"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:14:02 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:
[John Smith, sham rage heckler]
Unsupported (crap, insane, unscientific) assertion.

Also - up to this point you have SELECTIVELY been "reading wht isn't
there" - and coming to the deranged conclusion that this person's comments
agree with the totality of your crap!


[Hammond]
This person has been a regular commenter on the SPOG for
more than 8 years. He is well known to me and I am familiar
with his views.
Get off this thread Smith, take your heckling somewhere
else.

Doesn't change the fact, or the issue, that you are (as usual) fraudulently
twisting and distorting what was said as support of your own deranged and
delusional crap.

Doesn't change the fact, either, that - as usual again - you bellow and
insult and run away ......... without addressing the point.

You're nothing more than a fraudulent pile of ****.

and getting worse by the minute.....

*kill file & flush worthless piece of trash.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:14:02 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:09:57 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:26:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt"
wrote:

On May 5, 4:40 pm, "Varekem" wrote:

(brevity snip)

[Varekem]
Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?

[Mark L. Fergerson]
No. I am saying that what he says is _partly_ correct, that humans
are capable only of observing that which we are capable of observing.
That would be a simple tautology except for the BGD (Brain Growth
Deficit)* issue; different humans are capable of observing different
amounts of reality due to their state of development in terms of how
accurately their DNA had the opportunity to be expressed as they grew
to adulthood, limited by in-utero and later nutrition and so on.


[Hammond]
YES, this a very commanding synopsis of the SPOG except
for the world "tautology" which has now been superseded in
this context by the term "Anthropic Principle" in modern
Physics, sort of the physics equivalent of WYSIWYG. Anyway,
congratulations, you're probably the only one on Usenet who
knows what the SPOG is about. Not an enviable position if
my experience is any example.


[Mark L. Fergerson]
I am saying that he is partly _incorrect_ not in that the above is
false (for it is obviously not) but in so far failing to analyze the
meaning of "perception" to see that it breaks finally down to physical
photon-driven interactions between fundamental particles.

George built the SPOG on a correspondence between the BGD and
Relativity* in that a fully developed human would "see" a "flat
psychometric* universe" such that nothing would be hidden beyond its
curvature analogous to how we cannot see into the past beyond a
certain point no matter how good a telescope we use; the Universe
simply is so big that some things are too far away for their light to
ever get here.



[Hammond]
Again congratulations in identifying "psychometric
curvature" (aka curvature of subjective spacetime) as the
cause of the "invisible world" (aka Heaven). The similarity
to an "event horizon" is heuristically good but more
accurately it is connected with the "dog whistle effect" in
that the word "curvature" is really physics jargon for a
"time dilation". This time dilation simply LOWERS the
visual spectrum cutoff frequency (aka PFF) to the point
where 20% of normal reality becomes so blurred as to become
TOTALLY INVISIBLE. Of PARTICULAR impact is the loss of
facial/personality recognition in other people, so that
their TRUE IDENTITY becomes invisible to the observer, and
in fact, this is the central phenominology of God,
Religion, and Psychology and the central factor in crime,
conflict, wars and every human conflict known to Man.
By the way, Hammond did not "build" the SPOG, I actually
bit by bit "uncovered" the SPOG. It is a pure by the book
discovery, I had no preconceived notions and no agenda when
I commenced this research 25 years ago.



[Mark L. Fergerson]
Since the causes of what happen around us are observable, and the
more you can observe, the more causes you can correlate with effects,
the more you will attribute to "God" when you cannot perceive but a
little of reality. A fully developed human brain would support a mind
without such limitations; it would "know the mind of 'God'".


[Hammond]
The above paragraph is exactly correct and is in fact a
totally scientifically correct explanation of "God". And
obviously you're one of the few people in the world who is
aware of it! I'm quite astounded at your mild mannered
ability.


[Mark L. Fergerson]
What he has not so far accepted (I think) is that _all_ physically
real entities are subject to similar general rules except that
inorganic entities are not subject to a developmental BGD but rather
to situational limitations in their range of perception. Get down to
the level of electrons and it's obvious that a free electron can
"perceive" much more than can one confined in an orbital; the latter
is completely "blind" to photons that do not correspond to allowed
transitions. Of course electrons can change their situation so there
is no direct analog of "growth" for them, but they are extremely
simple systems- something as complex as a human brain is time-
direction-limited and cannot be "ungrown" from a given point then
"regrown" with more nutrients etc. to improve their functionality.


