GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Jeff?Relf wrote:
[snip crap]

Plead a family tree with no branches - and pray they don't do a
genetic comparison with the poultry barn.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:42:32 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:57:12 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf
wrote:


[Jeff Relf, C.S.I. lead investigator]
Unlike George Hammond's daydreams, General Relativity
and the second law of thermodynamics are falsifiable.


[Hammond]
Of course the S.P.O.G. is "falsifiable". Because it is
an "experimentally verified" theory, therefore if any of the
myriad verifying experiments had failed, which none did, it
would be "falsified". Your missed Jeff.

What experiments, asswipe?



[Hammond]
These experiments ****head:



EYSENCK, H.J. & EYSENCK, S.B.G. (1969). Personality
structure and
measurement. London, U.K.: routledge & Kegan Paul.

GRAY J.A.,(1970), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266

MERENDA P.F.,(1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of
Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3),
367-374

ROUX W.,(1888), Bietrage zur Entwicklungsmechanick des
Embryo. 5. Uber die
kuntsliche Hervorbringung halber Embryonen durch Zerstorung
einer der beiden
ersten Furchungskugein, sowie uber die Nachentwicklung der
fehlenden
Koperhalfte., Virchows Arch. Path. Anat. Physiol., 64,
113-154, 246-291

SILBERMAN E.K. & WEINGARTNER H,(1986). Hemispheric
Lateralization of
Functions Related to Emotion. Brain and Cognition, 5,
322-353

STELMACK R.M. & PLOUFFE L.,(1983),
Introversion-Extraversion: The Bell-
Magendie Law Revisited, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 4, No.
4, 421-427

ZUCKERMAN, M., KUHLMAN, D.M., & CAMAC, C. (1988). What lies
beyond E and N?
Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic
dimensions of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 96-107.

Allport, G. W., Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A
psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, 47 (1, Whole No. 211).
Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and Mood by
Questionnaire. San Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, R B. (1975). Third order personality structure in
Q-data: Evidence from 11 experiments
Journal of Multivariate Experimental Personality and
Clinical Psychology 1(3) 118-149.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological Dimensions of Personality.
In Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research, edited by Pervin, L. A. 244-276.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or
3?- Criteria for a Taxonomic
Paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences 12(8)
773-790.
Perspectives on the Five-Factor Model. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The G Factor, The Science of Mental
Ability. Westport CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Komlos, J. (1993). The secular trend in the biological
standard of living in the United
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple Factor Analysis Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

