles, with multiple professional observers (and private citizens also quoted), so you would assume an EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION would be launched.
"OK, boys, this is when you earn your paychecks. You're supposed to be relentless reporters. I'm your boss, and this is when I earn my paycheck, too. I'm setting you loose. I don't care how long it takes. Find out what the hell this is. Break down doors. Go up against the Pentagon and the CIA. The Times will back you up. Is it people from another planet? Is it our own secret craft, with onboard technology no one has ever heard of? Is it Nazis, Russians? We're going to chase this until the cows come home. And by cows, I mean you. Come home with the true story. We're not going to let go. You'll never cover another story like this in your lives…"
But no.
That didn't happen.
The massive follow-up that should have launched from the Times, like rockets, was squelched.
Looking at the LA Times archives, for the day AFTER the boggling UFO story, I find two major headlines. The first is above the masthead: "Halimi beats Macias for Title." The second: "Rocket Artillery Unveiled by Russ[ians]."
Here today, gone tomorrow.
Ten years later, many people in Los Angeles would barely remember the UFO encounter. Well, the LA Times hadn't kept the story alive.
"Say Bob, do you recall that thing where a whole lot of UFOs flew over the city? Did it really happen? Maybe I just had a dream about it. Strange…"
And thus, official reality is preserved.
A hole ISN'T punched in the literal and figurative sky. Instead, citizens go about their business and their lives.
"Hi, I'm an amnesiac."
Collective reality is often maintained through omission. A shocking event occurs, an event which, if pursued and investigated, would change the course of history. The press is forced to cover the event…which then sinks below the waves. By design.
If you assembled, say, a hundred such shocking occurrences end to end, and you watched them bob in the water and then disappear from view, the residue—what is left over—would be official reality.
The event I cite most often in these pages occurred on July 26, 2000. That was the day the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, published a review by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The review was titled: "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?"
Dr. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. In a follow-up interview I did with her, she said this was a conservative estimate.
Extrapolate: Every decade, the US medical system (through FDA approved, correctly prescribed medicines, and mistreatment in hospitals) kills 2.25 MILLION Americans. Let that sink in.
When Dr. Starfield's review was published in the year 2000, a flurry of mainstream press articles appeared. Then: nothing.
No follow-up. No investigation. No relentless probing by the mainstream press. The story died.
As if it never happened. The "it" being Dr. Starfield's report and the fact of 2.25 million medically caused deaths per decade.
Archived in a never-never undersea library of vague memories.
Indeed, I once spoke with a physician about the Starfield Report and he said, "Was that a real review? Was it actually published? I think I heard something about it."
I said, "You mean it might have been a dream you had? Just a dream?"
You've heard the term "alternative reality?" Well, that's the one eight billion people on Earth are living in. Now.
The actual reality has been submerged by the eyes, ears, and mouth of the public: the major media News.
14 Comments Posted in Press Fraud, UFO
UFO Disclosure: the insider game of "reliable sources"
In the current wave of UFO disclosures, the press (in particular, the New York Times) has decided to use Luis Elizondo, a career intelligence case officer, as its main source.
This choice reveals a time-honored strategy of elite news operations: cherry-pick who is reliable and who isn't.
Of course, the press presents its case as flowing FROM the source. But that's not true, because reporters and editors could have used other "reliable sources" to tell a different, or even contradictory, story.
Everything depends on who, at the moment, is pumped up and ushered on to center stage, and tagged as "reliable."
I'm not saying Mr. Elizondo is telling lies from wall to wall. But, for example, where was the Times when reports began to emerge of UFOs appearing at a missile base in Montana (1967) and shutting down launch-capability? There were a number of professional military observers at the time. They could have been deemed "reliable sources," but they weren't. For decades, this event has been suppressed or downplayed by the mainstream press.
"Well, we did look into it, but we concluded there just wasn't enough there. We didn't go with the piece because the confirmation was thin." That's a frequent excuse. Often, it doesn't hold water. It reflects an arbitrary decision to ignore a valid account.
This is how the game is played.
"Reliable source" can be managed, on a case by case basis.
"Let's see. We can imply the steep rise in autism is the result of more careful monitoring of cases, or a genetic problem, or the rapid expansion of the CDC vaccination schedule. Let's do a piece on genetics. Who can we tap for comments? Round up the usual list of expert sources and get quotes. 'New research suggests a stronger link to genes than previously supposed.' That'll work…"
When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century, in 1987, I decided to look into the widely promoted notion that HIV had spread to humans, in Africa, through contact with green monkeys. When the US press wants to promote a "new disease," they inevitably go to far-off places around the globe for their "origin story." The last time I looked, no new epidemic has ever begun in Brooklyn. I called a prominent AIDS researcher at Harvard. Without pause, he told me the green monkey theory had no evidence to support it. Well, obviously, the press hadn't used him as a "reliable source." They might use him to comment on other matters, but not this one—because "green monkey" was the preferred scenario for the moment.
On the UFO front, the Times could have jumped with both feet into Steven Greer's Disclosure Project years ago (twitter). Greer had scores of military and intelligence officers who were testifying to all sorts of UFO contact. But back then, the story was verboten. So the sources were ignored.
Sometimes, the graduation from nonsense-story to breaking news isn't the decision of a major press outlet. The newspaper or broadcast network takes its cue from a "higher authority." The CIA or the Pentagon, for example. Or from an anonymous heavy hitter who will never be revealed. Depending on the topic of the story, the heavy hitter could exist within the core of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Vatican, the upper reaches of the "banking community" (a Rothschild front man), etc.
