Lea lines (badger)
Jiri Mruzek
William Wallace wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
>>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>>>>William Wallace wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:07:56 -0700, snai...@ar.com.au wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you familiar with the scientific method?
>>>>>> Gee I didn't realize there was a "scientific method" to
>>>>>> badgering.
--------------------------------
Yet, you continue badgering methodically. Who's to say the
"art" of badgering can't be based on the science of propaganda?
snip
>>>>Now, he tries to talk smart, to gloss over the fact that there
>>>is no criticism for me to answer other than general criticism..
>>> And you have failed to answer even that. That of course is the
>>> point.
>>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
>>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
> Then post them.
Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
>>As a matter of fact, at least half of all my posts (read through
>>at DejaNews) are devoted to such general discussions.
> I have been reading and have found none. Perhaps you could direct
me?
Could I have a word with your dog-guide?
>>Another point is that my critics were never able to get past
>>such discussion. That takes away from their seriousness.
> Perhaps what you think is a response and what the rest of us do
> are not the same thing. That is why I ask you to point one out.
See that guy running for cover? That's your buddy, cadet Lochner.
That is a response, isn't it?
>>> What you want is for people to accept your conclusions and then
>>> debate the details.
>> My discoveries are of the type requiring familiarisation
>> with details. There is no point in just shooting the bull.
> There has to be a basis for considering them in the first place.
Don't worry about the basis - just consider them. - If you can..
>>> Excuse me but someone who finds arithmetic relationships in
>>> shape from Atlantis
> <PAUSE>
>>What is "shape from Atlantis"? What obscure language is that?
> If this is your website
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
> then on it you have a link to the "Geometry Basics of the Seal of
> Atlantis." (BTW: The HTML for that link could be done better.)
Ah, a seal, and a shape are two different words. There are
a lot of different shapes, I mention. (What did you not like
about the link?)
> What is the "Seal of Atlantis"? There was no Atlantis. It has no
> seal. What are you talking about? The link is silent on the matter
> other than repeating the name.
Go to the preceding section - namon5.htm - page 5 of the Nasca Monkey
report. It opens like this:
"
The Seal of Atlantis
It is startling, but the key geometric ideas of the Peruvian
"Nasca Monkey" are identical to the key ideas from the 14,000
years old "Cinderrella" engraving from La Marche, France .
Of course, to verify this for ourselves, we must become familiar
with the basis of the Cinderella Engraving's geometrical design.
*
I presented this design to the Canada Council back in 1987,
showing how it had been inspired by the Cinderella Engraving.
so there is no doubt of the design's independent existence long
before the Nasca Monkey's image was brought to my attention.
Due to this fact there is no pressing need to actually review
the image, as to how it had inspired the original geometry -
in order to be able to identify the same formal geometry at Nasca.
What matters is that I had extracted the same design from
another picture back in 1987.
Thus, the complex intelligence of the design may be misinterpreted,
but it cannot be denied. Hence the design is aptly described, as
"The Seal of Atlantis".
We only have to expose the Seal of Atlantis as the controlling
influence in the Nasca Monkey's design - to establish the
prehistorical link:
! La Marche - Nasca!
(Understandably, Atlantis means any source-civilisation for
the Science-Art from La Marche & Nasca, to me.) By the same
token, such identity of design may throw some doubt on the
belief that the decorations on the desert at Nasca are no older
than a couple of millenia.Conceivably, the sites could date
to the same era, but in no case can one diminish the distance
between them.
"___________________________________________________
Elsewhere in the report I say:
"
There was someone on Earth 14,000 years ago,
who had profound knowledge of Mathematics,
and a method of encoding exact ideas into Art.
"
The civilisation behind this mathematically encoded art is Atlantis.
We have Plato's word for it. There are no other civilisations
alleged to have existed 14,000 years ago, but Atlantis. Yes,
the engravings from La Marche can be Atlantean..
Let's continue the quote from above.
"
We are able to establish the above conclusion by backing it with
ample documentation to the following effect.
In Quality and Volume of its MATHEMATICAL CONTENTS,
the Cinderella engraving stands UNMATCHED by other art.
It transcends art, and becomes Science-Art.
Nothing short of a natural miracle, I have since discovered
an identical system of mathematical encoding in another
ancient image from Nasca. Peru - a site far removed in time &
distance from Magdalenian France.
Although any direct connection between the two sites would
seem impossible, the latter image bases upon the same unique
concept of a regular five-pointed star, in which one arm of the
star is seen as representing 5 decimal units, and is a variation
on the same unique design .
This is big news. Aside from proving the hitherto disbelieved
existence of prehistorical science, it means that both archaeological
sites were stamped by the same civilisation. A stone tablet, and
a sun-baked desert both bear the "Seal of Atlantis".
_______________________"'_______________________________
Is the meaning of the Seal of Atlantis clearer to you, now?
The Cone & Square formation is the basic geometric idea
of the Seal of Atlantis. It is like a blueprint desribing a process
of geometric creation ..
>>I found regularities IN ART. It is nothing new, we have a lot of
>>precedents for geometrical, or arithmetical systems found in art,
>>but, from later times.
>>You cannot handle
> Mind reading as a form of personal attack.
>>the fact that this geometry is extremely
>>sophisticated. It torments you to have to see real scientific
>>geometry encoded into Stone-Age art. Therefor, you have put
>>on your dark glasses, and stab at the Science-Art from afar
>>with your white cane.
> As a matter of fact, I found geometry quite interesting in High
>School. I finished up plain and solid in about three months on my own
>without skipping material as was done in the full year course work. I
>then found a text on n-dimensional geometry and mastered that in
>another three months. Later that year I found books on non-euclidean
>geometry and Minkowski space followed by teaching myself special
>relativity and the fundamentals of general relativity including its
>effects upon the geometry of space. I got as far as Riemannian
>Manifolds before I gave up on the math required. I will grant you that
>it was not until first year college that I got into analytic geometry.
> In all of those readings and in the intervening thirty five
> years, yours is the first reference to "scientific" geometry I have
> come across.
> I suggest I am sufficient qualified to render an opinion in
> matters of geometry, matters geometric if you prefer.
You build yourself up, as a master of geometry in a lengthy intro,
and then you give it all up in one brief sentence below:
>I find nothing
>of note in all of your material. The only conclusion I can make at
> this point is that you are indulging in wishful thinking at best.
Well, some other people say that all that geometry in the report
makes it too expert-oriented. However, yours is not an Expert
Opinion, but instead it is the Babbling of an Alleged Expert..
What are the geometrical diagrams all about, as according to you?
>>Otherwise, you would bravely inspect the details of every
>>such case. You would study how the geometry emerges. Take
>.the continuation of the Frame, the so called Frapent.
>>Our subject of study still involves the twelve outermost points
>>of the C. engraving. Six points in a row, A, B, C, D, E, and F
>>form a mutual pentagonal arrangement, including an array of
>>five lines radiating from the I-point.
>>There is no question this arrangement has artificial character.
>> So, think. When looking at such a formation, do I know, what
>>if any further order it contains? - Of course, not. How could
>>I know the future? But the formation cries out loud and clear
>> that it has something to do with pentagonal geometry. -
> I would also point out I have never heard of "pentagonal"
>geometry. I have a natural skepticism of people who unnecessarily make
>up new terms.
