|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:42:09 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by John : On 6/5/2011 11:38 AM, HVAC wrote: ... Who gives a flying fandango **** what Einstein thought about god? The fact is that god, much like the ether that you love so much, has zero value to any computations. They can both be treated EXACTLY as if they do not exist at all. That's a hint-and-a-half for your ass. ... The only fact here is that your theory of spontaneous generation fails in the most minor of analysis What "theory of spontaneous generation" is that? I assume you're not referring to the notion of the instantaneous appearance of multicellular life directly from non-living matter, since that was debunked by science (Pasteur) over a century ago. ... hence, the reason for Einsteins logic. Einstein was referring to the beginning of the universe (what we call the Big Bang), not the start of life. Your religious beliefs involving the particular leap of faith you take has been noted, already ... What "leap of faith" is that? Acceptance of evidence and the laws of science? Have you come up with something new? Have you? I think when Einstein proposes the requirement of the gravitational ether as being necessary to his theory of relativity and the very propagation/transmission of light, to be science and obeying the laws of the universe ... I find you simply doing obfuscation. And, attempting to off on tangents ... and in circles. -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth : On Jun 5, 9:38*am, Bob Casanova wrote: On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth : On Jun 4, 11:40*am, Bob Casanova wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:23:12 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : snip ...we will never know how radio waves (or any other waves, for that matter) transverse and are propagated by the ether though space. EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium. What's the all-inclusive population or average photon density per given km3 of ISM, or better to know that of the IGM? (I'm talking of accounting for everything from at least EIR/ELF [1km] to those extremely hard Gamma of .001 nm) Damfino, but Google is Your Friend. And what's the relevance? So, how many photons per km3 is there way out between the galaxies and all them stars? See my comment and question above? Did you somehow miss their meanings? -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 1:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Keith |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 10:40 AM, HVAC wrote:
... I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and reason is dishonest. Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would take to create such, and that such is the only reason conceivable for its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed. He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow for intelligent design. The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism" encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance, luck and spontaneous generation ... obviously, Einstein refused to make the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.) To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because "you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious belief in and of itself! -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 1:03 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
Most people teach their children to see the beauty in a rainbow. I taught mine to see the secrets of the universe in a rainbow. I showed mine both; they're not mutually exclusive. Agreed. But the beauty is in the secrets that rainbows reveal. The reason I even mentioned this was because when my daughter was about 8-9 years old, she asked me about a rainbow...Actually a prismatic effect on the wall from sunlight coming in my office window and refracting through my aquarium. When I told her that a very sensitive thermometer would read different temperatures for the different colors, she was captivated. She graduated cum laude from Saint Anslem's, and 2 years ago from Boston College with a PHD in physics. Secrets indeed. Religion is for weak-minded fools who are afraid of death. Only those religions which incorporate the idea of a conscious afterlife. Many don't. LOL...My youngest daughter recently announced to me that she was a Buddhist. She claimed it wasn't a religion. I asked her if the Buddha had superpowers. She said that he did. That was case closed for me. I do like the Buddhist idea that what happens after you die is of no concern of you NOW. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Keith Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc. In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure = logic = etc. For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ... You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs! Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ... To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central focus to it ... -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was...
Bit, bit, bit How many names does that MOFO have?
cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Keith Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! I made no personal statement of belief at all. I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc. On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues. In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure = logic = etc. That would be your belief system I take it. For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ... I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of Albert Einstein, I merely reported them. You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs! I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing biblical issues. Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ... You are projecting I fear. To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central focus to it ... Me thinks you do protest too much. Keith |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 7, 5:44*am, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Watch the denial tide sweep in as the kooks attempt to change the above facts.. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote:
Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and reason is dishonest. You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face? Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would take to create such Of course you have a cite for this....Right? and that such is the only reason conceivable for its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed. Of course he never said that...You did. So who created YOUR creator? He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow for intelligent design. You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious views were? I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether. Well? The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism" encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance, luck and spontaneous generation I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time. .... obviously, Einstein refused to make the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.) To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because "you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious belief in and of itself! I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 3:40 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote: Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and reason is dishonest. You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face? Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would take to create such Of course you have a cite for this....Right? and that such is the only reason conceivable for its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed. Of course he never said that...You did. So who created YOUR creator? He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow for intelligent design. You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious views were? I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether. Well? The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism" encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance, luck and spontaneous generation I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time. ... obviously, Einstein refused to make the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.) To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because "you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious belief in and of itself! I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales. Yes, we are already quite familiar with your rants, opinions, personal attacks, off the wall comments, fantasies, visions, etc. I am sure you will have something of importance to post in the future ... -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 1:52 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote: On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Keith Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! I made no personal statement of belief at all. I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc. On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues. In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure = logic = etc. That would be your belief system I take it. For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ... I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of Albert Einstein, I merely reported them. You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs! I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing biblical issues. Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ... You are projecting I fear. To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central focus to it ... Me thinks you do protest too much. Keith Personal opinion, beliefs, fantasies, off the wall comments, personal attacks, defensive posturing, etc. Did you want to post any accepted explorations of current science? -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was...
|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 2:27 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
.... -- "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Albert Einstein Yes, hard to picture the creator-God bothering himself with communications, at least with most ... -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was...
|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was...
On 6/6/2011 5:27 PM, wrote:
Message From California.Americans Need Not Apply. http://www.standeyo.com cuhulin INTERESTING TWO PAGES: http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...apply%E2%80%9D http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...2%80%9D/page/2 Excellent article, and points out: 1) Jerry Brown need to, immediately, be removed from the governors office and put before a firing squad. 2) The college tuition you pay is funding free college for illegal aliens -- and causing an increase in your costs. 3) The courts think it entirely fitting that they be allowed to break and ignore the law, at Americans expense. 4) Illegal aliens are generally considered to be above the law. 5) Identity theft is legal for illegal aliens. 6) Illegal aliens are allowed to pass though security checkpoints at airports. 7) Etc., etc. The answer is either the removal from office, and imprisonment, or death of the criminal and treasonous public servants involved ... I favor neither above the other, and find either acceptable. -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 6, 4:38*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 2:27 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote: ... -- "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." * *Albert Einstein Yes, hard to picture the creator-God bothering himself with communications, at least with most ... -- Regards, JS The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it s an instrument for the people to restrain the government. -- Patrick Henry Communicating by way of those category 5+ storms, 9+ earthquakes and mega volcanoes seems to get my attention. GW and AGW just seems to be the icing on the cake. btw; Our Eden has been shrinking as it cools, as well as losing mass. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 6, 4:35*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 3:40 PM, HVAC wrote: On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote: Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and reason is dishonest. You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face? Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would take to create such Of course you have a cite for this....Right? and that such is the only reason conceivable for its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed. Of course he never said that...You did. So who created YOUR creator? He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow for intelligent design. You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious views were? I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether. Well? The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism" encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance, luck and spontaneous generation I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time. ... obviously, Einstein refused to make the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.) To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because "you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious belief in and of itself! I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales. Yes, we are already quite familiar with your rants, opinions, personal attacks, off the wall comments, fantasies, visions, etc. I am sure you will have something of importance to post in the future ... Don't hold your breath. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 7:24 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, John wrote: On 6/6/2011 2:27 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote: ... -- "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Albert Einstein Yes, hard to picture the creator-God bothering himself with communications, at least with most ... -- Regards, JS The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it s an instrument for the people to restrain the government. -- Patrick Henry Communicating by way of those category 5+ storms, 9+ earthquakes and mega volcanoes seems to get my attention. GW and AGW just seems to be the icing on the cake. btw; Our Eden has been shrinking as it cools, as well as losing mass. If you are speaking of the earth losing mass, how could it possibly do so? All I am aware of is the earth gaining mass though cosmic dust, asteroids, meteoroids, comets, etc. which end up falling prey to our gravity which constantly "collects" more mass! And, the more mass it collects, the faster it is able to collect more (greater gravity.) I am aware of no mass being able to escape the gravitational well of earth, other than our spacecraft ... http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 9:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
... Below, in your avoidance of the question. God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time. But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most always the sign of the unethical and immature. Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? Diety? Same circle? Again? Isn't "deity" the equivalent of "God?" You are a compete loon whose absorption with religion has driven you nuts! Einstein acknowledges a creator, I don't see much difference between the powers of a creator and the powers of a God (or, deity, for that matter), as far as the difference in powers/abilities go, I have no interest. It just has NO bearing on the discussion of hard physics. Now, as to external beliefs in the interactions of such a creator or God with humans, A RELIGION, I don't care of your relationship, nor, even if you have one, real or false, or not! And, what the hell powers you ascribe to "God", or not, matters not, to me or this discussion -- but here your moronic text keeps circling! You jump in here with a total focus on matters of religion (bible, Jesus, catholic, jew, etc., etc., etc.) and attempt every trick you can to put words into someones mouth, attempt to determine what religious beliefs they have, etc., and even go so are as to postulate that this is valid in what we were chatting about before you stuck your religious-focused-arse in here! Gee, do we see that strawman arguments are your weapon of choice? ROFLOL In any public forum I have entered, you would be thrown out on your religious focused arse! It is generally accepted only morons would be so crass and full-of-themselves, and that you would BE EXPECTED to holster your personal beliefs and rants from such ... and carry on in a sane manner with the use of logic. How many times must you be told that religious arguments are immaterial here? That your belief, or not, in a personal God has NO relevance here, nor anyone elses'! You are the only one who is unaware of your insanity, or the delusion that your actions are not insane, fix it! How are you now attempting to bend what I have stated? The ether will have the properties we find, when we are able to find them ... The Michaelson-Morley experiment assumed that the earth rotation and properties who NOT influence their experiment, I pointed out that there is good reason that is false, and that their experiment may have failed from its' very design, re-look at the SHORT text of the URL I gave you, it is not overwhelming! If you are a child, grow-up, if you are that petty an adult, GIVE UP! You need to maintain focus on the proofs you have to offer, and the lack of them, and not depend on religion and personal attacks to prove your logic and reason ... if you have no experts, no scholars, no scientists which hold your beliefs, and have put their works to paper, provide your own paper! Do something other than maintaining a focus on religion, personal opinions, guesses, visions, rants, personal attacks, strawman arguments, etc. Regards, JS -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was ...
In article , says...
On 6/6/2011 5:27 PM, wrote: Message From California.Americans Need Not Apply. http://www.standeyo.com cuhulin INTERESTING TWO PAGES: http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...apply%E2%80%9D http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...2%80%9D/page/2 Excellent article, and points out: 1) Jerry Brown need to, immediately, be removed from the governors office and put before a firing squad. 2) The college tuition you pay is funding free college for illegal aliens -- and causing an increase in your costs. 3) The courts think it entirely fitting that they be allowed to break and ignore the law, at Americans expense. 4) Illegal aliens are generally considered to be above the law. 5) Identity theft is legal for illegal aliens. 6) Illegal aliens are allowed to pass though security checkpoints at airports. 