This is the "green light" phenomenon. What was once a studiously ignored piece suddenly turns into an imperative to publish. The chosen news outlets jump into action.
The green light can also click through indirect means. Consider the name, Jim Semivan. He is on Tom DeLonge's team at the newly formed To the Stars Academy, the group which includes Mr. Elizondo, mentioned above. Here is a thumbnail bio of Mr. Semivan from Simon & Schuster publishers: "Jim retired in 2007 after a 25-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency's National Clandestine Service. At the time of his retirement he was a member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service. Jim served multiple overseas and domestic tours along with senior management positions in CIA headquarters. He is the recipient of the Agency's Career Intelligence Medal."
Semivan's emergence in UFO disclosure activities would alert the New York Times that it should pay attention to any information coming out of To the Stars Academy. Semivan is more than a witness or a researcher. He's a high-level man connected to the intelligence community. If he backs up a story, it's "official."
I'll give you a name: Richard Dolan. Dolan is the author of books on UFOs, and he is a publisher in the same field. A highly intelligent observer, when he makes inferences from data he explains his reasons. He possesses a formidable knowledge of UFO incidents over the course of decades. Major media outlets could go to him as a direct source for articles, or as a guide who could point them to credible stories. But that doesn't happen.
Why? Because Mr. Dolan could unleash "too much information." He could open up too many cans of worms. And he doesn't have an official position in government or corporate circles.
He is reliable, but not in the media sense of the word. He could give, say, the reporters at the New York Times far more help than their editors could—but that doesn't matter.
What matters to the Times and other mainstream outlets is the agenda of the moment. And who will bolster that agenda.
Why isn't long-time UFO researcher Grant Cameron writing op-ed pieces for the Times? He has a very interesting take on how various UFO spokespeople have been used by the military-intelligence complex. Alas, Cameron makes too much sense. He goes too deep. So instead, a Times reporter writes a human-interest story about his father. The father was a veteran UFO watcher, who sadly died before the US government "admitted UFOs exist," a couple of weeks ago.
At any time over the past 40 years, the Times could have assigned a couple of reporters the job of assembling a history of bullet-proof UFO-encounter stories. For a major article. An article that would have settled the issue once and for all: UFOs, whatever they are, exist, and they exhibit extraordinary capabilities.
But "it wasn't time."
Now, it is.
The green light is on. But it is only glowing for certain people, and for chosen news companies.
The Reliable Ones.
Therefore, when the Times, or a comparable media operation, discloses UFO revelations, the stories—accurate or not—reflect a purpose that is hidden.
That purpose is never the unvarnished and complete truth.
Over the past 35 years, working as a reporter, I've spoken off-the-record with a number of mainstream journalists. They readily admit to making "partial disclosures," otherwise known as limited hangouts. They explain this as "sticking to the facts at hand." But that's not true. They also admit their editors keep them from digging deeper on a story.
Digging deeper would, of course, expose unpleasant scandals the public shouldn't be aware of. And in the process, people who are deemed unreliable sources would be vindicated. If THAT happened, the whole proprietary media egg would crack.
The public would understand, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that big media cherry-pick their sources, and mainstream news is a stage play.
An acid test: If the New York Times gave the first five pages of their paper to a few independent UFO reporters for a week, those reporters could write a slew of hard-hitting factual pieces that would shake the foundations of knowledge about UFOs. Sales of the paper would skyrocket, and names like Luis Elizondo and Jim Semivan would fade far into the background. The public would realize that verified sightings of UFOs go back at least 50 years. And that would be just the beginning of actual Disclosure.
"Reliable source" is a pliable term. In the media landscape, it implies that editors and publishers are in charge of defining it, at any given moment, to suit their agenda.
If tomorrow, for example, the Times decided that the famous Lockheed Skunkworks, located in the desert (Palmdale, California), was their primary target, as in—what have they been building out there for years?—a whole new raft of reliable sources would come into play overnight. Setting their hounds loose, with no restrictive deadline, the Times might experience what it's like to operate as an actual news outlet.
They would eventually penetrate many cover stories. What would they discover?
The former director of the elite Skunkworks, Ben Rich, before his death, is reported to have said (UCLA School of Engineering speech, March 23, 1993): "We now know how to travel to the stars…There are many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in the black and not see the light of day."
Now there's a potential source—an insider's insider. Did Ben Rich say that? Is it true? If it's true, how did Lockheed develop/obtain the technology?
Why not pursue that lead and run it down?
"Well, we don't like to rely on dead sources, especially when they make bizarre claims."
Who says the claim is bizarre? The CIA? The Pentagon? Lockheed?
They're automatically listed as reliable?
Is "hard to believe, hard to fathom" an unimpeachable standard for barring investigations without further thought?
Wasn't, for instance, the whole CIA MKULTRA mind control program bizarre and hard to believe, before it was exposed?
Thousands of events and programs are impossible, before they turn out to have happened.
The idea that the New York Times, the number one media outlet in the world, isn't devoted to the truth—that idea would be very hard for many people to believe; until it's shown to be factual.
"Hi, I'm major media. I depend on reliable sources. I decide who is reliable and who isn't, on any given day of the week. I use these sources to construct and shape Reality for the masses. That's my job. I spend gargantuan amounts of money in this effort. After all, inventing Reality is an awesome mandate. You can't fool around with that. You must be convincing. If I tried and failed, the consequences would be devastating. A few billion people would see holes in Reality Itself. This is not permitted to happen."
Ah, but it is happening. Deepest apologies.
The Reality Manufacturing Company is at DEFCON 1, red lights are blinking, and systems are going down.