I am skeptical of people, who cannot comprehend a novel combination
of two olden terms, such as "pentagonal", and "geometry".
These hermetic geometries do really draw upon a specific concept
of a five-pointed star. What else can I say here?
>>Am I
>>not expected to continue the analysis? And if I get results
>>providing solutions, am I to reject them just because you and
>>others like you refuse to look at these results?
>>If you answered Yes, you are a fanatical lunatic.
> If you are expecting anyone to take you seriously then YOU must
>defend your position against all comers including those who look such
>as myself.
Including mosquito-ninjas? Wrestlers? CIA agents? Creationists?
>>> has much more fundamental problems than this
>>> newsgroup can deal with adequately.
>>How deficient! You are trying to evade this discussion.
>>Why, these newsgroups are attended by (some) people,
>>who can think and debate, if they want to. They even
>>pretend to like it.
> After you made assertions regarding Ley Lines I very clearly
>pointed out the deficiencies with talk about Ley lines and asked what
>you used.
Bull, you are rewriting history. You are confused about lea
lines in my own studies. There are nonesuch. Lea lines are
in England. My discoveries must be seen separately from the
issue of English lea lines. But, if it interests you, I posted
something theoretical on the subject of lea lines yesterday.
>You declined to answer. Then I pointed out that in absense
>of answers you would need to make predictions as to where to dig. You
>declined to make them public implying you were going to dig their
>yourself and did not want to give it away.
Study what I present so far. Dig later.
> As you have so far avoided all discussions of the preliminaries
>that I raised it is difficult to see upon what you base your claim
>that I am evading discussion.
You are perjuring yourself while trying to sound like a judge..
Pathetic..
>>>I would suggest you start in
>>> one of the paranet groups.
>>You suggest that I abandon these groups, to which I made
>>more valuable contributions than you ever will?
> Your opinion of their value and even that they are contributions
> appears strangely devoid of support by others.
Not as devoid, as you would think. There is also such a thing
as "intrinsic value"..
>>You have a lot of impertinence.
> Thank you.
?
>>My suggestion is that
>>you move yourself to those "para" groups and stay there.
>>You are the one to dislike the prospect of having to think.
> I would never call the study of art, thinking.
Art and mathematics won't get you thinking?
>>>>> This is not badgering other than in the sense of, if he wishes to
>>>>> continue to claim to have made discoveries and should be believed that
>>>>> he needs to answer many very basic questions regarding his claim of
>>>>> discovery.
>>>>How many degrees do you need before you can see a horse?
>>> About as many as you need to see a face on Mars in Cydonia.
>>Ok, you cannot see the oldest image of a horseman in the world,
>>which any drunk can see, as well as anybody else. I cannot help
>>you to get over your sensory deprivation, don't blame it on me!
> So you do see a face on Mars. Thought so.
No, your honorarium, Mars is too far from Earth for that.
But, if you must know, I see a pair of nice boobs in the word
"breast"..
and an "Obese Stone-Age madonna without a head" in every circle
with a break at the top.
>> Wait! Don't tell me! You are working on it.
>>You know that the above is just another insult.
>>Each such insult is just another admission of your
>>helplessness to discuss what I have rationally.
> I note that you were the one who started the insults. I note
> further you object to the favor being returned to you. Why?
Check your notes. We are discussing my discoveries, not yours.
Therefore, you cannot tell me, how to select my evidence, or do
other things. You may check the evidence, though. - No, you
were the first to start spittting your arrogant attitude.
>=====
>>> Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be
>>> science as the layman equates incomprehensibility and science as
>>> the same thing.
>>You try to relate your flashy but untrue statement to my
>>scientific work. That is kind of (Nazi) low of you.
> As part of the Nazi political platform was free univeral higher
> education it is unfortunate for you they did not succeed so you could
> have availed yourself of it.
Then I would be just like you. Full of immutable truths packed
in hot air. Charles, and Jagellonian universities were good enough
for me. Interesting choice of words, you have:
By selecting "unfortunate" and "availed yourself of it" you give away
your inner attitude that I would be a better man, if steeped in Nazi
education. Thus, you admit that you are a Nazi. You can relax,
now that your cover has been blown, and let it all out in a sobbing
confession.
However, I was born as too much of a free spirit with an irksome
gift for comparing eternal truths to their reflections in the mirror
of reality, to be valuable to Nazis.
=====
Science is a team sport - Philosophers coach.
William Wallace
>William Wallace wrote:
>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>>>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
>>>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>>>>>William Wallace wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:07:56 -0700, snai...@ar.com.au wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with the scientific method?
>>>>>>> Gee I didn't realize there was a "scientific method" to
>>>>>>> badgering.
>--------------------------------
>Yet, you continue badgering methodically. Who's to say the
> "art" of badgering can't be based on the science of propaganda?
You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
>snip
>>>>>Now, he tries to talk smart, to gloss over the fact that there
>>>>is no criticism for me to answer other than general criticism..
>
>>>> And you have failed to answer even that. That of course is the
>>>> point.
>
>>>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
>>>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
>
>> Then post them.
>Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
I will be waiting. But you will not do so. You know that and I
know that. You have no intention of doing that nor even of fifty nor
even of five. Of course, Fate Magazine and similar do not qualify.
>>>As a matter of fact, at least half of all my posts (read through
>>>at DejaNews) are devoted to such general discussions.
>> I have been reading and have found none. Perhaps you could direct
>me?
>Could I have a word with your dog-guide?
I have at my disposal Dejanews and various search engines. Would
you care to suggest a few keywords?
>>>Another point is that my critics were never able to get past
>>>such discussion. That takes away from their seriousness.
>> Perhaps what you think is a response and what the rest of us do
>> are not the same thing. That is why I ask you to point one out.
>See that guy running for cover? That's your buddy, cadet Lochner.
>That is a response, isn't it?
It is just one more fool thing you are posting. Obviously you
have no comprehension of what is required of a person making
extraordinary claims.
>>>> What you want is for people to accept your conclusions and then
>>>> debate the details.
>>> My discoveries are of the type requiring familiarisation
>>> with details. There is no point in just shooting the bull.
>> There has to be a basis for considering them in the first place.
>Don't worry about the basis - just consider them. - If you can..
No. You, as the person making the claim, must do even as Einstein
did, provide the basis for considering them. Or do you consider
yourself above the requirements laid upon him? Or is that a rhetoric
question? He satisfied those requirements. Why do you refuse to do so?
You appear to believe your "scientific geometry"
>>>> Excuse me but someone who finds arithmetic relationships in
>>>> shape from Atlantis
>> <PAUSE>
>>>What is "shape from Atlantis"? What obscure language is that?
>
>> If this is your website
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
>> then on it you have a link to the "Geometry Basics of the Seal of
>> Atlantis." (BTW: The HTML for that link could be done better.)
>Ah, a seal, and a shape are two different words. There are
>a lot of different shapes, I mention. (What did you not like
>about the link?)
Now that we agree there is no Atlantis, we agree there is no
seal.
> The Seal of Atlantis
That is an awful lot of cut and paste but it does not say a
damned thing.
Your imagination and wishful thinking of course. Nothing more.
Anyone can draw circles and squares and the like. That does not imbue
meaning to them.
>>>Otherwise, you would bravely inspect the details of every
>>>such case. You would study how the geometry emerges. Take
>>.the continuation of the Frame, the so called Frapent.
