Thomas Frey: "Is it not
conceivable that people in the future will have the technology to view
the past?" asks the reclusive physicist as he reaches across the table
for his coffee cup. "And if so, don’t you think they would have the
technology to be watching us right now?" This statement caused me to
pause and rethink the implications.
Known only to a
few friends by the code name Gavalord, this eccentric man of science
has been probing the reaches of future technologies. "Through a series
of calculations, I have proved that this concept is not only possible,
but will likely happen within the next 20 years," offers Gavalord in a
rare boasting moment.
interview was conducted at the office of The DaVinci Institute in Louisville, Colorado. As the senior researcher for the Institute, I come in contact
with hundreds of notable scientists and researchers every year. But
Gavalord, a code name he uses to protect his privacy, is in a league of
his own. Working out of a basement research lab, and funded only with
his own personal income, he is now hovering on the edge of several
significant breakthroughs. Because I am one of his few trusted friends,
he has asked me to help him bring some of these concepts to light.
of the science, using phrases like "spatial coexistence," "energy
trailings," and "resonant memory" sounds like an abstract artist
talking in art-speak. But the underlying concepts are bold and
innovative. And if feasible, the possibilities are quite daunting.
TF – What was it that drew you to this area of science?
Gavalord – Have you ever seen the movie Time Cop?
TF – Yes.
Time Cop is like so many other Hollywood movies. They portray the
notion that if time travel is possible, that the first logical thing to
do is to start sending people across time. When NASA set out to put a
man on the moon, they didn’t start out by putting a bunch of people in
their first rocket and launch it into space. They tested the
technologies in incremental steps of complexity first.
TF – So what would be some of the first steps in achieving time travel?
Well, luckily Hollywood isn’t in charge of science projects like this.
There are two very fundamental proofs that must first be demonstrated
before there is reason to think that time travel is truly possible. The
first is to be able to communicate across time, and the second is to be
able to view things across time. If we cannot first communicate across
time, or view real life images of another time, how in the hell can we
possibly imagine sending bodies across time?
TF – By
communicating across time, are you thinking that we should be able to
dial up the phone and talk to someone in the 16th century?
Well, communicating with the past will certainly be more difficult than
with someone in the future. They had no technology in the 16th century
to allow them to think that any type of sound could be transmitted
digitally or electronically. If they suddenly heard voices, they would
most likely think it was the voice of God or some demon talking to
them. Most people today would probably think the same thing. However,
the first experiments in this vein will likely center around a
scientist talking to himself a half hour earlier in his own lab.
TF – So
you think that someone talking to themselves a half hour earlier or
later in their own lab, this communicating across time, will be the
first step towards time travel?
Gavalord – One of many, yes.
TF – So
when you communicate across time with someone, does it come out as a
voice-in-space, a whisper in the ear, some kind or telepathy, a talking
sheep, or what?
The voice-in-space is probably the closest analogy. We would be
transmitting a packet of voice data, an energy burst creating sound
waves, across time, and it would release in a sequential pattern, just
like it was spoken. Capturing the spoken word of a person in the past,
without using any electrical or mechanical device to assist, will add a
few layers of complication. To do this we would need to triangulate an
exact moment in time and space, perform some sort of energy capture for
a designated period of time, and retrieve it. The idea of performing
this interaction, this verbal exchange between two people in different
times, is really on the edge of my ability to grasp.
TF – Do you believe time travel will some day be possible?
Well, the mathematics that I’ve done in this area have shown some level
of feasibility. My thoughts and ideas took shape when I read an
article, Digital Biology, by the French Doctor J. Benveniste. However,
my present thinking centers on another dimensional layer of control
that we’re not aware of yet. This other dimension contains a series of
rules and governing principles for our universe. And one of these
governing principles has to do with how we are permitted to affect our
own linear existence.
TF – Much
of your work has centered around the concept of being able to view the
past. How did you come upon that idea, and where is your research going
The speed of light is a concept we’re all familiar with. So when an
event happens on earth, the light and energy trailings reflect off into
space. So the earth is not just radiating light, it’s radiating
information. That’s how I came up with the Gavalord Principle.