Current UFO disclosures and the incredible edible New York Times
The first thing to understand is that the New York Times broke the latest UFO story.
The story about: a secret Pentagon UFO research group; a US fighter jet that encountered a UFO off the coast of San Diego; and the recovery of "UFO metals."
The Times broke the story, and then it quickly went global.
On the subject of UFOs, that never happens.
But it did.
Furthermore, the Times expressed no doubts about the information it was disclosing. There wasn't the usual "he said, he said" treatment.
No detractors and harsh critics were quoted. This was a straight-from-the-Pentagon to the Times pipeline.
The Times story had all the earmarks of a government gift, not a leak.
This, too, never happens.
The conclusion: the Pentagon wanted this story to come to light. Someone high up in the Pentagon, or someone outside the Pentagon, with major clout, gave the green light to the Times. He assured the Times the story was real. Perhaps he even gave an "order" to release the information.
As discussion and vetting of the UFO story occurred at the Times, before they went to print, the overriding and decisive factor was: "somebody big wants this to move forward." Case closed.
But we shouldn't assume the motive for disclosure was, at the top, generous and benign and innocent. Because we're talking about the Pentagon and the CIA, the people who always have a concealed agenda.
If they give the public a few bread crumbs, or even a steak, there is a 15-course meal behind that, and the meal is never served.
Long-time UFO researcher, Grant Cameron, has pointed out that the American strategy for hiding secrets (for decades) has been: partial disclosure. Periodically, now and then—"Here's a small piece. Chew on it."
This is the US government approach.
Except—the recent Pentagon offerings haven't been leaked via some small-press book published in a print shop—they've been shot out of information-guns directly to the most prestigious mainstream news outlet in the world: the New York Times.
That's different. Very different.
And just now, the Times has published two more UFO articles. The first, by senior reporter Dan Barry, is headlined: "Dad Believed in UFOs. Turns Out He Wasn't Alone." Barry's father was a veteran UFO watcher. He died before the Pentagon finally admitted UFOs are real. That's the hook of the article. It's a human interest piece. And it's overwhelmingly positive re UFOs. Again, you don't see this sort of thing from the Times—not ever—but there it is.
"UFOs: Is This All There Is?" is the second Times piece, by Dennis Overbye. It's a soft back and forth: something is happening in the sky but we don't know what it is. No harsh naysaying. No nastiness.
Both of these pieces lend support to the original Times blockbuster about the secret Pentagon UFO program.
All this could very well mean that what is being hidden, now, is much larger than what has been hidden in the past. For example, new technological discoveries and advances have been made in the areas of propulsion systems and energy production, beside which the old discoveries pale by comparison.
In that case, the latest partial disclosures needed to be stronger, in terms of their impact. Impact as diversion from the deeper truth.
And the NY Times would carry the ball.
Who was the paper's main source for the breaking UFO disclosure? Luis Elizondo, the man who headed up the Pentagon UFO program, until he resigned. Elizondo is now part of rock musician Tom Delonge's team at his newly formed To the Stars Academy. Elizondo's new association hardly qualifies as a "good source" for an outlet like the Times.
Further, anyone who reads Elizondo's bio at the Academy website would have reason to pause for thought:
"Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East."
Excuse me? The number one mainstream news operation on the planet accepts what Elizondo is saying at face value? On the verboten subject of UFOs? When everyone knows career intelligence officers are trained to lie at the drop of a hat?
The Times has suddenly become a "UFO site?"
Having received Elizondo's assertions, the Times would have gone to its long-time sources at the Pentagon, and the Word would have come back: this is rock solid fact. Which, again, tells you the Pentagon wanted this story to be published. Strongly wanted.
If Donald Trump holds a water bottle in two hands and puckers his lips as he takes a sip, the Times would wonder aloud whether he was suffering from Alzheimer's. But all of a sudden, on the topic of UFOs, the story the Times is being fed is honest and accurate, and there is no need to consult the usual experts who provide "balanced" criticism and "negative reactions."
One conclusion: the Times is prepared to publish more UFO stories. Quotes from other military/intelligence sources. Unless the blowback from rival news outlets is too severe.
Another inference: the Times already has other videos of UFOs and other "irrefutable" interviews in the can.
Whatever they eventually publish, no matter how shocking, it will be a very, very small fragment of what the government (and those who control the government) is hiding.
If, five years ago, you polled the most competent and knowledgeable independent UFO researchers, and asked them whether they thought the New York Times would ever publish a major positive UFO story, who among them would have predicted what we are seeing now?
Finally, this could now happen: someone at the Times, a senior editor, or even the publisher, goes to the Pentagon and says, "Look, we're begging off. We've done our job. We did what you told us to do. But now, other news operations are going to have to carry the freight. We can't afford to incur a stain on our reputation. We broke the barrier. You'll have to find other people to move your story forward…"
But the Times will forever be remembered as the first—they took their marching orders and delivered. They fronted for, and sold, a limited hangout, against all odds.


text:
Twittering Machine
By Colin Herd.
Laconia: 1,200 Tweets on Film, Masha Tupitsyn, Zero Books 2011
The sheer number of films and books to be encountered in Laconia is remarkable: 421, as indexed in order of appearance at the back of what is an extraordinary (and somehow unlikely) book: '1,200 Tweets on Film' by film critic, cultural theorist and fiction writer Masha Tupitsyn. Tupitsyn's 2007 book Beauty Talk and Monsters blended film criticism with fiction and memoir, not getting into any of those categorical wardrobes, but leaving them all wide open with the contents disturbed. Movies in Beauty Talk and Monsters are a part of the experience of reality, and reality as full of special effects and elaborate Hollywood trickery as any movie; both above all potent arenas for feminist critique and politics.