[Hammond]
All LIVING THINGS (DNA based life) have a GROWTH DEFICIT!



[John Smith, sham rage heckler]
Unsupported (crap, insane, unscientific) assertion.

Also - up to this point you have SELECTIVELY been "reading wht isn't
there" - and coming to the deranged conclusion that this person's comments
agree with the totality of your crap!


[Hammond]
This person has been a regular commenter on the SPOG for
more than 8 years. He is well known to me and I am familiar
with his views.
Get off this thread Smith, take your heckling somewhere
else.

When a "critic" finds himself "in over his head", heckling is all
he has left.


=====================================
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 Fri, 09 May 2008 05:53:49 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 18:23:00 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

[Hammond]
IQ in adults is directly
proportioanal to PFF since both are simply a measure of
mental speed in bits/sec.

[Doug, PhD heckler]
So blind people are dumb? You cannot measure their fusion
rate and, since they have not been trained, it would not
be good. Or are you just saying they are more religious?



[Hammond]
This is an example of why you are a fraudulent science
PhD claimant.
PFF is only ONE WAY to measure "mental speed" in humans,
which is known to be, btw, 16 bits/sec in normal average
adults. this happens to explain why early movies were shot
at 16 frames/second but is true irregardless of wether you
are blind or not as any COMPETENT high school graduate would
know.
You're an incompetent moron, but beyond that you're an
aggravated psychotic heckler which makes it a sheer delight
to bootf''''k you all over Usenet.


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
So George has a theory that goes like this.

1. Different people are able to see motion at different rates.
Things will blur at different rates for different people.


[Hammond]
Crudely correct statement. Congratulations dimwit


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
2. Therefore this proves there is a god.


[Hammond]
Again correct statement. However you have left out the
evidence that proves WHY this effect proves "God",
apparently because you are too incompetent and disinterested
to actually read the theory, and because of the vast lacunae
in your general education.


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
These two statements are not connected in any way.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
due to the fact that the heckler has not actually READ the
theory or is simply UNABLE to understand it because of
educational ignorance.


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
He is just assuming that if something is blurry or unseen, it must be
his god.


[Hammond]
BLATANT LIE.
In fact the published theory shows that ALL 20 CLAIMED
PHENOMENA of Religion are proven and explained by this and
other physics structure of the theory... all of which are
simply IGNORED by the heckler. The central achievement of
the SPOG is in fact to PROVE that this invisibility CAUSES
the phenomena of God.

One simply has to be aware that this poster is HIGHLY
IGNORANT, HIGHLY AGGRAVATED, AND HIGHLY INCOMPETENT.
AND IS A TYPICAL "PSYCHOTIC HECKLER".



[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
His "theory" predicts that high speed cameras and all flash
cameras are capable of seeing his god since they can stop
motion at higher rates than a person can see. The cameras
do not so there is no evidence for his "theory".



[Hammond]
This CANARD has been discussed a million times by Hammond
and thoroughly debunked.
"SLO-MO" and ZOOM LENS will not and CAN NOT reproduce the
effect on reality seen by a person with changed mental
speed. The fundamental reason for this is that our
identification of OTHER PEOPLE'S IDENTITY is based on our
own mental speed and our estimate (identification) of
others' mental speed (identity recognition). This means
that if your mental speed were to change then everybody
ELSE'S identity would suddenly change also. OTOH, filming a
person and then slo-mo-ing the film only makes it look like
the SAME PERSON is "moving slowly"...... there is a WORLD OF
DIFFERENCE between these two situations!
If it weren't for this crucial difference we would not
need artists like Rembrandt, or Da Vinci to paint the visual
phenomenon of God using their own "variable and
controllable" mental speed and we could simply replace them
with photographic cameras..... which is a WELL KNOWN AMATEUR
ERROR based on stultifying common IGNORANCE. The Mona Lisa
is worth $50,000,000 and the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is worth
a billion dollars... there is no "photograph" that is worth
50 million dollars and never will be! and for the SAME
REASON Hammond and Hammond's discovery of the SPOG is worth
another billion dollars! Stupid!


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
This is why it shows up in only the vanity press and Usenet.


[Hammond]
LIAR...LOL LOL LOL LIAR LOL LOL LOL
LIAR...LOL LOL LOL LIAR LOL LOL LOL
_New ideas In Psychology_ (Pergamon Press) is a
prestigious, thoroughly peer reviewed, premier academic
publication.
QUIT YOUR LYING HECKLER

and the Noetic Journal is also a peer reviewed Journal with
25 Professorial ranking members on it's editorial board.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS A FAUD AND A LIAR
AND AN ANONYMOUS PSYCHOTIC HECKLER


[Doug, incompetent scientist and heckler]
If it were a real theory, it would show up in science.


