A Note on Our Contributor

Due to the enormous popularity and critical response to our most recent posting, we here at The Encouraging Voice of The Labyrinth decided to continue with a further posting derived from results from the F-1 Time Scoop in Subic Bay. However, we must also address the attendant controversy that many commentators have noted about this research project and our reasons for publishing results derived from this source.

Originally hailed as a breakthrough in the intelligence communities, the F-1 Time Scoop has met with violent skepticism and disbelief from its inception. It avoids the many causal paradoxes attendant on time travel that result from the communication of matter, energy or information from the future to the past by a virtual process called flawed lapse modeling. Part of the proof of concept of the technology and process involved had as its basic premise that there would never be a direct proof available that the process actually worked.

As such, the project was always severely vulnerable to logical criticism as many parapsychological endeavors (such as remote viewing) and worse that it was oft compared to. At best it operated on a purely descriptive theory of its constituent phenomenon which few ventured to explain. Most attempts at a more robust or substantive account were short-lived or abortive: for one thing, most treatments ran directly into the problem of the energy required for its theoretical operation, which could be easily and readily calculated as well in excess of any known astronomical phenomena. In the end, no one could substantively prove or describe why it should work, or definitively demonstrate that it did, which compelled some to dismiss the whole thing as “epistemically or ontologically unacceptable”. Most scientists simply resigned themselves to a “hypothesis non fingo”, though at least one cosmologist posited that the energy driving the Time Scoop must originate in some distant future event that could only be non-relativistically described as a simultaneous explosion at every point in time/space, an “Everything Everywhere Bang” that sent the particles backwards through time. As no one could provide an explanation of why this should happen, the theory was thought as rather question begging.

This criticism only became more violent and trenchant when the first results of the Time Scoop became available in classified circles. Initial test material from the remote near future was categorically rejected by the current administration as “unrealistic, unacceptable and unthinkable.” As the probe progressed further, even many of the original supporters became disenchanted and incredulous of the results. Finally, the last straw was the revelation that no records or information could be found concerning the project’s inception, creation, or development. The whole project came to be viewed as some military-industrial bureaucratic academic folie à deux, a hoax or unintentional blowback from earlier disinformation campaigns resulting in the appearance of an actual project, much like the Navy’s Investigation of the U.S.S. Eldridge incident and Project Pink.

We at The Encouraging Voice of The Labyrinth, however, continue to receive updates and communications from the facility at Subic Bay, and, for our own reasons, remain unfazed and undeterred by paradox or the appearance of deception: Piltdown man may have been a hoax, but evolution is not. We are encouraged by grounds we cannot entirely describe here, but not the least of which is a link emailed to us that appears to link to a future edition of The Encouraging Voice of The Labyrinth. We have tried to copy this and many other links, but they do not seem to transfer, being not recognizable as html or xhtml and often resulting in dead links. We know that this poses some obvious logical questions that we are not in a position to explain, though many readers have noted that the earliest entries seem to describe the completion of a feature length movie, a trip to China and other events that we are also at a loss to explain at present, given their apparent posting date.

The redactions, spellings, punctuation in our excerpt appeared in the original.

Van Choojitarom, Editor