>>>Our subject of study still involves the twelve outermost points
>>>of the C. engraving. Six points in a row, A, B, C, D, E, and F
>>>form a mutual pentagonal arrangement, including an array of
>>>five lines radiating from the I-point.
>>>There is no question this arrangement has artificial character.
>>> So, think. When looking at such a formation, do I know, what
>>>if any further order it contains? - Of course, not. How could
>>>I know the future? But the formation cries out loud and clear
>>> that it has something to do with pentagonal geometry. -
>> I would also point out I have never heard of "pentagonal"
>>geometry. I have a natural skepticism of people who unnecessarily make
>>up new terms.
>I am skeptical of people, who cannot comprehend a novel combination
>of two olden terms, such as "pentagonal", and "geometry".
>These hermetic geometries do really draw upon a specific concept
>of a five-pointed star. What else can I say here?
Nor have I ever heard of "hermetic" geometries. Your propensity
for making up terms in an effort to imply meaning where there is no
meaning appears to know no bounds. Please keep in mind that I learned
more about geometry than you know now most likely before you were
born. I believe I can speak from exposure to terms related to
geometry.
To keep the scorecard straight, you have now invented "pentagonal
geometry" and "hermetic geometry." Two terms otherwise unknown in the
textbooks or in the literature.
The absolute minimum requirement upon you is to rigorously define
both of those terms. No hand waving, no excessive verbiage. You are
required to provide a rigorous definition suitable for academic
refutation.
But of course you will not do that because you can not do that as
it is beyond your education, formal or self.
To be quite frank about it, you are rather incapable of passing a
first quarter high school test in plain geometry. That is very clear.
>>>Am I
>>>not expected to continue the analysis? And if I get results
>>>providing solutions, am I to reject them just because you and
>>>others like you refuse to look at these results?
>>>If you answered Yes, you are a fanatical lunatic.
>> If you are expecting anyone to take you seriously then YOU must
>>defend your position against all comers including those who look such
>>as myself.
>Including mosquito-ninjas? Wrestlers? CIA agents? Creationists?
Yes.
>>>> has much more fundamental problems than this
>>>> newsgroup can deal with adequately.
>>>How deficient! You are trying to evade this discussion.
>>>Why, these newsgroups are attended by (some) people,
>>>who can think and debate, if they want to. They even
>>>pretend to like it.
>> After you made assertions regarding Ley Lines I very clearly
>>pointed out the deficiencies with talk about Ley lines and asked what
>>you used.
>Bull, you are rewriting history. You are confused about lea
>lines in my own studies. There are nonesuch. Lea lines are
>in England. My discoveries must be seen separately from the
>issue of English lea lines. But, if it interests you, I posted
>something theoretical on the subject of lea lines yesterday.
It is commonly spelled LEY and you responded on the subject. You
posted nothing of value as you know.
>>You declined to answer. Then I pointed out that in absense
>>of answers you would need to make predictions as to where to dig. You
>>declined to make them public implying you were going to dig their
>>yourself and did not want to give it away.
>Study what I present so far. Dig later.
I have. It is nonsense. Truly whacko material. Indistinguishable
from garbage.
>> As you have so far avoided all discussions of the preliminaries
>>that I raised it is difficult to see upon what you base your claim
>>that I am evading discussion.
>You are perjuring yourself while trying to sound like a judge..
>Pathetic..
I have not taken an oath. Consult your local dictionary. Which
does not change the fact that are still avoiding all discussions of
the preliminaries.
>>>>I would suggest you start in
>>>> one of the paranet groups.
>>>You suggest that I abandon these groups, to which I made
>>>more valuable contributions than you ever will?
>> Your opinion of their value and even that they are contributions
>> appears strangely devoid of support by others.
>Not as devoid, as you would think. There is also such a thing
>as "intrinsic value"..
Devoid of value was not qualified as to intrinsic or extrinsic.
Your posts are devoid of value, period.
>>>You have a lot of impertinence.
>> Thank you.
>?
You could at least say, you are welcome.
>>>My suggestion is that
>>>you move yourself to those "para" groups and stay there.
>>>You are the one to dislike the prospect of having to think.
>> I would never call the study of art, thinking.
>Art and mathematics won't get you thinking?
They are not the same despite the fantasies of the nerfbrains who
consider themselves artists. Only math requires thought.
>>>>>> This is not badgering other than in the sense of, if he wishes to
>>>>>> continue to claim to have made discoveries and should be believed that
>>>>>> he needs to answer many very basic questions regarding his claim of
>>>>>> discovery.
>>>>>How many degrees do you need before you can see a horse?
>>>> About as many as you need to see a face on Mars in Cydonia.
>>>Ok, you cannot see the oldest image of a horseman in the world,
>>>which any drunk can see, as well as anybody else. I cannot help
>>>you to get over your sensory deprivation, don't blame it on me!
>> So you do see a face on Mars. Thought so.
>No, your honorarium, Mars is too far from Earth for that.
>But, if you must know, I see a pair of nice boobs in the word
> "breast"..
>and an "Obese Stone-Age madonna without a head" in every circle
>with a break at the top.
Perhaps you need a bit of an education here. There are formations
in the Cydonia region of Mars. People are finding literally hundreds
of geometric relationships in those formations. They are much more
ingenious and complex than what you are finding. And they are also
bullshit.
>>> Wait! Don't tell me! You are working on it.
>>>You know that the above is just another insult.
>>>Each such insult is just another admission of your
>>>helplessness to discuss what I have rationally.
>> I note that you were the one who started the insults. I note
>> further you object to the favor being returned to you. Why?
>Check your notes. We are discussing my discoveries, not yours.
>Therefore, you cannot tell me, how to select my evidence, or do
>other things. You may check the evidence, though. - No, you
>were the first to start spittting your arrogant attitude.
We are discussing your refusal to provide the basics that even
Einstein complied with. I would therefore suggest your arogance is far
in excess of anything you would attribute to me.
>>=====
>>>> Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be
>>>> science as the layman equates incomprehensibility and science as
>>>> the same thing.
>>>You try to relate your flashy but untrue statement to my
>>>scientific work. That is kind of (Nazi) low of you.
>> As part of the Nazi political platform was free univeral higher
>> education it is unfortunate for you they did not succeed so you could
>> have availed yourself of it.
>Then I would be just like you. Full of immutable truths packed
>in hot air. Charles, and Jagellonian universities were good enough
>for me. Interesting choice of words, you have:
>By selecting "unfortunate" and "availed yourself of it" you give away
>your inner attitude that I would be a better man, if steeped in Nazi
>education. Thus, you admit that you are a Nazi. You can relax,
>now that your cover has been blown, and let it all out in a sobbing
>confession.
It appears you are denying the NSDAP had a political platform
that included what I said. You are therefore very ignorant.
>However, I was born as too much of a free spirit with an irksome
>gift for comparing eternal truths to their reflections in the mirror
>of reality, to be valuable to Nazis.
You are best employed in home maintenance or the fast food
industry.
=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.
Kurt Lochner
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> William Wallace wrote:
> > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
> >>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >>>>William Wallace wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:07:56 -0700, snai...@ar.com.au wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Are you familiar with the scientific method?
>
> >>>>>> Gee I didn't realize there was a "scientific method" to
> >>>>>> badgering.
