Re: PLUTO, CHARON, AND THE MOON, AND ... LYING ASTRONOMERS.

From: Mensanator (mensanator_at_aol.compost)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: 07 Jun 2004 07:47:48 GMT

>Subject: Re: PLUTO, CHARON, AND THE MOON, AND ... LYING ASTRONOMERS.
>From: wnowak wnowak@interlog.com
>Date: 6/6/04 10:26 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40C3E054.6298FA34@interlog.com>
>
>Mensanator wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: PLUTO, CHARON, AND THE MOON, AND ... LYING ASTRONOMERS.
>> >From: wnowak wnowak@interlog.com
>> >Date: 6/6/04 1:25 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <40C3619E.3742F47C@interlog.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Mensanator wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Subject: Re: PLUTO, CHARON, AND THE MOON, AND ... LYING ASTRONOMERS.
>> >> >From: wnowak wnowak@interlog.com
>> >> >Date: 6/4/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: <40C1045B.42CA95B0@interlog.com>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Mensanator wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Subject: Re: PLUTO, CHARON, AND THE MOON, AND ... LYING ASTRONOMERS.
>> >> >> >From: wnowak wnowak@interlog.com
>> >> >> >Date: 6/3/2004 7:15 PM Central Standard Time
>> >> >> >Message-id: <40BFBF1E.36FA4A94@interlog.com>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If I can still say something; what I am trying to
>> >> >> >say is not astrology;
>> >> >> >http://www.interlog.com/~wnowak/book
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But it's still creationist claptrap.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, based on today's definition of science what I try
>> >> >to say is not science.
>> >>
>> >> And is thus, Off-Topic in sci.math.
>> >>
>> >> >Based on 16th century definition of science it would be
>> >> >probably classified as science.
>> >>
>> >> So go find a psuedo-science newsgroup.
>> >>
>> >> >It is possible that in 22nd century it will get classified
>> >> >as science again,
>> >>
>> >> See you then.
>> >>
>> >> >based on new facts about the uniqueness of the Solar System.
>> >> >It is also possible that it will be sooner rather than later.
>> >> >
>> >> >Even if you do not see what I see,
>> >>
>> >> "Prophet" is never a rewarding career.
>> >>
>> >> >I hope that the message was passed.
>> >>
>> >> We'll see if the world beats a path to your door.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"The Solar System is extremely unique object, and the basic
>> >> >deviation from statistics is caused by the simple fact that
>> >> >is contains life. In this case its hould be no surprise that other
>> >> >extremely unique objects are found nearby.
>> >> >One of this objects is PLuto together with its satellite Charon."
>> >>
>> >> You got to that point before the last two hidden chapters of your
>> >> book, so you're back-pedalling on the message, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Based on your short and hmm ...shallow comments,
>>
>> Succinct.
>>
>> >I understand that you are a young person.
>>
>> You understand wrong. You are wrong about a lot of things,
>> aren't you?
>>
>> >This is probably the reason why you are still missing
>> >the point.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm far too intelligent to think at your level.
>>
>> >
>> >I consider this news group a kind of a door of the
>> >"church of science", and like M. Luther I come
>> >here and I place my claims on the door,
>>
>> Did M Luther nail his claims to the King's door?
>> No, beacuse they would have been Off-Topic there.
>> Since his claims were theistic in nature, he took
>> them to an appropriate venue. But your claims are
>> not science, so you're nailing them to the wrong door.
>>
>> >so that everybody can see it.
>>
>> That makes you a troll.
>>
>> >
>> >I say ... here are the dry facts,
>> >I claim that I have an interpretation so...
>>
>> A theistic interpretation. Science has no need for such
>> interpretations, so they are unwelcome.
>>
>> >deal with it.
>>
>> I am. I'm telling you to go peddle your papers
>> somewhere else.
>>
>> >Do not hide your head in the sand,
>> >and pretend that you are not visible.
>> >
>> >And make no mistake; I am not talking about:
>> >UFO, little green man from Mars,
>> >astrology, or ant type of similar bull***.
>>
>> Theism _is_ simlar bull***.
>>
>> BTW, how is it that _you_ are the one who can read the
>> handwriting on the wall? Did you wake up one morning
>> and decide to be a Prophet? Did God speak to you
>> personally?
>>
>> >
>> >Pure dry fact that were completely ignored by astronomers.
>>
>> Your "facts" have been weighed in the balance
>> and found wanting.
>>
>> >It almost looks like they did not notice that there was
>> >an eclipse of the Sun ( from the point of view of details ).
>> >
>> >I wanted to present all facts on Discovery TV
>> >( without interpretation !!! ),
>>
>> What would be the point of presenting it without the
>> interpretation?
>>
>> >and my offer was rejected by ...the "court astronomer",
>>
>> Stripped of your theistic interpretation, all you have left
>> is your bogus "science". Not enough for a TV show.
>>
>> >... and these are the political reasons that I am
>> >talking about. So where is democracy ?
>> >Where is freedom of speech ?
>>
>> Produce your own show. No one will stop you.
>> That's what freedom of speech means. It doesn't
>> mean anyone is obligated to produce a show for you.
>>
>> >
>> >All idiotic stories about UFO on Discovery TV are OK and
>> >allowed, and what I try to say is not allowed ?
>>
>> And real scientists have contempt for such idiotic shows.
>> Unfortunately, the general public are idiots, so Discovery
>> gives them what they want to see. That's why I don't
>> understand why you would make your pitch without the
>> interpretation. The public loves that psuedo-scientific
>> mumbo-jumbo. Here's a hint. Make some kind of
>> connection to the Great Pyramid of Egypt and you'll
>> have a hot property.
>>
>> >
>> >WN.
>>
>> --
>> Mensanator
>> Ace of Clubs
>
>So far I was called : coward, troll, stupid and ... indirectly an idiot.
>Well this is not that bad, since"... the general public are idiots ...".
>I myself do not recall calling anybody names.

