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, 5 May 2008 01:29:30 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2:51 pm, George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; NOTHING EXISTED before Man arrived, because
"EXISTENCE" is a HUMAN PERCEPTION.... no people, no
existence.



[Hammond]
Is that you Mark L. Fergerson? Glad to hear that you
are still alive and kicking. I always considered you a
friend.
First, let me point out that the SPOG is not based on
recondite, picayune, or obscure trivia. It is based on the
MAMMONTH, ROBUST, INDISPUTABLE MOUNTAIN TOPS
OF THE EMPIRICAL FACTS of SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.
Therefore, for you to sit there and argue obscure,
unproven, speculative trivia against the SPOG is JUST not
credible.
You are arguing about the TREES when in fact the SPOG is
about the FOREST!
btw you will notice this thread is fast approaching 500
posts with no end insight....... the REASON for this Mark is
that the phrase:

GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

has struck a chord and rung a bell with the scientific
community....... they KNOW THE TRUTH when they hear it.
Hang in their guy, as the GI's used to say, it's only
another 50 miles to Berlin!


I must stop you here. You are correct ONLY in that you are using a
limited definition of "existence". You have continued to insist that
"perception" must be organic in nature, that a mind-occupied human
brain be involved.

I have repeatedly told you that you are looking at an EMERGENT
phenomenon; that of mind emerging from the physics and chemistry of
biology. Each individual step in "perception" is strict, mind-LESS
physics; sight is photons stimulating (being perceived by) electrons
in rhodopsin molecules in the rods and cones, which stimulates (is
perceived by) poised ions to fall through pores in retinal ganglial
neuron membranes, which via weighted summation stimulates (is
perceived by) yet more ion transfers in other neuron membranes, and so
on until huge sweeping sychronized cascades of ion transfers occur
across otherwise unrelated masses of cerebral neurons aggregated into
various cortexes produce (are perceived by) for instance the speech
cortex, whose output is perceived by chains of neural ion membrane
transfers leading to perception by muscular end effectors leading to
your brain's processing of what you saw being perceived by the air
molecules in front of your face, which pass their perceptions
electromagnetically on to other molecules, and so on to somebody
else's ears.

At NO point in that strictly physical chain of events can ANYONE say
"here is mind" or "here is soul".

Notice that each event in the chain above is a physical/chemical
PERCEPTION by (generally) an orbital electron of a passing photon.

THAT IS THE BASIS OF ALL PERCEPTION.

This is the FICTITIOUS sticking point the Quantum Mechanics cannot
get past and which you have unconsciously accepted as Fundamentally
true; that an Observer (notice capitalization) MUST BE a human.

This is blatantly false. AT NO POINT in the classic Schroedinger's
Cat gedankenexperiment can ANYONE show why the experimenter's
viewpoint is privileged; not only is the cat an equal Observer, SO IS
THE VIAL OF POISON! For that matter SO IS THE DECAY DETECTOR THAT
BREAKS THE VIAL!

All these stimulation-perception events exist INDEPENDENTLY of any
data-processing wetware (except in the case of the cat).

I have been waiting for you to notice this on your own, to
comprehend that THE LACK OF A PREFERRED (privileged) FRAME OF
REFERENCE IN PHYSICS ANALOGIZES DIRECTLY TO YOUR SPOG! You have either
failed to do so because you're too damn busy WASTING TIME AND ENERGY
exchanging vitriol with your detractors, or because you share the 19th-
century arrogance of those who cling desperately to a Preferred Frame
and are red-shifting themselves into the dust of history.

I'm getting too old to wait much longer so I'm telling you
explicitly; your SPOG is a SPECIAL CASE of a more general theory of
Quantum Relativity that to exist, must first have its components (one
of which will be your perfected SPOG) shorn of that 19th-century
arrogance I spoke of above.

Notice that unlike almost all your correspondents here I have NEVER
called you wrong, insane, deluded, or anything similar. I HAVE said
that I think you're on to something more powerful, more important than
anything else humans have ever gotten involved in BUT you must get
your EGO OUT OF YOUR WAY in order to CURE humanity of its ongoing
INSANITY caused by not being AWARE of its FALSE perceptions of
REALITY.

If anybody would like to point out that I'm using CAPITAL LETTERS
every few words like some kind of CRANK, screw them, the emphasis is
necessary.

Don't bother asking me about my C.V. George, I already told you I
don't have one. Except this: I'm the man you proved to be smarter than
you by the measure of that perception-speed website, I'm the man who
told you who the 13th zodiac sign (the Snake Wrestler) was, I'm the
man who told you to investigate why so many ancient cultures valued
slaves that did tile work (BTW did you ever look into that?), I'm the
man who told you to look into the 4-D geometry of the Qaballa, I'm the
man who gave you the term "eigengods", and so on.

I've handed you more and more historical CONFIRMATIONS of your SPOG
and more extrapolative spinoffs of it than anyone else but I've never
required any kind of recognition for that from you UNTIL NOW. Want to
know why? ONLY to emphasize that YOU ARE NOT A GOD. YOU ARE AS LIMITED
AS ANYONE ELSE by your own BGD and therefore YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS
BEING ARROGANT. That BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO LISTEN
TO ME BECAUSE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS I PERCEIVE MORE OF REALITY THAN
YOU DO. Not that I think I'm a god either, but that I know something
you need to hear.

What do I want you to hear? Nothing much. Just get past this
silliness of Reality not existing until humans came along; abandon the
fiction of a preferred reference frame. If you like you might talk
about other "sub-gods" related to other, lesser perceptive mechanisms
and networks all the way down to the quantum gods of individual
electrons*, but that's all COMPLETELY irrelevant to your real work
anyway, bringing the SPOG to its full fruition so that it can do what
only it can do; show INDISPUTABLY that the cause of all human
suffering is our faulty perceptions, and that the path to peace and
harmony is AWARENESS OF OUR LIMITATIONS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK
WITHIN THEM TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

In other words QUIT SCREWING AROUND and GET BACK TO WORK.

Please. Before we extinct ourselves and make the whole thing moot.


Mark L. Fergerson

* That is NOT meaningless; consider that an electron in an atomic
orbital can only "perceive" a limited number of incoming photons; only
those corresponding to allowed transitions to other orbitals, while a
free electron can "perceive" any passing photon. However the latter's
response will not be as predictable BECAUSE it is not constrained-
this obviously correlates to the information-processing power of
"constrained" (organized) matter like rhodopsin molecules and brains.

This is an electron's analog of the BGD, but as electrons do not
grow old and have very limited response mechanisms it is like other
analogies and ought not be pushed too far. However it should be
obvious how the human (and other animals') BGD can be extrapolated
from aggregating large numbers of constrained particles into networks.

But don't spend too much time on this; as I said it's irrelevant to
fully developing the SPOG to free humanity's eyes of its "scales".

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
=====================================