[Hammond]
It already has, it's called the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE and
has been front page news in Physics for 25 years. You're
an irresponsible scientifically incompetent anonymous
heckling retarded hyena and stooge.
=====================================
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 Fri, 09 May 2008 16:19:22 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:14:02 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:
[John Smith, sham rage heckler]
Unsupported (crap, insane, unscientific) assertion.

Also - up to this point you have SELECTIVELY been "reading wht isn't
there" - and coming to the deranged conclusion that this person's comments
agree with the totality of your crap!


[Hammond]
This person has been a regular commenter on the SPOG for
more than 8 years. He is well known to me and I am familiar
with his views.
Get off this thread Smith, take your heckling somewhere
else.


[John Smith, parking lot attendant and SPOG heckler]
Doesn't change the fact, or the issue, that you are (as usual) fraudulently
twisting and distorting what was said as support of your own deranged and
delusional crap.

Doesn't change the fact, either, that - as usual again - you bellow and
insult and run away ......... without addressing the point.

You're nothing more than a fraudulent pile of ****.

and getting worse by the minute.....

*kill file & flush worthless piece of trash.


[Hammond]
Go back to your job parking cars and stop heckling
scientific discussions.
=====================================
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 Fri, 9 May 2008 13:09:31 -0400, "Danwood"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:14:02 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
news On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:09:57 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:26:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt"
wrote:

On May 5, 4:40 pm, "Varekem" wrote:

(brevity snip)

[Varekem]
Sheesh Mark.So he isnt saying a real God exists, just that our lack of
growth makes us think there is one and creates the false illusion?

[Mark L. Fergerson]
No. I am saying that what he says is _partly_ correct, that humans
are capable only of observing that which we are capable of observing.
That would be a simple tautology except for the BGD (Brain Growth
Deficit)* issue; different humans are capable of observing different
amounts of reality due to their state of development in terms of how
accurately their DNA had the opportunity to be expressed as they grew
to adulthood, limited by in-utero and later nutrition and so on.


[Hammond]
YES, this a very commanding synopsis of the SPOG except
for the world "tautology" which has now been superseded in
this context by the term "Anthropic Principle" in modern
Physics, sort of the physics equivalent of WYSIWYG. Anyway,
congratulations, you're probably the only one on Usenet who
knows what the SPOG is about. Not an enviable position if
my experience is any example.


[Mark L. Fergerson]
I am saying that he is partly _incorrect_ not in that the above is
false (for it is obviously not) but in so far failing to analyze the
meaning of "perception" to see that it breaks finally down to physical
photon-driven interactions between fundamental particles.

George built the SPOG on a correspondence between the BGD and
Relativity* in that a fully developed human would "see" a "flat
psychometric* universe" such that nothing would be hidden beyond its
curvature analogous to how we cannot see into the past beyond a
certain point no matter how good a telescope we use; the Universe
simply is so big that some things are too far away for their light to
ever get here.



[Hammond]
Again congratulations in identifying "psychometric
curvature" (aka curvature of subjective spacetime) as the
cause of the "invisible world" (aka Heaven). The similarity
to an "event horizon" is heuristically good but more
accurately it is connected with the "dog whistle effect" in
that the word "curvature" is really physics jargon for a
"time dilation". This time dilation simply LOWERS the
visual spectrum cutoff frequency (aka PFF) to the point
where 20% of normal reality becomes so blurred as to become
TOTALLY INVISIBLE. Of PARTICULAR impact is the loss of
facial/personality recognition in other people, so that
their TRUE IDENTITY becomes invisible to the observer, and
in fact, this is the central phenominology of God,
Religion, and Psychology and the central factor in crime,
conflict, wars and every human conflict known to Man.
By the way, Hammond did not "build" the SPOG, I actually
bit by bit "uncovered" the SPOG. It is a pure by the book
discovery, I had no preconceived notions and no agenda when
I commenced this research 25 years ago.



[Mark L. Fergerson]
Since the causes of what happen around us are observable, and the
more you can observe, the more causes you can correlate with effects,
the more you will attribute to "God" when you cannot perceive but a
little of reality. A fully developed human brain would support a mind
without such limitations; it would "know the mind of 'God'".