7) Etc., etc. The answer is either the removal from office, and imprisonment, or death of the criminal and treasonous public servants involved ... I favor neither above the other, and find either acceptable. Happily for everyone, you're not in charge of anything, and your rants are easily ignored, being from a kook and all. -- BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running! |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:52 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Keith Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! I made no personal statement of belief at all. I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc. On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues. In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure = logic = etc. That would be your belief system I take it. For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ... I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of Albert Einstein, I merely reported them. You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs! I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing biblical issues. Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ... You are projecting I fear. To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central focus to it ... Me thinks you do protest too much. Keith Personal opinion, beliefs, fantasies, off the wall comments, personal attacks, defensive posturing, etc. Are things best avoided, you may want to consider taking such advice. I simply took you at your word when you said that the best way to understand Einstein's beliefs was to read what he wrote. Was I mistaken in this ? Did you want to post any accepted explorations of current science? Not especially Keith |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:55:42 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 9:53 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:47:24 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by John : On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: ... Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual deity? Your desire to constantly be in error is strong, young Skywalker ... Three (al least) replies to a single out-of context quote; must have struck a nerve. Interesting, you demonstrate how the improper use of logic usually results in the wrong conclusion(s) being drawn ... will keep your example in mind. Thanks. Any time I can demonstrate faulty logic such as yours I'm happy to do so. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:57:53 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 9:50 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: ... light are EM radiation are both governed by the same laws and physics, are are the same phenomenon, of differing frequencies. Yes. So? Do you imagine light can't propagate through a vacuum? It can't propagate though "nothing", now what properties are you giving your "vacuum?" Apparently you do so believe. Join Warhol, and HAND. I am not prepared to discuss the supernatural/magical properties you ascribe to a vacuum or nothing I ascribe no such properties to the vacuum; the properties are those of EM radiation, which requires no medium for propagation; in fact, any such medium, from air to glass, slows the apparent velocity of such radiation. Only in a vacuum is it equal to c. You seem to consistently miss this point. ... this would be better dealt with in a religious NG. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:05:20 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:42:09 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by John : On 6/5/2011 11:38 AM, HVAC wrote: ... Who gives a flying fandango **** what Einstein thought about god? The fact is that god, much like the ether that you love so much, has zero value to any computations. They can both be treated EXACTLY as if they do not exist at all. That's a hint-and-a-half for your ass. ... The only fact here is that your theory of spontaneous generation fails in the most minor of analysis What "theory of spontaneous generation" is that? I assume you're not referring to the notion of the instantaneous appearance of multicellular life directly from non-living matter, since that was debunked by science (Pasteur) over a century ago. ... hence, the reason for Einsteins logic. Einstein was referring to the beginning of the universe (what we call the Big Bang), not the start of life. Your religious beliefs involving the particular leap of faith you take has been noted, already ... What "leap of faith" is that? Acceptance of evidence and the laws of science? Have you come up with something new? Have you? I think when Einstein proposes the requirement of the gravitational ether as being necessary to his theory of relativity and the very propagation/transmission of light, to be science and obeying the laws of the universe ... I find you simply doing obfuscation. And, attempting to off on tangents ... and in circles. Perhaps you should read his words again so you could begin to understand that the "gravitational ether" was a convenient way to think of the deformation of spacetime by matter and energy, not a physical medium such as was demonstrated to be nonexistent by Michaelson and Morley (and others). And this is neither a tangent nor a circle; it's the heart of the matter. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:40:24 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by HVAC : On 6/6/2011 1:02 PM, John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Correct. And unlike organized religion, science has no problem with admitting lack of knowledge, or with research to discover reality. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:05:28 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! He refuted your assertion, which was specifically about Einstein's religious beliefs ("I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility!"). And no amount of complaining about it will change that. Deal with it. snip -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:27:41 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Government Shill #2 : On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:03:37 -0700 (PDT), george wrote: On Jun 7, 5:44*am, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Watch the denial tide sweep in as the kooks attempt to change the above facts.. Nah, they'll just pretend they never saw them. John already posted a complaint about Keith bringing up Einstein's religious beliefs in response to John's assertion about Einstein's religious beliefs. One wonders if some of these bozos are dishonest or merely clueless. Of course, they're not mutually exclusive... I like the last quote. That's a beauty. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/7/2011 2:18 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
... Smithy appears to be truly dumb. On the subject of evolution he will tell you that it involves "spontaneous" creation, which it doesn't; while ignoring that his Belief, Intelligent Design, does not. Talk about arse backwards. There are no end of subjects he appears to be ignorant of. Shill #2 -- Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988) Yeah, I think all can see, that way of thinking has gotten you no where .... this is probably the best you have ever had it, sitting around with a bunch of retired people ... -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was...