> --------------------------------
>
> Yet, you continue badgering methodically. Who's to say the
> "art" of badgering can't be based on the science of propaganda?
Propaganda isn't a formal "science" that one will find listed in a
college course catalogue, Jiri.. Nor will one find 'Atlantean <ath'
listed either..
<more snippy remarks follow>
> >>>>Now, he tries to talk smart, to gloss over the fact that there
> >>>is no criticism for me to answer other than general criticism..
>
> >>> And you have failed to answer even that. That of course is the
> >>> point.
>
> >>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
> >>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
>
> > Then post them.
>
> Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
Do that Jiri. We'd truely enjoy the opportunity to tell your ISP
what a tremendous asset you are to the Usenet groups <hint-hint>
> >>As a matter of fact, at least half of all my posts (read through
> >>at DejaNews) are devoted to such general discussions.
>
> > I have been reading and have found none. Perhaps you could direct
> me?
>
> Could I have a word with your dog-guide?
That's funny, you can't even grasp the single concept of "guide dog"..
Talk about a blind man trying to lead the not so blind..
> >>Another point is that my critics were never able to get past
> >>such discussion. That takes away from their seriousness.
>
> > Perhaps what you think is a response and what the rest of us do
> > are not the same thing. That is why I ask you to point one out.
>
> See that guy running for cover? That's your buddy, cadet Lochner.
> That is a response, isn't it?
Oh, and that's why you never reply any more to my counter-replies?
<chuckling> Yeah, right Jiri, I'm really running now...
> >>> What you want is for people to accept your conclusions and then
> >>> debate the details.
>
> >> My discoveries are of the type requiring familiarisation
> >> with details. There is no point in just shooting the bull.
>
> > There has to be a basis for considering them in the first place.
>
> Don't worry about the basis - just consider them. - If you can..
That means you have no basis, just a faint inkling instilled by an
overactive imagination stirred by mythological tales, but no facts.
> >>> Excuse me but someone who finds arithmetic relationships in
> >>> shape from Atlantis
> > <PAUSE>
> >>What is "shape from Atlantis"? What obscure language is that?
>
> > If this is your website
>
> http://www.egocities.con/Jiri.Mruzek/vanity.website/deleted.sht
>
> > then on it you have a link to the "Geometry Basics of the Seal of
> > Atlantis." (BTW: The HTML for that link could be done better.)
>
> Ah, a seal, and a shape are two different words. There are
> a lot of different shapes, I mention. (What did you not like
> about the link?)
You didn't answer his question, but that's okay, we understand Jiri..
Really..
> > What is the "Seal of Atlantis"? There was no Atlantis. It has no
> > seal. What are you talking about? The link is silent on the matter
> > other than repeating the name.
>
> Go to the preceding section - namon5.htm - page 5 of the Nasca Monkey
> report. It opens like this:
<deleted>
> Elsewhere in the report I say:
<deleted>
> The civilisation behind this mathematically encoded art is Atlantis.
> We have Plato's word for it. There are no other civilisations
> alleged to have existed 14,000 years ago, but Atlantis. Yes,
> the engravings from La Marche can be Atlantean..
> Let's continue the quote from above.
No, let's not..
> Is the meaning of the Seal of Atlantis clearer to you, now?
Nope.. Looks exactly like a vesica pisca to me.
> > In all of those readings and in the intervening thirty five
> > years, yours is the first reference to "scientific" geometry I have
> > come across.
>
> > I suggest I am sufficient qualified to render an opinion in
> > matters of geometry, matters geometric if you prefer.
>
> You build yourself up, as a master of geometry in a lengthy intro,
> and then you give it all up in one brief sentence below:
No Jiri, you've grown delusional as to your understanding(s) and think
that you are the only true believer/savante that can interpret these
figures for us. That is not the case in reality, and I've asked you
more than once if your 'facts' were but mere superstitious nonsense
gathered by yourself over the years..
And as the man said..
> >I find nothing
> >of note in all of your material. The only conclusion I can make at
> > this point is that you are indulging in wishful thinking at best.
>
> Well, some other people say that all that geometry in the report
> makes it too expert-oriented. However, yours is not an Expert
> Opinion, but instead it is the Babbling of an Alleged Expert..
His mathematics background qualifies him call your nonsense nonsense.
Well, I'm going to end this missive for now, as argueing with your
alledged infallibilities is splendid waste of time in so far as
trying to convince you that there are many "discoveries" in actual
science where the 'discovery' was almost simultaneously found by
several researchers at once.
Your "discovery" of science-art bears no such resemblence to actaul
scientific methods and reasonings, nor does it build on citable
prior art by others. You act as if you've found it all by yourself,
and that's the most bogus part of your pompous claims, not mentioning
the fact that you have repeatedly resorted to negative arguements,
ad hominems and personal attacks to justify your delusional claims.
Please seek professional help at your soonest opportunity Jiri..
Jiri Mruzek
William Wallace wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:05:55 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
> <jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> >William Wallace wrote:
> >> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >>>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
> >>>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> >>>>>William Wallace wrote:
>
> You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
> scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
> question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
Let me respond with a question. Knowing that certain art
contains certain deliberately hidden geometrical ideas,
how would you go about discovering those? What specifically
did you not like about my methods of uncovering those
ideas?
snip, spin
> >>>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
> >>>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
> >
> >> Then post them.
>
> >Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
>
> I will be waiting. But you will not do so. You know that and I
> know that. You have no intention of doing that nor even of fifty nor
> even of five. Of course, Fate Magazine and similar do not qualify.
> It is just one more fool thing you are posting. Obviously you
> have no comprehension of what is required of a person making
> extraordinary claims.
I have written those articles, therefore I could repost them.
However, I am doing just that on my website, with key articles,
albeit slowly.
> >>>> What you want is for people to accept your conclusions and then
> >>>> debate the details.
>
> >>> My discoveries are of the type requiring familiarisation
> >>> with details. There is no point in just shooting the bull.
>
> >> There has to be a basis for considering them in the first place.
>
> >Don't worry about the basis - just consider them. - If you can..
>
> No. You, as the person making the claim, must do even as Einstein
> did, provide the basis for considering them. Or do you consider
> yourself above the requirements laid upon him? Or is that a rhetoric
> question? He satisfied those requirements. Why do you refuse to do so?
snip, spin
> Now that we agree there is no Atlantis, we agree there is no
> seal.
Typical lunacy, on your part. We don't agree on anything.
Because we have the Seal of Atlantis, we know, Atlantis was real.
I know it, and you know it. The 'seal' is analytical geometry.
To criticise analytical geometry, you would have to post it
along with your objections. I'll even let you use the space
on my website.. Don't refuse my magnanimous offer. Don't
flip your tiny wings, and zoom "outtahere", please.
> >> What is the "Seal of Atlantis"? There was no Atlantis. It has no
> >> seal. What are you talking about? The link is silent on the matter
> >> other than repeating the name.
>
> >Go to the preceding section - namon5.htm - page 5 of the Nasca Monkey
> >report. It opens like this:
> >"
>
> > The Seal of Atlantis
>
> >It is startling, but the key geometric ideas of the Peruvian
> >"Nasca Monkey" are identical to the key ideas from the 14,000
> >years old "Cinderrella" engraving from La Marche, France .
> >Of course, to verify this for ourselves, we must become familiar
> >with the basis of the Cinderella Engraving's geometrical design.
