"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]
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?

Simply because you have warped their writings and work so much - they don't
even recognize it anymore.

You can vclaim, all you want, that "2 + 2 proves SPOG.
The truth (called reality to us) is, IT DOESN'T!






Historic research from other fields LIKEWISE confirm it,
notably the PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency) measurements, and
notably the entire history of IQ testing.

You bellowed this particulalr crap before - and it was, like everything else
you propose, shown to be nothing more than blatantly ignorant delusions.



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.

Cited - maybe ....
actual proof or evidence .....
that's laughable!


The FIRST post I made against your crap was that you had absolutely NOTHING
to support your "secular growth trend" except your own psychotic
conclusions.
YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE for ANY of the claims you made.

You ran away, and never even hinted at supplying evidence (experiments or
otherwise) to reach your conclusions.

"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.

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.

I may even get some supermarket tabloid to print it.

That should clinch it as fact.

"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 ...

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).


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."

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

Roger Pearse wrote:
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 ...

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'.

As such, you're defeating your own purpose. If you seek to convince,
such posts won't work. Those who think for themselves will infer that
you have no reply, you see, because you *offer* no reply.

I fully realise the tediousness of endlessly repeating the same basic
obvious facts to a poster who is peddling a crank theory. That's why
I suggested an FAQ or something.

Just thought that you might like to know how the debate strikes the
passer-by. I still think George's stuff sounds weird tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The basic problem is that there is nothing to criticize. He draws two
graphs which do not intersect and says that proves god. The statement
itself is patently false so nothing you say can amplify that. He is
actually claiming that how fast you can see motion proves god. There
is no science whatsoever there.

His other claims about eigenvectors are again just word salad with not
even a hint of connection to his claims. You can write an explanation
of this but it is better to have the read the original document
themselves. The silliness is both there in its full glory and it is
good for a laugh.

He claims that a there have been a half million hits on his website but
no one has ever shown up here agreeing with him. I am not even sure
that George believes it. I think he is very lonely and wants someone
to talk to and, if getting thoroughly beaten up for his silly
presentations is the only way to do it, he is willing to go through
that. I do pity him and feel sorry for him. I wish he could find a way
to be happy but he is not making good choices.

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.

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 11:55:24 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, 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
=====================================