In many ways, Laconia continues this project, replacing the fictional framework of Beauty Talk and Monsters' with the structural scaffolding provided by Twitter. And the importance of their origin on Twitter makes itself strongly felt throughout the text; it's a very different book to what 1,200 Aphorisms on Film would have been, for example. It's impossible in Laconia to get away from the fact that this book forms just a part of the long stream-like text that Twitter users compose everyday, and beyond that the long text we're all always writing with every utterance, every email etc, etc. There's an awareness that the text is in the broadest sense a part of the culture it's critiquing.
Twitter itself is sometimes the target of Tupitsyn's observational, witty, right-on-the-mark and pull-no-punches criticism:
"109. It's typical that when it comes to Twitter celebrities grovel to fans to get them to follow them in order to reach a goal number
3:08pm July 30th
110. – a million followers for Ashton Kutcher or 20,000 for the new-to-Twitter John Cusack. And yet celebrities only follow other celebrities.
111. Fans stay at the bottom and stars stay at the top. Only now celebrities pretend to "reach out". Or as one twitterer @KevinAlban humorously
112. put it: "Twitter: Enabling celebrities to fight back since 2006."
The range of the material Tupitsyn considers manages to combine a pleasing eclecticism with a sense of thematic engagement. That tweet about Twitter, for example is part of a strong Baudrillardian thread running through the book about our relationship with celebrity culture and in particular about the advent of 'reality' celebrities: "After years of watching fake movie lives maybe movie life is now more real than real life."
While Tupitsyn tweets about films as disparate as Kramer vs. Kramer, The Lovely Bones, Avatar and My Fair Lady, the book also features in-depth if fragmentary analyses of multiple works by filmmakers and actors such as Hal Hartley, John Cassavetes, Hitchcock, Theresa Russell and Truffaut. The tweeting style varies dramatically from anecdotal, personal, critical, academic, gossipy, sometimes simply a quotation; but what is always conveyed is a sense of someone in the act of thinking, thinking reactively to film and culture, where film and culture are a vehicle to thought, but the town you drive that vehicle through as well.
The title, 'Laconia', refers to a mode of expression using as few words as possible, characterised by concision and concentration. But it also brings to mind the word 'lacuna', and Tupitsyn's writing is thoroughly invested in the idea of the fragment as method of criticism and analysis, writing and thinking. Because she gives the time of each tweet, and presents them chronologically, our attention is drawn to the way her writing and thinking unfold in time. Her approach is non-totalising, dramatising the process of responding and reacting to films and culture, rather than advancing a single thesis. Tupitsyn's writing makes use of the lacunae between the tweets in the manner of linebreaks in poetry:
"812. In Mrs. Soffel, which sounds like soulful, Mel Gibson's face is threaded between prison bars, and fire and snow go together.
10.55 PM Jan 29th
813. In the subway ads for Audible.com, men read men. How about Sean Penn reads Sylvia Plath's Bell Jar or Jeremy Irons reads Emily Dickinson?
5.13 PM Jan 31st"
The two-day gap between tweets and the disjunct in their mood and content is genuinely startling and funny, as well as being rich with a kind of unintended synergy: the "rhyming" of prison bars with music bars. In other instances, Tupitsyn's tweets roll over the character-limit to develop more sustained sentences which trip off hot on the heals form the previous tweet, mere minutes later, as in the Twitter tweet quoted above, and sometimes the two are combined: two quick tweets and then a 45 minute gap (the gap of thinking, or the interruption of something into the process of thinking, only to pick up the thread a little later):
"779. Reality TV personality Heidi Montag states: "I'm in an industry. I'm in the limelight, and I have to do what makes me happy at the end of the
780. day." Happiness and industry are officially one and the same. Montag also said that her message is : "Beauty lies within." Within what,
781. industry? Is there even a "within" left in this country? Within has become entirely without.
The experience of reading Tupitsyn's tweets in a book doesn't quite recapture the experience of seeing them accumulate on the screen, filtered through the text-overload of Twitter's endless stream, but the retention of the disrupted, broken-up textual surface, where you have to jump across the ends of tweets like a stone path across a river somehow makes this act of dramatised thinking feel more crucial, more critical and urgent.
With Laconia, Tupitsyn does for Twitter what Kevin Killian did for the Amazon review in his two-volume Selected Amazon Reviews. They've taken the structures and conventions of networking features on internet mega-sites and attuned and altered them into art forms and vehicles for their particular, nuanced, extraordinary artistic intelligences.
Colin Herd lives and writes in Edinburgh. He is co-editor of Anything Anymore Anywhere. Poems have appeared in Shampoo, Streetcake, Velvet Mafia, Gutter and Pop Serial, and reviews in the blog of Chroma journal. His chapbook, Like, is published by Knives Forks and Spoons Press and his poetry collection, too ok, by BlazeVOX.
First published in 3:AM Magazine: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Commentary | Open | Published: 05 July 2007
Chemical accuracy in QM/MM calculations on enzyme-catalysed reactions
Adrian J Mulholland1
Combined quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) modelling has the potential to answer fundamental questions about enzyme mechanisms and catalysis. Calculations using QM/MM methods can now predict barriers for enzyme-catalysed reactions with unprecedented, near chemical accuracy, i.e. to within 1 kcal/mol in the best cases. Quantitative predictions from first-principles calculations were only previously possible for very small molecules. At this level, quantitative, reliable predictions can be made about the mechanisms of enzyme-catalysed reactions. This development signals a new era of computational biochemistry.