Can you repeat the ideas after me (with corrections)?
> >I presented this design to the Canada Council back in 1987,
> >showing how it had been inspired by the Cinderella Engraving.
An unfalsifiable, holy truth.
> >so there is no doubt of the design's independent existence long
> >before the Nasca Monkey's image was brought to my attention.
That, too, is true.
> >Due to this fact there is no pressing need to actually review
> >the image, as to how it had inspired the original geometry -
> >in order to be able to identify the same formal geometry at Nasca.
Do we identify this geometry at Nasca? - We do.
> >What matters is that I had extracted the same design from
> >another picture back in 1987.
You could not understand that. What density!
> >Thus, the complex intelligence of the design may be misinterpreted,
> >but it cannot be denied. Hence the design is aptly described, as
> >"The Seal of Atlantis".
It can be ignored, however, as you've proven.
> >We only have to expose the Seal of Atlantis as the controlling
> >influence in the Nasca Monkey's design - to establish the
> >prehistorical link:
> > ! La Marche - Nasca!
Yep!
> >(Understandably, Atlantis means any source-civilisation for
> >the Science-Art from La Marche & Nasca, to me.)
Get it? No? Too bad for you..
___________________________________________________
> >
> >Elsewhere in the report I say:
> >"
> >There was someone on Earth 14,000 years ago,
> > who had profound knowledge of Mathematics,
> > and a method of encoding exact ideas into Art.
> >"
> >
> >The civilisation behind this mathematically encoded art is Atlantis.
> >We have Plato's word for it. There are no other civilisations
> >alleged to have existed 14,000 years ago, but Atlantis.
Do you know any? (Don't say Moo, please)
>> Yes,
> >the engravings from La Marche can be Atlantean..
> >Let's continue the quote from above.
> >
> >"
> > We are able to establish the above conclusion by backing it with
> > ample documentation to the following effect.
> >
> > In Quality and Volume of its MATHEMATICAL CONTENTS,
> > the Cinderella engraving stands UNMATCHED by other art.
> > It transcends art, and becomes Science-Art.
Show these plentiful contents in error!
> > Nothing short of a natural miracle, I have since discovered
> > an identical system of mathematical encoding in another
> > ancient image from Nasca. Peru - a site far removed in time &
> > distance from Magdalenian France.
> > Although any direct connection between the two sites would
> > seem impossible, the latter image bases upon the same unique
> > concept of a regular five-pointed star, in which one arm of the
> > star is seen as representing 5 decimal units, and is a variation
> > on the same unique design .
That should instill some awe into you..
> > This is big news. Aside from proving the hitherto
>> disbelieved existence of prehistorical science, it
>> means that both archaeological sites were stamped by
>> the same civilisation. A stone tablet, and a sun-baked
>> desert both bear the "Seal of Atlantis".
> >_______________________"'_______________________________
> >Is the meaning of the Seal of Atlantis clearer to you, now?
> >The Cone & Square formation is the basic geometric idea
> >of the Seal of Atlantis. It is like a blueprint desribing a process
> >of geometric creation ..
> That is an awful lot of cut and paste but it does not say a
> damned thing.
Your nihilism could be bottled..
> >I am skeptical of people, who cannot comprehend a novel combination
> >of two olden terms, such as "pentagonal", and "geometry".
> >These hermetic geometries do really draw upon a specific concept
> >of a five-pointed star. What else can I say here?
>
> Nor have I ever heard of "hermetic" geometries.
Hidden geometry is hermetic geometry. Have your ears cleaned.
>Your propensity
> for making up terms in an effort to imply meaning where there is no
> meaning appears to know no bounds.
You are well versed in generalities, but you don't connect them to
reality.
> Please keep in mind that I learned
> more about geometry than you know now most likely before you were
> born. I believe I can speak from exposure to terms related to
> geometry.
In your driver's licence photograph, you seem about the same age as
me, but a lot more wasted. As to geometry, you are vastly inferior
to the Ancients. You haven't shown us any knowledge. - I have,
on the Ancients' behalf.
> To keep the scorecard straight, you have now invented "pentagonal
> geometry" and "hermetic geometry." Two terms otherwise unknown in the
> textbooks or in the literature.
I have explained the term to you. The term applies to the geometry
hermetically enclosed within the prehistoric art under discussion.
If the geometry is hidden within art, then it is hermetic.
Study English some more, please.
> The absolute minimum requirement upon you is to rigorously define
> both of those terms. No hand waving, no excessive verbiage. You are
> required to provide a rigorous definition suitable for academic
> refutation.
You might think that when a layman makes an important discovery,
the scientific community would be tolerant to the layman's uninitiated
way of speaking (as long, as the layman makes sense, of course).
> But of course you will not do that because you can not do that as
> it is beyond your education, formal or self.
I have a number of interesting finds on the web, mister.
These finds would be interesting even as my creations. Meanwhile -
what have you ever created with all your alleged brains? Where
is your website?
> To be quite frank about it, you are rather incapable of passing a
> first quarter high school test in plain geometry. That is very clear.
How come, I have all these extremely complex, yet correct diagrams
from geometry, which fit certain prehistoric art? You will never
ever be able to tackle this fact head-on. You cannot hide that.
That's all that matters in this discussion. You cannot reprint
my geometry on your own website, or any other "friendly" website,
and show us its shortcomings, simply, because there aren't any.
Instead there is "magic".
Moreover, my discovery is the only so called lunatic discovery,
which is being shunned on the skeptical servers like Randi's.
It is shunned unconditionally, and universally. Facing it,
all the skeptics lose the gift of logical thinking, and start
babbling apologetically. That is the truth.
For instance, how could you criticise a little statement
about PI, PHI, and the E-constant evident in the following
little gem describing a continuous section of the borders
of Cinderella's engraving? These five values are:
27, 139, 16, 173, 113
Give us your criticism, please. It should be easy, if I am
such a loon, as you profess..
Why is the series not an uncommonly rich statement on
the aforementioned ratios? Huh? We are waiting to hear
your mathematical intelligence.
Are you up to answering this gauntlet with which I slapped
you (figuratively), or did it knock you out (figuratively)?
> >>>Am I
> >>>not expected to continue the analysis? And if I get results
> >>>providing solutions, am I to reject them just because you and
> >>>others like you refuse to look at these results?
> >>>If you answered Yes, you are a fanatical lunatic.
> >> If you are expecting anyone to take you seriously then YOU must
> >>defend your position against all comers including those who look such
> >>as myself.
> >Including mosquito-ninjas? Wrestlers? CIA agents? Creationists?
> Yes.
May, I have the fly-swatter, please?
> >>>> has much more fundamental problems than this
> >>>> newsgroup can deal with adequately.
>
> >>>How deficient! You are trying to evade this discussion.
> >>>Why, these newsgroups are attended by (some) people,
> >>>who can think and debate, if they want to. They even
> >>>pretend to like it.
>
> >> After you made assertions regarding Ley Lines I very clearly
> >>pointed out the deficiencies with talk about Ley lines and asked what
> >>you used.
And I told you, remember? You haven't commented on my
consideration of the statistical chances for ley line
formation by accident.
> >Bull, you are rewriting history. You are confused about lea
> >lines in my own studies. There are nonesuch. Lea lines are
> >in England. My discoveries must be seen separately from the
> >issue of English lea lines. But, if it interests you, I posted
> >something theoretical on the subject of lea lines yesterday.