BRAND, C.R. (1995) Dimensionalizing personality: The "Big
5", the "Gigantic 3"
and the "Capacious 6". Manuscript in preparation
CARROLL, J.B. (1953). An analytical solution for
approximating simple
structure
in factor analysis. Psychometrika, Vol. 18, pp. 23-38
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
DE RAAD, B. &, HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1993). A circumplex approach
to the five factor
model: A facet structure of trait adjectives supplemented by
trait verbs.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 15, No. 5,
493-505
DIGMAN, J.M. (1990). Personality structu Emergence of the
Five-Factor
model.
Annual Revue of Psychology, 41, 417-440
EYSENCK, H.J. (1944b). Types of personality- a factorial
study of 700
neurotics.
Journal of Mental Science, 90, 851-861
EYSENCK H.J. (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3?-
Criteria for a
Taxonomic Paradigm, Person. Individ. Diff., Vol. 12, No. 8,
773-790
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G (1976), Psychoticism as a
Dimension of
Personality.
London: Hodder & Stoughton
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992), The Development of markers for the
Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, pp. 26-42
HENDRICKSON A.E. & WHITE P.O. (1964), PROMAX: A quick method
for
rotation to
oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical
Psychology, vol. 17,
pp. 65-70
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., De RAAD, B., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1992).
Integration of the Big-
Five and Circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal
of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 146-163
HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1994a), The Abridged Big Five Circumplex
(AB5C) Model of
Trait
Structu Heymans' Cube, Kiesler's Circle and Peabody and
Goldberg's Double
Cone Model, Revue europeenne de Psychologie Applique, 1st
trimestre, vol. 44,
No. 1, pp. 27-33
HORST, P.A. (1941), A non-graphical method for transforming
an arbitrary
factor
matrix into a simple structure matrix, Psychometrika, vol.
6, pp. 79-99
KAISER, H.F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic
rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, vol. 23(3), pp. 187-200
KASS, F., SKODOL, A., CHARLES, E., SPITZER, R.L., &
WILLIAMS, J.B.W.
(1985).
KRUG S.E. & JOHNS E.F. (1986), A Large Scale
Cross-Validation of Second-Order
Personality Structure Defined by the 16PF, Psychological
Reports, 59, 683-693
MERENDA P.F. (1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of
Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3),
367-374
MERENDA P.F. (1989), Four-factor models of personality and
Walter Clarke's
Activity Vector Analysis. Tenth Clarke Memorial Lecture,
Bryant College,
Providence RI, November 30, 1989. (Available from Peter F.
Merenda)
MERENDA P.F. & CLARKE W.V. (1959), Factor analysis of a
measure of social
self.
Psychological Reports, 5, pp. 597-605
NEUHAUS J.O. & WRIGLEY C. (1954), The Quartimax method: an
analytical
approach
to orthogonal simple structure. British Journal of
Statistical Psychology,
vol. 7, pp. 81-91
NORMAN, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of
personality attributes:
replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality
ratings. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583
PEABODY, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait
adjectives. Journal of
personality and social psychology, Vol.52, 1, 59-71
PEABODY, D., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1989). Some determinants of
factor structures
from
personality-trait descriptors. Journal of personality and
social psychology,
Vol.57, 3, 552-567
SAUCIER, G., & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1994 in press). The language
of personality:
Lexical perspectives on the Five-Factor model. In: J.S.
Wiggins (Ed.),
Theoretical perspectives for the Five-Factor model. New
York: Guilford
THURSTONE, L.L. (1933), The vectors of the mind,
Psychological Review, vol.
41(1), pp. 1-32
THURSTONE, L.L. (1947), Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago:
University of
Chicago
Press
TUPES, E.C., & CRYSTAL, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality
factors based on
trait ratings (Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force
Base, TX: U.S.
Air Force
WIGGINS, J.S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal
behavior. In: L
Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 265-294).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
ZUCKERMAN M., KUHLMAN M. & CAMAC C. (1988), What Lies Beyond
E and
N? Factor
Analyses of Scales Believed to Measure Basic Dimensions of
Personality,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107
ZUCKERMAN et al. (1991), Five (or Three) Robust
Questionnaire Scale Factors of
Personality Without Culture, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 12,
No. 9, 929-942
ZUCKERMAN M. (1993), A comparison of three structural models
for personality:
The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 65, No. 4, pp.
757-768

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:51:03 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:11:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




[Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have
done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.



[Hammond]
Look asshole, it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!
The SPOG is confirmed by:

150 years of Biology research in embryology by Roux,
Conklin, Speman, Dreisch and others.

100- years of neuropsychology research by Bell-Magendie,
Sperry, McClain and others.

80 years of General Relativity research.

50 years of computer research extraction of eignvector
models Psychometry including the Eysenck-3, AVA-4, Big-5,
Brand-6, Cattell-7, Saucier-8, Cattel-13 and many others...
in fact EVERY published psychometric model in the
literature.

110 years of measurement of the Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) since the time of Thomas Edison and recently by Lehrl
and Fischer.

80 years of research on the Secular Trend in human growth by
the WHOI, Unicef, Red Cross and hundreds of academic
studies.

40 years of modern measurements of IQ vis. Mental Speed.

20 years of research on the Anthropic Principle in Physics.

The list goes on, and is all cited in my published papers.

ALL THIS EVIDENCE is EQUIVALENT to Leverrier's Perihelion
measurement in GR. Einstein was right about GR, and Hammond
is right about the SPOG.


[John Smith]
Claiming ancient works support your crap MEANS NOTHING - since those
people
are not around to deny your warped claims!


[Hammond]
Baloney, Leverrier's measurement of the Perihelion of
Mercury was the ONLY experimental support for Einstein when
he published GR, and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time.

Was it verified by later testing?
Was yours?


[Hammond]
Leverrier's study was a lifetime work, checked, double
checked and triple checked, and reviewed by hundreds of
exoperts, same with the evidence that confirms the SPOG. Who
are you kiddin?





[Hammond]
Besides, the bulk of the research which supports the SPOG
dates from AFTER the invention of the electronic computer
(post 1970). TENS OF THOUSANDS of Factor Analytic
experiments on MILLIONS of people using MAINFRAME
EIGENVECTOR EXTRACTION from 100x100 matrices, or large,
confirm overwhelmingly that Hammond's SPOG is correct, and
that God is a CURVATURE of reality caused by the Secular
Trend Growth Deficit.

Then why aren't these same people yelling out support for your crap?


[Hammond]
Because thy're just as incrdulous as you are, they can't
believe their eyes that it has lead to the world's first
SPOG, they're scared ****less, just like you!