[Hammond]
The above paragraph is exactly correct and is in fact a
totally scientifically correct explanation of "God". And
obviously you're one of the few people in the world who is
aware of it! I'm quite astounded at your mild mannered
ability.


[Mark L. Fergerson]
What he has not so far accepted (I think) is that _all_ physically
real entities are subject to similar general rules except that
inorganic entities are not subject to a developmental BGD but rather
to situational limitations in their range of perception. Get down to
the level of electrons and it's obvious that a free electron can
"perceive" much more than can one confined in an orbital; the latter
is completely "blind" to photons that do not correspond to allowed
transitions. Of course electrons can change their situation so there
is no direct analog of "growth" for them, but they are extremely
simple systems- something as complex as a human brain is time-
direction-limited and cannot be "ungrown" from a given point then
"regrown" with more nutrients etc. to improve their functionality.


[Hammond]
All LIVING THINGS (DNA based life) have a GROWTH DEFICIT!



[John Smith, sham rage heckler]
Unsupported (crap, insane, unscientific) assertion.

Also - up to this point you have SELECTIVELY been "reading wht isn't
there" - and coming to the deranged conclusion that this person's comments
agree with the totality of your crap!


[Hammond]
This person has been a regular commenter on the SPOG for
more than 8 years. He is well known to me and I am familiar
with his views.
Get off this thread Smith, take your heckling somewhere
else.


[Danwood, innocent bystander without a helmet]
When a "critic" finds himself "in over his head", heckling is all
he has left.


[Hammond]
You realize of course that someone like John Smith is
something you have to worrry about, not me,.... hecklers
only generate publicity for me and a political problem for
those who want me ignored.
=====================================
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 2008-05-08, Bryce Utting wrote:

but the SPOG is entirely predicated on man existing! without a
(scientifically) provable man, there IS no SPOG! oh noes! I was
about to commit all my earnings to seeing the SPOG given the full
attention it deserves!!!

ah well. I'll just buy more junk food instead.

And put it in your non-existent digestive system?
Huh? Huh?!?


--
I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me
and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press
away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 18:57:20 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote:

On 2008-05-08, Bryce Utting wrote:

but the SPOG is entirely predicated on man existing! without a
(scientifically) provable man, there IS no SPOG! oh noes! I was
about to commit all my earnings to seeing the SPOG given the full
attention it deserves!!!

snip crap


[Hammond]
If Man did not exist, the Sun would not even rise
tomorrow morning. In fact w/o Man there would BE no
tomorrow!
=====================================
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 May 9, 9:54*pm, George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
* *If Man did not exist, the Sun would not even rise
tomorrow morning. *In fact w/o Man there would BE no
tomorrow!

A fascist male argument George.

If man did not exist the Sun would rise on us Wimmin.

On May 7, 8:09 pm, George Hammond wrote:
The "God" of Man is simply a 100% fully grown man.

Is he a blond, brunette, red, or black hair? What race is he? Blue,
green, or brown eyes? Height? Weight? Double-jointed or no? I'm
assuming that he is ambidextrous and perfectly symmetrical.

Na, I was born an atheist, and remained an atheist up
until the time that I accidentally stumbled across the
scientific proof of God when I was 55 years of age in 1997.
I had no religious beliefs whatsoever. I was searching
for the Structural Model of Personality when I ACCIDENTALLY
discovered the SPOG, and suddenly realized that there WAS a
"God" and what it was, and what religion was actually
talking about behind all that metaphorical mumbo jumbo!

Wait. You were saying earlier how this discovery took 25 years of
research. 25 years of one man's research _part time_ is not 25 years
of research either. It probably took your mind 25 years to degenerate
enough to allow such insanity, as the findings at your day job got
more and more off track.

[Hammond]
Na, as I stated above all living things with a brain are
certainly "sentient" to some degree, especially the higher
quadrupeds. However, they do NOT see the same world or
"reality" that Man does. Therefore, they are only vaguely
aware of the God of Man. They are beasts of a "lesser God"
so to speak.

Maybe their gods are the great gods, though. Perhaps they have
advanced enough that their communication is indiscernible to us.

Also, what about the devil? Is he a completely imperfect being? CTHULU
FTW!!!

On May 9, 1:04*pm, madge wrote:
On May 9, 9:54*pm, George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
* *If Man did not exist, the Sun would not even rise
tomorrow morning. *In fact w/o Man there would BE no
tomorrow!

A fascist male argument George.

If man did not exist the Sun would rise on us Wimmin.

If you die the universe doesn't exist anymore,

TeeHee.