> It is commonly spelled LEY and you responded on the subject. You
> posted nothing of value as you know.
I was very, very tired when writing that reply. Will you check
the math in my latest on the ley lines, or not? Did I give us
a simple way of considering the odds for a given number of
points being on a ley line?
> >>You declined to answer. Then I pointed out that in absense
> >>of answers you would need to make predictions as to where to dig. You
> >>declined to make them public implying you were going to dig their
> >>yourself and did not want to give it away.
>
> >Study what I present so far. Dig later.
>
> I have. It is nonsense. Truly whacko material. Indistinguishable
> from garbage.
As long as you keep a safe distance, you can bark.
You can always say later that you were just barking at the Moon..
> >> As you have so far avoided all discussions of the preliminaries
> >>that I raised it is difficult to see upon what you base your claim
> >>that I am evading discussion.
>
> >You are perjuring yourself while trying to sound like a judge..
> >Pathetic..
>
> I have not taken an oath. Consult your local dictionary.
Judges don't take an oath more than once. Even kangaroo judges.
> Which does not change the fact that are still avoiding all
> discussions of the preliminaries.
Hey, I told you where to seek some real priceless art and math.
Once you are there, you are on your own with the Ancients.
But, you said that it is all garbage, so why do you still
speak about the preliminaries?
If you had any guts, you would publish my Oldest Image
of a Horseman, along with your comments why this is not so.
You would graphically destroy my diagrams. Whoever can grasp
this, can know that I am right.
> >>>>I would suggest you start in
> >>>> one of the paranet groups.
>
> >>>You suggest that I abandon these groups, to which I made
> >>>more valuable contributions than you ever will?
>
> >> Your opinion of their value and even that they are contributions
> >> appears strangely devoid of support by others.
>
> >Not as devoid, as you would think. There is also such a thing
> >as "intrinsic value"..
>
> Devoid of value was not qualified as to intrinsic or extrinsic.
> Your posts are devoid of value, period.
Patently untrue.
> >>>You have a lot of impertinence.
>
> >> Thank you.
>
> >?
>
> You could at least say, you are welcome.
?
> >>>My suggestion is that
> >>>you move yourself to those "para" groups and stay there.
> >>>You are the one to dislike the prospect of having to think.
>
> >> I would never call the study of art, thinking.
>
> >Art and mathematics won't get you thinking?
>
> They are not the same despite the fantasies of the nerfbrains who
> consider themselves artists. Only math requires thought.
[Guffaw] - Sometimes your thoughts require no other comment,
knowing that others can read your blasphemous heresies, too.
> >>>>>> This is not badgering other than in the sense of, if he wishes to
> >>>>>> continue to claim to have made discoveries and should be believed that
> >>>>>> he needs to answer many very basic questions regarding his claim of
> >>>>>> discovery.
>
> >>>>>How many degrees do you need before you can see a horse?
>
> >>>> About as many as you need to see a face on Mars in Cydonia.
>
> >>>Ok, you cannot see the oldest image of a horseman in the world,
> >>>which any drunk can see, as well as anybody else. I cannot help
> >>>you to get over your sensory deprivation, don't blame it on me!
>
> >> So you do see a face on Mars. Thought so.
>
> >No, your honorarium, Mars is too far from Earth for that.
> >But, if you must know, I see a pair of nice boobs in the word
> > "breast"..
> >and an "Obese Stone-Age madonna without a head" in every circle
> >with a break at the top.
>
> Perhaps you need a bit of an education here. There are formations
> in the Cydonia region of Mars. People are finding literally hundreds
> of geometric relationships in those formations. They are much more
> ingenious and complex than what you are finding. And they are also
> bullshit.
So you do see a face on Mars. I always thought so.
Snip, spin
> We are discussing your refusal to provide the basics that even
> Einstein complied with. I would therefore suggest your arogance is far
> in excess of anything you would attribute to me.
Don't mix Einstein into this. - Let's discuss one of the basic concepts.
!!!
Do you believe that art can convey exact ideas? !!!
Snip, spin
> >>>> Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be
> >>>> science as the layman equates incomprehensibility and science as
> >>>> the same thing.
>
> >>>You try to relate your flashy but untrue statement to my
> >>>scientific work. That is kind of (Nazi) low of you.
>
> >> As part of the Nazi political platform was free univeral higher
> >> education it is unfortunate for you they did not succeed so you could
> >> have availed yourself of it.
>
> >Then I would be just like you. Full of immutable truths packed
> >in hot air. Charles, and Jagellonian universities were good enough
> >for me. Interesting choice of words, you have:
>
> >By selecting "unfortunate" and "availed yourself of it" you give away
> >your inner attitude that I would be a better man, if steeped in Nazi
> >education. Thus, you admit that you are a Nazi. You can relax,
> >now that your cover has been blown, and let it all out in a sobbing
> >confession.
>
> It appears you are denying the NSDAP had a political platform
> that included what I said. You are therefore very ignorant.
The NSDAP had a platform, which included what you said?!
It .., it means I am net-channeling with Hitler's ghost!
Sorry, to have hurt your feelings, seine fuhrer..
How fascinating, though, to meet a real Nazi. I always wanted to
ask why the Nazis had lied about the Nordic race. As anybody
can see on television (Bure, Konstantinov, Fedorov, Novotna,
Korda, Jagr, Kournikova, Navratilova, and many other Slavonian
athletes), the "schwehrpunkt" of the Nordic race was always in
the Slavonian nations, such as the Prussians (now, germanized)
Poles, Czechs,Slovaks, or the Slavonians from the bounds of the
former Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia.
There are more Norsemen in Russia than in Germany..
Why did you guys have to obscure this patently true fact?
I am not a racist, understand, it's just that this issue
would put the Nazis funfamentally in the wrong, and make
into a travesty all their subsequent escapades.
One thing the Nazis had succeeded in, though, was to create a
misconception about the looks of an average Russian, or Pole,
etc., in the western nations. So, if the Nazis were devious
in such a fundamentally obvious issue, how could we trust
the promises in their political platform on education?
BTW, I am willing to discuss the mathematics from my
discoveries in prehistoric art with anybody, because
mathematics don't work out for lies. So, don't mind my asides.
Get to work (real math)!
> >However, I was born as too much of a free spirit with an irksome
> >gift for comparing eternal truths to their reflections in the mirror
> >of reality, to be valuable to Nazis.
>
> You are best employed in home maintenance or the fast food
> industry.
You ARE (self) employed in the fertilizer industry..
Your escapist novelties change nothing. I have discoveries,
and you haven't a decent thing to say against them.
Work, or go away.
Jiri Mruzek, discoverer of ancient Science-Art
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/lab/5586/index.html
Jiri Mruzek
Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > William Wallace wrote:
> > > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > >>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
> > >>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > >>>>William Wallace wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:07:56 -0700, snai...@ar.com.au wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> Are you familiar with the scientific method?
> >
> > >>>>>> Gee I didn't realize there was a "scientific method" to
> > >>>>>> badgering.
> > --------------------------------
> > Yet, you continue badgering methodically. Who's to say the
> > "art" of badgering can't be based on the science of propaganda?