=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:55:24 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:11:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:




[Michael Moroney, HECKLER]
OK, so what experiment(s) have you _proposed_ that you or others have
done
that will verify or refute your hypothesis? Remember, ones done before
creation of the hypothesis count toward the creation of the hypothesis,
not the verification of it.



[Hammond]
Look asshole, it is a well known historical fact that
Einstein's theory of General Relativity had only ONE
experimental confirmation when he published it and that was
Leverrier's measurement of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time!
The SPOG is confirmed by:

150 years of Biology research in embryology by Roux,
Conklin, Speman, Dreisch and others.

100- years of neuropsychology research by Bell-Magendie,
Sperry, McClain and others.

80 years of General Relativity research.

50 years of computer research extraction of eignvector
models Psychometry including the Eysenck-3, AVA-4, Big-5,
Brand-6, Cattell-7, Saucier-8, Cattel-13 and many others...
in fact EVERY published psychometric model in the
literature.

110 years of measurement of the Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) since the time of Thomas Edison and recently by Lehrl
and Fischer.

80 years of research on the Secular Trend in human growth by
the WHOI, Unicef, Red Cross and hundreds of academic
studies.

40 years of modern measurements of IQ vis. Mental Speed.

20 years of research on the Anthropic Principle in Physics.

The list goes on, and is all cited in my published papers.

ALL THIS EVIDENCE is EQUIVALENT to Leverrier's Perihelion
measurement in GR. Einstein was right about GR, and Hammond
is right about the SPOG.


[John Smith]
Claiming ancient works support your crap MEANS NOTHING - since those
people
are not around to deny your warped claims!


[Hammond]
Baloney, Leverrier's measurement of the Perihelion of
Mercury was the ONLY experimental support for Einstein when
he published GR, and that was 100 YEARS OLD at the time.


[Hammond]
Besides, the bulk of the research which supports the SPOG
dates from AFTER the invention of the electronic computer
(post 1970). TENS OF THOUSANDS of Factor Analytic
experiments on MILLIONS of people using MAINFRAME
EIGENVECTOR EXTRACTION from 100x100 matrices, or large,
confirm overwhelmingly that Hammond's SPOG is correct, and
that God is a CURVATURE of reality caused by the Secular
Trend Growth Deficit.
Historic research from other fields LIKEWISE confirm it,
notably the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency) measurements, and
notably the entire history of IQ testing.
Cartesian (orthogonal) Stem Cell cleavage in Embryology is
also well known and a foundation stone of the proof.
Sperry's historic L-R brain discovery is also a major
buttress of the theory as are THOUSANDS of other researches
in diverse fields, all cited in my paper.



[Jophn Smith]
So .....................
I'm going to write a paper ................
I'll claim "God is a salt shaker".................
and, at the end of that paper, I will list - as cites and references
.............. everything every written by anyone from Shakespeare to
Hefner.

[Hammond]
Who are you kidding, the SPOG is supported by 50,000,000
dollars of university peer published academic research
stretching over 150 years. Get real.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Mon, 5 May 2008 07:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 5 May, 12:58, "John Smith" wrote:
"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong ...

Although I don;t recall where it is; there is a web page showing all the
false and insane claims George has made (which pretty much includes
everything he's ever posted or written).

That's the sort of thing we need, written calmly and sensibly.

Well, I don't understand what George's theory is. *But I don't learn
from any of these posts here what it is either.

What I do see is that all the posts which are critical of it (and him
-- surely irrelevant?) are no more than what George called
'heckling'.

The only valid point someone has made in defense of George was something
like "it's not nice to make fun of, and tease, the mentally
retarded."

While true, I haven't seen anybody make a valid point *against* George
yet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
Wake up Roger, what you're witnessing is the beginning of
a scientific-social revolution, the world's first scientific
proof of God has been discovered, the aughorities don't
realize it, the innocent bystanders don't realize it (such
as you),... the only thing that is visible is the roar of
cannon fire and the smoke..... which is what this 500 post
thread is. This is because ONLY THE COMBATENTS, only the
FRONT LINE TROOPS have recognized that it is happening.
You won't hear any coherent organized rational argument
here... all that has been said and done with in thousands of
posts on Usenet, and my website, and my publications, in the
past 5 years. What you're witnessing now is the MOVEMENT OF
ARMIES which are headed your way.
Heads up dude, this is what the discovery of the world's
first Scientific Proof of God looks like..... just like a
mob and a crusifixion marked the last social reviolution in
the world 2000 years ago..... it's happening again.... and
this time it's called the SPOG and it's a scientific
discovery destined to move world religion into the
scientific age.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:16:48 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 5 May, 12:58, "John Smith" wrote:
"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?
There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong ...
Although I don;t recall where it is; there is a web page showing all the
false and insane claims George has made (which pretty much includes
everything he's ever posted or written).