Ever since the catalytic power of enzymes was first recognised, chemists have wondered and argued about how they work. Enzymes are outstandingly efficient natural catalysts. Better understanding of the mechanisms by which they achieve these catalytic properties promises technological spin-offs such as routes to new drugs (many drugs are enzyme inhibitors, which bind to enzymes and prevent them from functioning), analysis of the effects of genetic variation and mutation (for example in predicting individual metabolism of pharmaceuticals); and the design of new catalysts (for example biomimetic catalysts or engineered enzymes). There is great interest in developing protein catalysts for practical applications, for instance in the pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology industries. Computational modelling has a vital role to play in these developments: unstable species such as transition states and reaction intermediates are crucial to questions of reactivity, but cannot be studied directly by experiment in systems as complex as enzymes. The field of enzyme reaction modelling has grown enormously in recent years and has matured to the point that computational enzymology is increasingly recognised as essential for understanding these fascinating biological catalysts [1–4]. Recent calculations [5] bring a new level of accuracy to bear on the problem, essential for quantitative conclusions and comparisons with experiment.
Combined quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) methods allow enzyme reactions to be modelled: a small region at the active site (where the reaction happens) is treated by a quantum mechanical electronic structure method; this region interacts with the protein and solvent environment, which are included more simply (though in atomic detail) by an empirical 'molecular mechanics' force field [1, 2, 4, 6]. This approach combines the simplicity and speed of the MM treatment of the protein structure with the flexibility and power of a quantum chemical treatment (which allows modelling of bond breaking and making, and electronic polarization). Until recently, QM/MM investigations of enzymes have generally been limited to relatively low levels of QM theory, such as semi-empirical methods or density functional theory (DFT). Semi-empirical methods are computationally cheap, fast enough for QM/MM molecular dynamics simulations, but error-prone, and give reaction energies and barriers that can be in error by 10 kcal/mol or more. DFT (especially with the B3LYP hybrid functional) offers improved accuracy, and has opened new classes of enzymes (particularly metalloenzymes) to computational investigation [7], such as studies of cytochrome P450 enzymes that metabolize drugs in the body [8, 9]. These DFT methods, however, lack key physical interactions, such as dispersion, which are important in the binding of ligands to proteins. DFT often gives barrier heights that are too low by several kcal/mol, and it does not offer a route to their systematic improvement or testing, making it difficult to assess the accuracy of results. Other modelling methods such as the empirical valence bond technique can give excellent results for enzyme activation energies [3, 10], and have provided important insights into the basic causes of catalysis. Such empirical approaches, however, require extensive fitting to experimental data, and do not consider the electronic structure explicitly.
Enzymology has been marked by vigorous debates and controversial proposals about enzyme mechanisms, and about the physical origins of enzyme catalysis. Identifying the chemical mechanisms of enzymes has proved difficult: it is often hard to differentiate between alternative proposals, and many 'textbook' mechanisms are probably incorrect in important details. Recent controversies over enzyme catalysis include proposals of 'low-barrier' hydrogen bonds [11–14], 'near-attack conformations' [4, 15, 16], the role of enzyme dynamics in catalysis [2, 3], quantum tunnelling [17] and entropic effects [3]. The applicability of transition state theory to enzyme reactions has been questioned. These arguments have often proved extremely difficult to resolve, because the complexity and large size of enzymes makes experimental analysis very difficult. Atomistic simulations have a potentially vital role to play in these debates, in the interpretation of experimental data, and in providing a molecular level picture of reactions in enzymes. Calculations have the potential to identify probable mechanisms, and to analyse key interactions and catalytic effects. For quantitative comparisons with experiments, and reliable predictions, high-level electronic structure methods are needed. Recent work by Claeyssens et al. has shown that it is now possible to achieve an unprecedented level of accuracy for enzyme-catalysed reactions in QM/MM calculations [5]. Calculated activation energies for two enzyme reactions agree very well with experiment; indeed the agreement is so good that, given the known properties of the high-level methods now available, it is clear that near chemical accuracy (1 kcal/mol) can be achieved in calculations on enzyme-catalysed reactions. Such quantitative predictions in first principles calculations were only previously possible for very small molecules. These findings herald a new era of computational biochemistry.
The calculations focused on two enzymes that have become paradigms for computational investigations: chorismate mutase (CM) and para-hydroxybenzoate hydroxylase (PHBH). Both have been studied previously with lower-level (semi-empirical and ab initio) QM/MM methods [4, 15, 18–23], and a wealth of experimental data is available for comparison. CM catalyses the Claisen rearrangement of chorismate to prephenate, a key step in the biosynthesis of essential aromatic amino acids. The reaction catalysed by PHBH, an electrophilic aromatic substitution involving a hydroperoxyflavin cofactor, is important in the microbial breakdown of aromatic pollutants and lignin from wood. Earlier modelling had been encouraging, for example in showing correlations between experimental rates and calculated activation energies for the key step in PHBH [24], in addition to identifying groups involved in lowering the energy barrier to reaction by transition state stabilization in both enzymes [4, 22, 23]. The barriers calculated at these lower levels of QM/MM treatment were, however, typically significantly different from experiment by 50% or more.
