>
>"George Hammond" notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:1ugu14pnmflcs8qt2s8fc5t49g52mlapja@4ax.com...

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

>>>Roger Pearse wrote:

>>>> On 5 May, 12:58, "John Smith" yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>> "Roger Pearse" googlemail.com> 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?

>
>
>[John Smith, SPOG critic]
>You don't know?
>Hell, we learned that in high school.
>

>
>
>There is no such thing as "audibly (correct spelling) invisible". It's
>called "inaudible".
>
>

>
>
>

>> 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.

>
>All one can figure from that is that you don't know your ass from a hole in
>the ground!
>
>[John Smith, SPOG critic]
>You cannot take the differences between what a human and a dog can hear -
>and transpose that to what two different humans can see.
>
>
>

>
>[John Smith, SPOG critic]
>Were you a REAL scientist - you would know that!
>
>

>
>[John Smith, SPOG critic]
>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!

>
>[John Smith, SPOG critic]
>Your claims about "secular trend" are nothing more than a pile of
>"unsupported assertions" bull shit!
>
>