That's the sort of thing we need, written calmly and sensibly.

Well, I don't understand what George's theory is. But I don't learn
from any of these posts here what it is either.
What I do see is that all the posts which are critical of it (and him
-- surely irrelevant?) are no more than what George called
'heckling'.
The only valid point someone has made in defense of George was something
like "it's not nice to make fun of, and tease, the mentally
retarded."

While true, I haven't seen anybody make a valid point *against* George
yet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

This is kind of sad. Lot of valid points against his nonsense have been
made. He just swears and insults in return.

Lets go over some of them. He predicts the Greeks had 13 gods. They
had 12. That is a valid scientific objection. His defense is to say
that they either could not count or did not care that they were wrong.

He claims his fusion frequency graph proves god. There is no connection
between these two things. He does not try to make a connection. He
just states it without any proof. He cannot give any proof because there
is none. You cannot refute baseless assertions if the other person is
not looking for the truth.

His theory is much like me claiming that you are a monster from outer
space in human form. You would then, logically, point out that you
are human and I would claim that that is proof of my statement since
only aliens could have the technology to make a perfect human appearing
being. Then when you brought out your baby pictures and school records,
I would start swearing and insulting.


[Hammond]
Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?
From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid. And then from that maybe youcan figure out
that since the Secualr Trend says that the average human is
only 80% fully grown, why it is that 20% of REALITY is
INVISIBLE to the average person, and why it is called HEAVEN
and why the hypothetically fully grown man is considered an
INVISIBLE MAN who lives in this invisble world and is called
GOD.
HALFASS, LOUDMOUTH, STUPID JACKASS!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:58:36 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
...
On 4 May, 00:47, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
[snip crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.
Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.
Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...

Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong ...


[John Smith, incredulous bystander]
Although I don;t recall where it is; there is a web page showing all the
false and insane claims George has made (which pretty much includes
everything he's ever posted or written).


[Hammond]
It was posted in Augsberg Germany by a German truckdriver
and musician named Bernhard Schornak.... I went looking for
it the other day but discovered that his ISP has apparently
gone chapter 11 or and his anti-SPOG website is no longer up
and running. Maybe he's in jail or something?


=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:27:53 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2008 07:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 5 May, 12:58, "John Smith" wrote:
"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong ...

Although I don;t recall where it is; there is a web page showing all the
false and insane claims George has made (which pretty much includes
everything he's ever posted or written).

That's the sort of thing we need, written calmly and sensibly.

Well, I don't understand what George's theory is. *But I don't learn
from any of these posts here what it is either.

What I do see is that all the posts which are critical of it (and him
-- surely irrelevant?) are no more than what George called
'heckling'.

The only valid point someone has made in defense of George was something
like "it's not nice to make fun of, and tease, the mentally
retarded."

While true, I haven't seen anybody make a valid point *against* George
yet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
Wake up Roger, what you're witnessing is the beginning of
a scientific-social revolution, the world's first scientific
proof of God has been discovered, the aughorities don't
realize it, the innocent bystanders don't realize it (such
as you),... the only thing that is visible is the roar of
cannon fire and the smoke..... which is what this 500 post
thread is. This is because ONLY THE COMBATENTS, only the
FRONT LINE TROOPS have recognized that it is happening.
You won't hear any coherent organized rational argument
here... all that has been said and done with in thousands of
posts on Usenet, and my website, and my publications, in the
past 5 years. What you're witnessing now is the MOVEMENT OF
ARMIES which are headed your way.
Heads up dude, this is what the discovery of the world's
first Scientific Proof of God looks like..... just like a
mob and a crusifixion marked the last social reviolution in
the world 2000 years ago..... it's happening again.... and
this time it's called the SPOG and it's a scientific
discovery destined to move world religion into the
scientific age.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:16:48 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 5 May, 12:58, "John Smith" wrote:
"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?
There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong ...
Although I don;t recall where it is; there is a web page showing all the
false and insane claims George has made (which pretty much includes
everything he's ever posted or written).
That's the sort of thing we need, written calmly and sensibly.