Computational chemistry is notorious for its love of acronyms, which can make judging the results of calculations difficult for non-specialists. The 'gold standard' of quantum chemistry is provided by first principles – 'ab initio' – methods that include correlation between electrons. They allow the calculation of rate constants for gas-phase reactions involving very few atoms with an accuracy similar to that obtained experimentally [25]. For example, the hierarchy of ab initio electron correlation methods MP2 (Møller-Plesset second-order perturbation theory), CCSD (coupled-cluster theory with single and double excitations) and CCSD(T) (CCSD with a perturbative treatment of triple excitations) provide a a route to converging reliably to high accuracy. These methods have previously been limited to small molecules because of their very large computational expense, which increases enormously with the size of the system studied. This large increase in computational cost is mostly due to the fact that the molecular orbitals are delocalized over the whole system. Physically, dynamic correlation between electrons is a short-ranged phenomenon in covalent molecules. The vital electron correlation effects can therefore be treated accurately and efficiently by localizing the molecular orbitals. Using a range of approximations it is possible to achieve effective linear scaling of the computational requirements of calculations with molecule size. With recent developments[26] it is now possible to treat systems of the size of typical QM regions in QM/MM calculations on enzymes (for example 24 atoms in CM; 49 atoms in PHBH).
The model of PHBH, constructed by Thiel et al., contained 7004 protein atoms, and surrounding water, altogether around 23,000 atoms. The model of CM, for the enzyme from Bacillus subtilis, contained 4192 protein atoms and 947 water molecules, in an approximate sphere of radius 25Å around the active site. To account for conformational variability of the enzymes, structures were taken from MM and QM/MM molecular dynamics simulations. (QM/MM molecular dynamics simulations, with semi-empirical QM methods, were also used to calculate activation free energies). These structures were used for reaction modelling, in which the structure is minimized at a series of set values of a reaction coordinate, defined in terms of breaking and forming bonds. Ten separate pathways were calculated for PHBH, and 16 for CM, with the results averaged over all paths. The paths were calculated at the B3LYP/MM level, which gives good structures.
Energies along the reaction pathways were calculated at the MP2, LMP2 and LCCSD(T0) levels (the L in the acronyms indicates that local approximations were used, and T0 is an approximate triples correction [27]), including the effects of the atomic point charges of the MM atoms in the calculations. These included by far the largest coupled cluster calculations ever performed (the calculations on PHBH involved 284 electrons and 1294 basis functions). Approximations included in the calculations were tested; for example, calculations were repeated with a much larger QM region for CM, showing a change in barrier of only 0.7 kcal/mol. The convergence with respect to basis set size was tested at the MP2 level, showing a change in barrier of less than 0.5 kcal/mol when very large basis sets were used. Similarly, tests showed the local approximations had an effect of less than 0.5 kcal/mol. Altogether, the errors in the best (LCCSD(T0)) barriers can be estimated to be less than 1 kcal/mol compared to extremely high (CCSD(T)) levels of quantum chemical theory, which are known, from calculations on small molecules, to give accurate barriers (i.e. typically within 1 kcal/mol of experiment. The accuracy obtained for energy barriers by Claeyssens et al. is unprecedented for enzyme reactions, and has been previously been difficult to attain even for small molecules.
How, then, do the calculated barriers compare with experimental findings for these enzymes? To make this comparison, the calculated (potential energy) barriers should be corrected for the quantum mechanical zero-point energy and thermal energy of molecular vibration: zero-point energy is calculated to reduce the barrier by 1.5 kcal/mol in CM, and by 1.1 kcal/mol in PHBH. In contrast, the thermal vibrational contribution is small (0.1–0.2 kcal/mol). With these corrections, the calculated barriers can be compared directly to experimental activation enthalpies. Experimental kinetic data for enzymes typically give steady-state rates, and so in making a comparison it is important to remember that a single chemical step may not be rate limiting – many enzymes have rates (at least partially) determined by conformational changes or product dissociation, for example. For both CM and PHBH, it has been suggested that other steps may be rate-limiting under some conditions. The chemical steps in both cases are thought to have barriers close to the apparent activation energy for the overall reaction.
The activation enthalpies calculated at the highest levels of quantum chemical theory (LCCSD(T0)) are in excellent agreement with experiment (within ~1 kcal/mol) for both enzymes. The calculated value for CM (average 13.3 kcal/mol, with a root mean square variation of 1.1 kcal/mol across 16 pathways) can be compared with the experimental value of 12.7 kcal/mol, while for PHBH the calculated and experimental activation enthalpies are 13.3 ± 1.5 kcal/mol and 12.0 kcal/mol, respectively. Only the LCCSD(T0) barriers are in close agreement with the experimental results. The LMP2 and B3LYP methods give barriers that are 3–5 kcal/mol too low. This shows that a high-level electron correlation treatment such as LCCSD(T0) is required for quantitative predictions of barrier heights (and probably other properties) in enzymes. In the transition state, more electrons are close together, and so the correlation energy is very different from that of the ground state. Electron correlation is therefore very important in determining the barrier.
The key quantity in determining reaction rates is the activation free energy (Δ‡G), not the enthalpy. To calculate free energy differences, the effects of protein motion should be included, i.e. averages over ensembles of structures. Activation free energies can be calculated from molecular simulations, such as molecular dynamics simulations. Such simulations are feasible for enzyme reactions with more approximate QM/MM methods, e.g. using semi-empirical QM techniques. In general, the best approach will be to calculate the free energy profile at the low level, and correct it based on the difference between low- and high-level QM/MM potential energy profiles. The difference between the average activation enthalpy and the activation free energy gives an estimate of the entropic contribution to the barrier. For both CM and PHBH, the estimated entropic contributions (at a temperature of 300 K) are small: 2.5 kcal/mol for CM (similar to the experimental value of 2.7 kcal/mol) and 0.4 kcal/mol for PHBH. Adding these entropic contributions to the calculated enthalpies at the highest QM/MM level gives free energy barriers very close to those obtained experiment: for CM, the (LCCSD(T0)) calculated Δ‡G is 15.6 ± 1.1 kcal/mol (versus 15.4 kcal/mol from experiment); for PHBH the calculated Δ‡G is 13.7 ± 1.5 kcal/mol, comparable to experimental values of 14–15 kcal/mol.