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...of+Bloodleting
I have a book or two here about that sort of stuff, yeah, I am Morbid. Watchin Storage Wars on the A&E channel.One of the things in a locker the guy bought was a little Bloodletting device, about 150 years ago.The guy took it to a Musuem to get it appraised.The propietor of the Museum told the guy George Washington had a bad throat infection and a Doctor did some Bloodleting on George Washington and that is how he died. cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 2011-06-07 14:09, John Smith wrote:
On 6/7/2011 10:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: ... Perhaps you should read his words again so you could begin to understand that the "gravitational ether" was a convenient way to think of the deformation of spacetime by matter and energy, not a physical medium such as was demonstrated to be nonexistent by Michaelson and Morley (and others). And this is neither a tangent nor a circle; it's the heart of the matter. Einstein considers it un-ponderable, he claims to NOT understand the properties of ether, he indicates, at this present time, we can attempt to observe how in "interacts" with our matter to deduce its' properties. However, without a doubt, its' ability to support the propagation of light (and therefore RF) is a given fact ... You simply attempt to stick your ideas, visions, opinion of what ether is and have Einstein take the blame for it. And, an excellent example of the tangents and circle you navigate with your spin-doctoring ... It is both my opinion and observation that there is some kinda of interaction with ether and metal antennas (and other conductive substances, elements.) It is here that RF "rings" the ether and begins the propagation of the RF wave/particles ... the experts approach this is a much more subtle manner than the words I choose. I'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics for 2012. You just proved, without a doubt, that satellite TV and GPS receivers do not work as advertised! Bravo! |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/7/2011 10:00 PM, Olrik wrote:
... I'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics for 2012. You just proved, without a doubt, that satellite TV and GPS receivers do not work as advertised! Bravo! Thanks, but too bad they don't hand 'em out for just understanding others' works ... -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/7/2011 10:00 PM, Olrik wrote:
... I'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics for 2012. You just proved, without a doubt, that satellite TV and GPS receivers do not work as advertised! Bravo! CERN has been doing some interesting investigation into the cosmic ether and its' refractive index: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/539311 You can download the complete .pdf file near the bottom. -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 2011-06-08 01:12, John Smith wrote:
On 6/7/2011 10:00 PM, Olrik wrote: ... I'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics for 2012. You just proved, without a doubt, that satellite TV and GPS receivers do not work as advertised! Bravo! CERN has been doing some interesting investigation into the cosmic ether and its' refractive index: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/539311 You can download the complete .pdf file near the bottom. So the "aether" is anything, including the vacuum of space, that transmits EM waves. You could also call the phenomenon "sprountz". Thus, the phrase "Sprountz transmits EM waves is true" could not be falsified. Sprountz! |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/7/2011 10:38 PM, Olrik wrote:
... So the "aether" is anything, including the vacuum of space, that transmits EM waves. You could also call the phenomenon "sprountz". Thus, the phrase "Sprountz transmits EM waves is true" could not be falsified. Sprountz! To call Einstein and CERN in error, I suppose you could name it anything which you thought might help your case, then go about straightening out the poor dumb *******s! ROFLOL! -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/7/2011 10:38 PM, Olrik wrote:
.. So the "aether" is anything, including the vacuum of space, that transmits EM waves. You could also call the phenomenon "sprountz". Thus, the phrase "Sprountz transmits EM waves is true" could not be falsified. Sprountz! Your argument is with Einstein, I have only pointed out his works ... what you are noticing is that your personal attacks can't get traction in attacks on him ... I thought you'd have figured that out ... damn shame I even have to point that out to you. -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 8, 1:00*am, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-07 14:09, John Smith wrote: On 6/7/2011 10:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: ... Perhaps you should read his words again so you could begin to understand that the "gravitational ether" was a convenient way to think of the deformation of spacetime by matter and energy, not a physical medium such as was demonstrated to be nonexistent by Michaelson and Morley (and others). And this is neither a tangent nor a circle; it's the heart of the matter. Einstein considers it un-ponderable, he claims to NOT understand the properties of ether, he indicates, at this present time, we can attempt to observe how in "interacts" with our matter to deduce its' properties.. However, without a doubt, its' ability to support the propagation of light (and therefore RF) is a given fact ... You simply attempt to stick your ideas, visions, opinion of what ether is and have Einstein take the blame for it. And, an excellent example of the tangents and circle you navigate with your spin-doctoring ... It is both my opinion and observation that there is some kinda of interaction with ether and metal antennas (and other conductive substances, elements.) It is here that RF "rings" the ether and begins the propagation of the RF wave/particles ... the experts approach this is a much more subtle manner than the words I choose. I'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics for 2012. You just proved, without a doubt, that satellite TV and GPS receivers do not work as advertised! Bravo!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well,well,well . What about all the contraptions (thousands of them ) that are littering the space around the Solar System ? Some of these buggers were launched 20-30 years ago . And they ALL communicate (unless they broke down) with ground control through empty space . Many millions of miles away . Yes sir . . . |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com