> Propaganda isn't a formal "science" that one will find listed in a
> college course catalogue, Jiri.. Nor will one find 'Atlantean <ath'
> listed either..
Sociology makes the methods of propaganda a subject of its
study. And what do you think all those adds on television
might be? They are scientifically devised propaganda. - Next
question.
snip
> > >>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
> > >>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
> > > Then post them.
> > Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
>
> Do that Jiri. We'd truely enjoy the opportunity to tell your ISP
> what a tremendous asset you are to the Usenet groups <hint-hint>
Hint, hint - your request - hint, hint - will be implemented.
> > Could I have a word with your dog-guide?
> That's funny, you can't even grasp the single concept of "guide dog"..
I should have said "your girlfriend". Besides, the concept is
not "single", stupid, it is "simple".
Whereas I learned English in my adulthood, as a foreign
language, to you it is your mother-tongue. But you speak it
like a wayward offspring. You can't even scribe your own
tongue better than me - a "lunatic" from Czechoslovakia.
Now, that's what I call "terminal" humiliation.
snip
> Oh, and that's why you never reply any more to my counter-replies?
> > http://www.egocities.con/fuhrer-Lochner/vanity.website/deleted.sht
Did you write the above? Still wonder, why you are not
worth talking to, mealy-mouth?
snip
> > Well, some other people say that all that geometry in the report
> > makes it too expert-oriented. However, yours is not an Expert
> > Opinion, but instead it is the Babbling of an Alleged Expert..
> His mathematics background qualifies him call your nonsense nonsense.
Ok, his degrees empower him to talk in vacuous bubbles.
> Please seek professional help at your soonest opportunity Jiri..
All the shrinks are said to be busy with you and your shell-
shocked fellow Info-War heroes, and other invalids.
Jiri Mruzek -discoverer of Stone-Age mathematics
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
Kurt Lochner
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> > > William Wallace wrote:
> > > > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > > >>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
> > > >>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > > >>>>William Wallace wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:07:56 -0700, snai...@ar.com.au wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>>> Are you familiar with the scientific method?
> > >
> > > >>>>>> Gee I didn't realize there was a "scientific method" to
> > > >>>>>> badgering.
> > > --------------------------------
>
> > > Yet, you continue badgering methodically. Who's to say the
> > > "art" of badgering can't be based on the science of propaganda?
>
> > Propaganda isn't a formal "science" that one will find listed in a
> > college course catalogue, Jiri.. Nor will one find 'Atlantean <ath'
> > listed either..
>
> study. And what do you think all those adds on television
> might be? They are scientifically devised propaganda. - Next
> question.
Next silly explanation..
> > > >>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
> > > >>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
>
> > > > Then post them.
>
> > > Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
> >
> > Do that Jiri. We'd truely enjoy the opportunity to tell your ISP
> > what a tremendous asset you are to the Usenet groups <hint-hint>
>
> Hint, hint - your request - hint, hint - will be implemented.
You're so unwittingly cooperative.. Thanks!
> > > Could I have a word with your dog-guide?
>
> > That's funny, you can't even grasp the single concept of "guide dog"..
>
> I should have said "your girlfriend". Besides, the concept is
> not "single", stupid, it is "simple".
It is, in most instances, a singular, as I have yet to see more
than one guide-dog with a visually-challenged person..
> Whereas I learned English in my adulthood, as a foreign
> language, to you it is your mother-tongue. But you speak it
> like a wayward offspring. You can't even scribe your own
> tongue better than me - a "lunatic" from Czechoslovakia.
> Now, that's what I call "terminal" humiliation.
Generic ad hominems again? Pity...
> > Oh, and that's why you never reply any more to my counter-replies?
> > > http://www.egocities.con/jiri.mruzek/vanity.website/deleted.sht
>
> Did you write the above? Still wonder, why you are not
> worth talking to, mealy-mouth?
Your pseudo-science defaces the earnest efforts of many, imho.
> > > Well, some other people say that all that geometry in the report
> > > makes it too expert-oriented. However, yours is not an Expert
> > > Opinion, but instead it is the Babbling of an Alleged Expert..
>
> > His mathematics background qualifies him call your nonsense nonsense.
>
> Ok, his degrees empower him to talk in vacuous bubbles.
Nope, it enables us to see a mich broader vista of understanding than
you, which you have expressed more than a little contempt for...
> > Please seek professional help at your soonest opportunity Jiri..
>
> All the shrinks are said to be busy with you and your shell-
> shocked fellow Info-War heroes, and other invalids.
Jiri, you're the mathematically impaired person here..
Comments?
William Wallace
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:14:16 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
<jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>William Wallace wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:05:55 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
>> <jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>> >William Wallace wrote:
>> >> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>> >>>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
>> >>>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>> >>>>>William Wallace wrote:
>> You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
>> scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
>> question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
>Let me respond with a question. Knowing that certain art
Your presumption that you "know" it is what has been indentified
as groundless.
>contains certain deliberately hidden geometrical ideas,
There are no "ideas" only shapes.
>how would you go about discovering those?
If you know it already, it is not possible to discover.
>What specifically
>did you not like about my methods of uncovering those
>ideas?
You have no basis for drawing the shapes.
>snip, spin
>> >>>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
>> >>>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
>> >
>> >> Then post them.
>>
>> >Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
>>
>> I will be waiting. But you will not do so. You know that and I
>> know that. You have no intention of doing that nor even of fifty nor
>> even of five. Of course, Fate Magazine and similar do not qualify.
>> It is just one more fool thing you are posting. Obviously you
>> have no comprehension of what is required of a person making
>> extraordinary claims.
>I have written those articles, therefore I could repost them.
>However, I am doing just that on my website, with key articles,
>albeit slowly.
As I posted, you will not post even five. Here there are zero.
>> >>>> What you want is for people to accept your conclusions and then
>> >>>> debate the details.
>> >>> My discoveries are of the type requiring familiarisation
>> >>> with details. There is no point in just shooting the bull.
>> >> There has to be a basis for considering them in the first place.
>> >Don't worry about the basis - just consider them. - If you can..
>>
>> No. You, as the person making the claim, must do even as Einstein
>> did, provide the basis for considering them. Or do you consider
>> yourself above the requirements laid upon him? Or is that a rhetoric
>> question? He satisfied those requirements. Why do you refuse to do so?
>snip, spin
>> Now that we agree there is no Atlantis, we agree there is no
>> seal.
>Typical lunacy, on your part. We don't agree on anything.
>Because we have the Seal of Atlantis, we know, Atlantis was real.
We know clearly that Plato/Aristotle made it up. It was common
knowledge at the time the story was written. The story has no
predecedant any place.
>I know it, and you know it. The 'seal' is analytical geometry.
I knew it was a mystake to give you a new term. Now you will
raving on about "analytical" geometry forever.
>To criticise analytical geometry, you would have to post it
>along with your objections.
Before you copy terms without knowledge, analytic (not
analytical) geometry is the combination of geometry and algebra
resulting in quantitative, not qualitative results.
>I'll even let you use the space
>on my website.. Don't refuse my magnanimous offer. Don't
>flip your tiny wings, and zoom "outtahere", please.
There is no algebra on your website, therefore no analytic
geometry. Show my your equations and I will consider them. It is just
elementary algebra, which you likely remember only a little of from
high school at best.