The agreement between calculated and experimental energy barriers is excellent for both enzymes. The comparison is made based on transition state theory, and the quality of the agreement indicates that transition state theory describes these enzyme-catalysed reactions well. Dynamical effects apparently play only a small role in determining the rate. Classical TST is known to be insufficient in some cases, but corrections for dynamical recrossing and quantum mechanical tunnelling can be included [2, 17]. Despite some previous suggestions to the contrary, it seems that transition state theory provides a good general framework for understanding the rates of such enzyme-catalysed reactions.
Many challenges remain. Among these is the need for extensive conformational sampling to achieve convergence in free energies. In general, the best approach will be to calculate free energy profiles at a low level and correct them using high-level calculations. Determining reaction pathways can be difficult. Improvements to simple MM models (e.g. to include polarization and more sophisticated descriptions of electrostatics) are also likely to be necessary. The QM and MM methods should be consistent and balanced. The treatment of the QM region is only part of the challenge; it is important to have a good structural model of the surrounding enzyme (usually derived from X-ray crystallography), and to consider carefully, for example, the solvation of the protein and the protonation states of ionizable groups in the protein. The pKas of basic and acidic amino acid sidechains can be significantly altered in the enzyme environment. Using the wrong protonation states could lead to the prediction of an incorrect mechanism. It is worthwhile to test methods of pKa prediction, particularly for active site residues. Predictions of amino acid pKas in proteins can be made with simple but effective empirical methods such as PROPKA [28], or by finite-difference Poisson-Boltzmann calculations.
Given these many challenges, and the complexity of enzymes, validation of modelling methods by comparison with experiment will be very important. Many enzyme reactions involve several chemical and conformational changes [29, 30], and the chemical step(s) may not always be rate limiting. Often experimental rates only for overall reaction under steady-state conditions are available. Experimental kcat rate constants do provide an upper limit on the barrier for any step in the mechanism, however. Even when the rate of a single step has been measured, this is likely to represent an average over many enzyme molecules in solution, whereas a calculated barrier is generally for a single molecule. Comparisons between experimental rates and calculated barriers should therefore be done with care. Transient kinetics and single molecule studies will be particularly useful for detailed comparisons. Detailed comparison with experiment will be a fascinating challenge, now that calculations based on first principles allow quantitative predictions on enzyme mechanisms to be made. These computational techniques also promise to make a significant contribution to other areas of biology and chemistry.
The results of Claeyssens et al. show that electronic structure calculations can now predict activation barriers for enzyme-catalysed reactions with 'chemical accuracy', i.e. to within 1 kcal/mol in the best cases. At this level, quantitative, reliable predictions can be made about the mechanisms of enzyme-catalysed reactions. This development signals a new era of computational biochemistry.
Mulholland AJ: Modelling enzyme reaction mechanisms, specificity and catalysis. Drug Discovery Today. 2005, 10: 1393-1402. 10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03611-1.
Garcia-Viloca M, Gao J, Karplus M, Truhlar DG: How enzymes work: Analysis by modern rate theory and computer simulations. Science. 2004, 303: 186-195. 10.1126/science.1088172.
Warshel A: Computer simulations of enzyme catalysis: Methods, progress, and insights. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2003, 32: 425-443. 10.1146/annurev.biophys.32.110601.141807.
Martí S, Roca M, Andrés J, Moliner V, Silla E, Tuñón I, Bertrán J: Theoretical insights in enzyme catalysis. Chem Soc Rev. 2004, 33: 98-107. 10.1039/b301875j.
Claeyssens F, Harvey JN, Manby FR, Mata RA, Mulholland AJ, Ranaghan KE, Schütz M, Thiel S, Thiel W, Werner H-J: High Accuracy Computation of Reaction Barriers in Enzymes. Angewandte Chemie Intl Edn. 2006, 45: 6856-6859. 10.1002/anie.200602711.
Friesner RA, Guallar V: Ab Initio Quantum Chemical and Mixed QuantumMechanics/Molecular Mechanics (QM/MM) Methods for Studying Enzymatic Catalysis. Ann Rev Phys Chem. 2005, 56: 389-427. 10.1146/annurev.physchem.55.091602.094410.
Himo F, Siegbahn PEM: Quantum Chemical Studies of Radical-Containing Enzymes. Chem Rev. 2003, 103: 2421-2456. 10.1021/cr020436s.
Bathelt CM, Zurek J, Mulholland AJ, Harvey JN: Electronic structure of Compound I in human isoforms of cytochrome P450 from QM/MM modelling. J Am Chem Soc. 2005, 127: 12900-12908. 10.1021/ja0520924.
Shaik S, Kumar D, de Visser SP, Altun A, Thiel W: Theoretical perspective on the mechanism of cytochrome P450 enzymes. Chem Rev. 2005, 105: 2279-328. 10.1021/cr030722j.
Bjelic S, Åqvist J: Prediction of Structure, Substrate Binding Mode, Mechanism, and Rate for a Malaria Protease with a Novel Type of Active Site. Biochemistry. 2004, 43: 14521-14528. 10.1021/bi048252q.
Cleland WW, Frey PA, Gerlt JA: The Low Barrier Hydrogen Bond in Enzymatic Catalysis. J Biol Chem. 1998, 273: 25529-25532. 10.1074/jbc.273.40.25529.