Look at the subject of this thread.

>
>Anyway, I know now that you are not very young, and very
>intelligent, that is good.
>
>Presenting just facts with no interpretation makes sense,
>since otherwise facts will get lost.
>Obviously you must have heard about Chinese Chronicles.
>So if Chinese astronomers had today's scientific equipment,
>they would at least put down a note.
>"... On the day of 11th of July 1991 this and that happened
>in the sky..."

...on the 11th of July 1991 the Sun did not eclipse Pluto
because it was somewhere else at the time.
...on the 12th of July 1991 the Sun did not eclipse Pluto
because it was somewhere else at the time.
...on the 13th of July 1991 the Sun did not eclipse Pluto
because it was somewhere else at the time.
...on the 14th of July 1991 the Sun did not eclipse Pluto
because it was somewhere else at the time.
...on the 15th of July 1991 the Sun did not eclipse Pluto
because it was somewhere else at the time.
...on the 16th of July 1991 the Sun did not eclipse Pluto
because it was somewhere else at the time.

Do you really think the Chinese would bother to record all
the non-events that happen every day?

>So if one thousand years from now somebody is able to
>explain why this happened, the data is prepared.
>
>OUR ASTRONOMERS did not bother informing anybody
>about anything.

So how did you find out?

>It does not fit our today's needs .. throw it away.

Where are you getting your data from if it was thrown away?

>This way the guys one thousand years from now
>( and today's not-astronomers )
>do not have a chance.
>That is why I say that presenting facts even with
>no interpretation makes sense ...
>for example on Discovery TV. Do you
>understand now ?

I understand perfectly well. You're first trying to establish
some credibility with your psuedo-science. Credibility you
plan to cash in when you make your "revelation".

>
>This only shows how arrogant the scientists are, with their system of
>believes in " cause and effect ".

That's what science is about, cause and effect.

>They obviously think that they represent the final stage of the evolution of
>"homo scientificus ".
>( try to convince dinosaurs that they are going to be extinct ... "No way, we
>are SOOO BIG" ).
>
>I would not call theism a bull***, but my "theistic" interpretation IS A
>SECONDARY ISSUE.

You have not addressed the issue of your own arrogance in
claiming to be a Prophet.

>The order of things is:
>first presenting facts, then presenting possible interpretations.
>
>When I referred to shallow comments, I was talking about technical issue.
>Commenting
>single sentences taken out of context is "shallow".

And calling people liars is slander.

>"Deeper" is commenting at the bottom of all the text.

Where you can conveniently ignore the issues raised
by the shallow comments.

>
>WN. 

--
Mensanator
Ace of Clubs