Well, I don't understand what George's theory is. But I don't learn
from any of these posts here what it is either.
What I do see is that all the posts which are critical of it (and him
-- surely irrelevant?) are no more than what George called
'heckling'.
The only valid point someone has made in defense of George was something
like "it's not nice to make fun of, and tease, the mentally
retarded."
While true, I haven't seen anybody make a valid point *against* George
yet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
This is kind of sad. Lot of valid points against his nonsense have been
made. He just swears and insults in return.

Lets go over some of them. He predicts the Greeks had 13 gods. They
had 12. That is a valid scientific objection. His defense is to say
that they either could not count or did not care that they were wrong.

He claims his fusion frequency graph proves god. There is no connection
between these two things. He does not try to make a connection. He
just states it without any proof. He cannot give any proof because there
is none. You cannot refute baseless assertions if the other person is
not looking for the truth.

His theory is much like me claiming that you are a monster from outer
space in human form. You would then, logically, point out that you
are human and I would claim that that is proof of my statement since
only aliens could have the technology to make a perfect human appearing
being. Then when you brought out your baby pictures and school records,
I would start swearing and insulting.


[Hammond]
Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?
And that proves god?

From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid.

No. This is not true. Look up mpeg encoding for an example.
You are confusing motion with perception in general. An
object at rest is the same for everyone.

And then from that maybe youcan figure out
that since the Secualr Trend says that the average human is
only 80% fully grown,

So?

why it is that 20% of REALITY is
INVISIBLE

No. This has nothing to do with the above.

to the average person, and why it is called HEAVEN

No. Your first assumption was wrong and this does not even
have anything to do with heaven. The back side of the moon
is not visible to me either. Does that mean that heaven is
there?


and why the hypothetically fully grown man is considered an
INVISIBLE MAN who lives in this invisble world and is called
GOD.

This is not connected to anything above. Why would the hypothetically
full grown man be invisible to us? He moves to fast?
If there were an invisible being, there is no justification for your
calling it a man. You are just anthropomorphizing your god because
man created god in his own image.

Now, how would you test this hypothesis? Is the fact that your
god is invisible the proof? There is another option which is that
he is not there which cannot be excluded by your model. Maybe your
god is hiding somewhere else.


HALFASS, LOUDMOUTH, STUPID JACKASS!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:11:53 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:



[Hammond]
Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?


[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
And that proves god?


[Hammond]
You bet your ass it does, and the faster you find out
about it the less egg you'll wind up with on your face.


[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid.

No. This is not true.


[Hammond]
You don't know your ass fom your elbow.
In this world famous paper (I know Lehrl personally) you
will fined halfway through it the following statment:

"By a similar method, called ‘picture fusion’, Riedel (1966)
demonstrated that the time shortens as children mature. By
this method, which is explained in the next section, he
investigated children from 7 years (10 frames/s) onward to
15 years (15 frames/s).
It is remarkable that critical flicker fusion (30-50 Hz)
has nothing to do with the picture fusion (mean = 15-16 Hz).
Theoretically and empirically this was demonstrated by
Weidenhammer and Fischer (1985). Their findings are affirmed
by the fact that picture fusion is related to intelligence,
whereas, according to Jensen’s (1983) results, critical
flicker fusion has virtually no correlation with
intelligence."

This fundamental fact, that trhe PFF (frames/sec)
increases linearly with age in children, and linearly with
IQ (mental speed) in adults, is a well known and well
documented fact and has been known in the movie industry for
decades.
You don't know what you're tlking about.

[Hammond]
And then from that maybe youcan figure out
that since the Secualr Trend says that the average human is
only 80% fully grown,

So?

why it is that 20% of REALITY is
INVISIBLE

No. This has nothing to do with the above.

to the average person, and why it is called HEAVEN

No. Your first assumption was wrong and this does not even
have anything to do with heaven. The back side of the moon
is not visible to me either. Does that mean that heaven is
there?


and why the hypothetically fully grown man is considered an
INVISIBLE MAN who lives in this invisble world and is called
GOD.


[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
This is not connected to anything above.


[Hammond]
Horse****, the cited evidence proves otherwise.


[Doug, alleged Physics PhD, SPOG heckler]
Why would the hypothetically
full grown man be invisible to us? He moves to fast?


[Hammond]
Of course asshole. In practical terms it means you can't
see his FACE (read his facial expression). How do you think
a psychotic fools so many people, he is INVIVISIBLE to the
average person, only people like ME (and law enforcement
agents and judges)) know who the guy is, because they know
what the phenomenon of God is! That's why I know you''re
actually and ignorant halfass nincompoop and your academic
friends think you're brilliant.... because you're a PSYCHO
and I can see you, and they can't. ****wit piece of trash.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================