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

From: wnowak (wnowak_at_interlog.com)
Date: 06/08/04 

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:12:38 -0400

Mensanator wrote:

> >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

The fact is that I do not have PhD in the field of astronomy.
The only thing I have is facts, than I can use in order to balance "any amount of
PhDs", and show that facts that should have been recorded were ignored.

Well, I know that you are not a mathematician, so let me tell you this.
Probability of eclipsing PLuto during the total eclipse of the Sun is much higher
than the probability of the event that I described. Of course it does not matter
since you know everything ahead of time ( hmm ... who is the Prophet here ? ),
and obviously I am going to" ... establish credibility by any means in order to
cash in ...".
BTW, you call me a "Prophet", and not me myself ( one more name to the list ).

As I said my interpretation is something that one can believe or not.
If anybody is interested in my line of interpretation please see the movie
"Casino", that I mentioned a few times during this discussion.

I say again, facts were ignored ( as far as I know, please prove me wrong ),
and this is the bottom line.

I was insulted by you that many times, that I think that I have enough.
I apologize to "general public" and "all believers" that can feel insulted by
this not very young, but obviously very intelligent man that I happened to talk
to.

If anybody is interested in at least the portion with facts, my work can be always
found by
GOOGLE search engine ( PLUTO, ECLIPSE, HAWAII ).

BTW, tomorrow Venus will pass in front of the Sun, ... amazing coincidence,
I think that I will use it in order to support my claims :)

WN.

Quantcast