TF – Explain what the Gavalord Principle is?
Gavalord – Very simply, "All information, ever created, is still in existence."
TF – So if
I got up in the middle of the night and made myself a peanut butter
sandwich on June 10th in 1992, you’re telling me that there is still
some record of that event.
Yes, exactly. The information still exists, but figuring out how to
reassemble it is the tricky part. If we have to travel seven light
years into space and capture lumens of information and bring them back
to earth so we can reassemble them like some sort of jigsaw puzzle,
we’ll never get there. But, we can accomplish the same thing by
replaying the resonant memory of objects that surrounded that event in
TF – So
you’re telling me that the image of me making this peanut butter
sandwich is somehow imbedded in the surrounding kitchen cabinets, on
walls, ceilings, that sort of thing?
Yes, exactly. Have you ever heard the phrase, "if only these walls
could talk?" Well the walls can talk. One of my experiments
demonstrated the replication of a near-perfect verbal statement, pulled
off of a brick wall.
TF– So you were able to somehow lift this information off of a brick wall? What technology did you use to accomplish this?
Well, I don’t want to reveal all my work just yet. But by using the
right combination of signal generation to excite the resonance memory
from its spatial coexistence with the wall, along with a carefully
calibrated output capturing mechanism, I was able to capture a faint
recording of words I had spoken only a few moments earlier.
TF – So you’ve proven that you can replicate the spoken word, does that mean you’ll also be able to capture visual images as well?
Yes, but it adds many layers of complication. The signal generation has
to be expanded to cover a much broader spectrum, and this has
necessitated using a much larger surface area. Since each piece of the
surface area is "seeing the image" from a slightly different angle,
while at the same time "seeing everything else in the room," I’ve had
difficulty filtering out a specific image. I’ve been able to produce
"old" light from a wall, but so far I’ve not been able to interpret it
into meaningful data and recreate a specific image. But I’m working on
TF – Okay, let’s say that you were able to accomplish this. How is this useful?
Would you rob a bank if you knew somebody could go back and find out
exactly who you were? Would you start someone’s house on fire if you
knew it was possible for people to see who did it? This would be a huge
tool in the criminal justice world.
TF – Are there other uses as well?
I’ve identified four main categories of use, there may be more –
criminal justice, historical accuracy, biblical research, and
genealogy. But the most immediate use will be for solving crimes. It
will require a significant refinement of the technology to go back
farther than a few weeks. So the biggest near-term use will be at crime
scenes helping officials piece together what happened.
TF – Do you think this will this make our world safer to live in?
I certainly hope so. But criminals are very devious. They may figure
out ways to confound this technology, at least temporarily, but I have
to think that the whole concept of viewing the past brings with it a
new level of accountability with which we’ll need to live our lives.
TF – But isn’t this a dangerous tool in the wrong hands?
Yes indeed. Being able to view the past brings with it an awesome
responsibility for us to both preserve the integrity of the generations
who have gone before us, and not denigrate our contemporaries. We all
have the frailties of being human, and good judgement is everybody’s
shortcoming at one time or another.
TF – Before I end this interview, can you take a moment to tell everyone why you use the name Gavalord.
I’m a person that considers my personal life as sacred ground. I don’t
like crowds of people. I don’t like reporters. And I don’t like the
rest of the science community ridiculing me and hanging me out to dry
like they did with Pons and Fleischmann.
I may be a little
paranoid, but there is a dangerous side to this technology as well. It
has the potential to put a massive number of people out of work in the
criminal justice system – primarily cops and lawyers. And it has the
potential for revealing the "dirty little secrets" that many executives
and government officials have made a fine art of sweeping under a rug.
And even though I’m a strong privacy advocate, this technology may not
sit well with some people. So for these reasons, I have chosen to
remain out of the limelight. The work I’m doing right now is far too
important to give any of these distractions a chance to gain a foothold.
TF – Thank you, and good luck on your research.