Mulholland AJ, Lyne PD, Karplus M: Ab initio QM/MM Study of the Citrate Synthase Mechanism. A Low-Barrier Hydrogen Bond is Not Involved. J Am Chem Soc. 2000, 122: 534-535. 10.1021/ja992874v.
Schutz CN, Warshel A: The low barrier hydrogen bond (LBHB) proposal revisited: The case of the Asp … His pair in serine proteases. Proteins: Structure, Function, Bioinformatics. 2004, 55: 711-723. 10.1002/prot.20096.
Molina PA, Jensen JH: A Predictive Model of Strong Hydrogen Bonding in Proteins: The Nδ1-H-Oδ1 Hydrogen Bond in Low-pH α-Chymotrypsin and α-Lytic Protease. J Phys Chem B. 2003, 107: 6226-6233. 10.1021/jp0340663.
Hur S, Bruice TC: Just a Near Attack Conformer for Catalysis (Chorismate to Prephenate Rearrangements in Water, Antibody, Enzymes, and Their Mutants). J Am Chem Soc. 2003, 125: 10540-10542. 10.1021/ja0357846.
Strajbl M, Shurki A, Kato M, Warshel A: Apparent NAC effect in chorismate mutase reflects electrostatic transition state stabilization. J Am Chem Soc. 2003, 125: 10228-10237. 10.1021/ja0356481.
Masgrau L, Roujeinikova A, Johannissen LO, Hothi P, Basran J, Ranaghan KE, Mulholland AJ, Sutcliffe MJ, Scrutton NS, Leys D: Atomic Description of an Enzyme Reaction Dominated by Proton Tunneling. Science. 2006, 312: 237-241. 10.1126/science.1126002.
Lyne PD, Mulholland AJ, Richards WG: Insights into Chorismate Mutase Catalysis from a Combined QM/MM Simulation of the Enzyme Reaction. J Am Chem Soc. 1995, 117: 11345-11350. 10.1021/ja00150a037.
Senn HM, Thiel S, Thiel W: Enzymatic Hydroxylation in p-Hydroxybenzoate Hydroxylase: A Case Study for QM/MM Molecular Dynamics. J Chem Theory Comp. 2005, 1: 494-505. 10.1021/ct049844p.
Guo H, Cui Q, Lipscomb WN, Karplus M: Substrate conformational transitions in the active site of chorismate mutase: Their role in the catalytic mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001, 98: 9032-9037. 10.1073/pnas.141230998.
Guimarães CRW, Repasky MP, Chandrasekhar J, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL: Contributions of Conformational Compression and Preferential Transition State Stabilization to the Rate Enhancement by Chorismate Mutase. J Am Chem Soc. 2003, 125: 6892-6899. 10.1021/ja021424r.
Claeyssens F, Ranaghan KE, Manby FR, Harvey JN, Mulholland AJ: Multiple high-level QM/MM reaction paths demonstrate transition-state stabilization in chorismate mutase: correlation of barrier height with transition-state stabilization. Chem Commun. 2005, 5068-5070. 10.1039/b508181e.
Ridder L, Harvey JN, Rietjens IMCM, Vervoort J, Mulholland AJ: Ab initio QM/MM modeling of the hydroxylation step in p-hydroxybenzoate hydroxylase. J Phys Chem B. 2003, 107: 2118-2126. 10.1021/jp026213n.
Ridder L, Mulholland AJ, Vervoort J, Rietjens IMCM: Correlation of Calculated Activation Energies with Experimental Rate Constants for an Enzyme Catalyzed Aromatic Hydroxylation. J Am Chem Soc. 1998, 120: 7641-7642. 10.1021/ja980639r.
Wu T, Werner H-J, Manthe U: First-Principles Theory for the H + CH4 —> H2 + CH3 Reaction. Science. 2004, 306: 2227-2229. 10.1126/science.1104085.
Manby FR, Werner H-J, Adler TB, May AJ: Explicitly correlated local second-order perturbation theory with a frozen geminal correlation factor. J Chem Phys. 2006, 124: 094103-10.1063/1.2173247. (6 pages)
Schütz M: Low-order scaling local electron correlation methods. III. Linear scaling local perturbative triples correction (T). J Chem Phys. 2000, 113: 9986-10001. 10.1063/1.1323265.
Li H, Robertson AD, Jensen JH: Very Fast Empirical Prediction and Interpretation of Protein pKa Values. Proteins: Structure, Function, Bioinformatics. 2005, 61: 704-721. 10.1002/prot.20660. [http://propka.ki.ku.dk/]
Lodola A, Mor M, Zurek J, Tarzia G, Piomelli D, Harvey JN, Mulholland AJ: Conformational effects in enzyme catalysis: Reaction via a high energy conformation in fatty acid amide hydrolase. Biophys J. 2007, 92: L20-L22. 10.1529/biophysj.106.098434.
Pentikäinen U, Pentikäinen OT, Mulholland AJ: Cooperative symmetric to asymmetric conformational transition of the apo-form of scavenger decapping enzyme revealed by simulations. Proteins: Structure, Function, Bioinformatics. 2007,
The author thanks his collaborators in the work described here. He also thanks EPSRC, BBSRC and the IBM High Performance Computing Life Sciences Outreach Programme for financial support.
Centre for Computational Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TS, UK
Adrian J Mulholland
Search for Adrian J Mulholland in:
Correspondence to Adrian J Mulholland.
Transition State Theory
Activation Free Energy
Free Energy Profile
Chorismate Mutase
Chemical Accuracy