>> >> What is the "Seal of Atlantis"? There was no Atlantis. It has no
>> >> seal. What are you talking about? The link is silent on the matter
>> >> other than repeating the name.
>> >Go to the preceding section - namon5.htm - page 5 of the Nasca Monkey
>> >report. It opens like this:
>> >"
>> > The Seal of Atlantis
>> >It is startling, but the key geometric ideas of the Peruvian
>> >"Nasca Monkey" are identical to the key ideas from the 14,000
>> >years old "Cinderrella" engraving from La Marche, France .
>> >Of course, to verify this for ourselves, we must become familiar
>> >with the basis of the Cinderella Engraving's geometrical design.
>Can you repeat the ideas after me (with corrections)?
There was no Altantis. There is no seal.
But then, tell me where this seal was discovered. Who discovered
it? Why is his name not in the books in bigger lights than Schliemann?
>> >I presented this design to the Canada Council back in 1987,
>> >showing how it had been inspired by the Cinderella Engraving.
> An unfalsifiable, holy truth.
It appears to be your holy truth. What is the full and formal
name of the "Canada Council." I am not a Canadian but I doubt there is
something by that title.
>> >so there is no doubt of the design's independent existence long
>> >before the Nasca Monkey's image was brought to my attention.
> That, too, is true.
That is also your statement. But there is no validation of the
idea.
Which takes us back to my first remark on this "seal." It is only
a shape, a drawing. It is nothing more.
>> >Due to this fact there is no pressing need to actually review
>> >the image, as to how it had inspired the original geometry -
>> >in order to be able to identify the same formal geometry at Nasca.
> Do we identify this geometry at Nasca? - We do.
Shapes only. Squares and circles are not a particularly
impressive "discovery" particularly in this case where they are no
different from handdrawn. In particular to Nazca, certainly one would
expect some sort of shape and layout to use as a guidance for the
construction.
>> >What matters is that I had extracted the same design from
>> >another picture back in 1987.
>You could not understand that. What density!
Again, you are commenting upon your own words.
>> >Thus, the complex intelligence of the design may be misinterpreted,
>> >but it cannot be denied. Hence the design is aptly described, as
>> >"The Seal of Atlantis".
>It can be ignored, however, as you've proven.
It appears you have confused yourself.
>> >We only have to expose the Seal of Atlantis as the controlling
>> >influence in the Nasca Monkey's design - to establish the
>> >prehistorical link:
>> > ! La Marche - Nasca!
>
> Yep!
>
>> >(Understandably, Atlantis means any source-civilisation for
>> >the Science-Art from La Marche & Nasca, to me.)
>
> Get it? No? Too bad for you..
That Atlantis was created by Plato/Socrates is not questionable.
>___________________________________________________
>> >
>> >Elsewhere in the report I say:
>> >"
>> >There was someone on Earth 14,000 years ago,
>> > who had profound knowledge of Mathematics,
>> > and a method of encoding exact ideas into Art.
>> >"
>> >The civilisation behind this mathematically encoded art is Atlantis.
>> >We have Plato's word for it. There are no other civilisations
>> >alleged to have existed 14,000 years ago, but Atlantis.
> Do you know any? (Don't say Moo, please)
By all available evidence there were none including no Atlantis
as we know.
>>> Yes,
>> >the engravings from La Marche can be Atlantean..
>> >Let's continue the quote from above.
>> >
>> >"
>> > We are able to establish the above conclusion by backing it with
>> > ample documentation to the following effect.
>> > In Quality and Volume of its MATHEMATICAL CONTENTS,
>> > the Cinderella engraving stands UNMATCHED by other art.
>> > It transcends art, and becomes Science-Art.
> Show these plentiful contents in error!
Show the plentiful contents by other than scribbling.
>> > Nothing short of a natural miracle, I have since discovered
>> > an identical system of mathematical encoding in another
>> > ancient image from Nasca. Peru - a site far removed in time &
>> > distance from Magdalenian France.
>> > Although any direct connection between the two sites would
>> > seem impossible, the latter image bases upon the same unique
>> > concept of a regular five-pointed star, in which one arm of the
>> > star is seen as representing 5 decimal units, and is a variation
>> > on the same unique design .
> That should instill some awe into you..
Were there anything to what you are pushing, it would be of no
more than mild curiosity.
>> > This is big news. Aside from proving the hitherto
>>> disbelieved existence of prehistorical science, it
>>> means that both archaeological sites were stamped by
>>> the same civilisation. A stone tablet, and a sun-baked
>>> desert both bear the "Seal of Atlantis".
>> >_______________________"'_______________________________
>> >Is the meaning of the Seal of Atlantis clearer to you, now?
>
>> >The Cone & Square formation is the basic geometric idea
>> >of the Seal of Atlantis. It is like a blueprint desribing a process
>> >of geometric creation ..
>> That is an awful lot of cut and paste but it does not say a
>> damned thing.
>Your nihilism could be bottled..
You gullibility is passed out in fundie school.
>> >I am skeptical of people, who cannot comprehend a novel combination
>> >of two olden terms, such as "pentagonal", and "geometry".
>> >These hermetic geometries do really draw upon a specific concept
>> >of a five-pointed star. What else can I say here?
>> Nor have I ever heard of "hermetic" geometries.
>Hidden geometry is hermetic geometry. Have your ears cleaned.
Still never heard of hidden geometries. What are they and where
aer they hidden?
>> Your propensity
>> for making up terms in an effort to imply meaning where there is no
>> meaning appears to know no bounds.
>You are well versed in generalities, but you don't connect them to
>reality.
And reality is that you make up terms that have no meaning.
>> Please keep in mind that I learned
>> more about geometry than you know now most likely before you were
>> born. I believe I can speak from exposure to terms related to
>> geometry.
>In your driver's licence photograph, you seem about the same age as
>me, but a lot more wasted. As to geometry, you are vastly inferior
>to the Ancients. You haven't shown us any knowledge. - I have,
>on the Ancients' behalf.
It is unclear that since you exhibit no knowledge of "geometry"
greater than drawing shapes in gradeschool, that you think you have
presented anything. Now if you had found the equivalent of the
pythagorian theorem (look it up) you might have a claim to having
discovered something.
A shape is not knowledge.
>> To keep the scorecard straight, you have now invented "pentagonal
>> geometry" and "hermetic geometry." Two terms otherwise unknown in the
>> textbooks or in the literature.
>I have explained the term to you. The term applies to the geometry
>hermetically enclosed within the prehistoric art under discussion.
>If the geometry is hidden within art, then it is hermetic.
>Study English some more, please.
There is still no such term as either hermetic or pentagonal
geometry. As to english, heremetic refers to air tight.
>> The absolute minimum requirement upon you is to rigorously define
>> both of those terms. No hand waving, no excessive verbiage. You are
>> required to provide a rigorous definition suitable for academic
>> refutation.
>You might think that when a layman makes an important discovery,
>the scientific community would be tolerant to the layman's uninitiated
>way of speaking (as long, as the layman makes sense, of course).
When considering the layman, everything is a discovery, as the
layman knows nothing about the subject he is "discovering." Finding
shapes in art is not uncommon. Quite often artists apply the geometry
first as a guide to the rest of the work. This is nothing new. This is
most common in drawings and paintings.
In my time I have made several interesting and even important
discoveries outside of my field. It rarely took more than a few hours
of searching to discover I was not the first.
>> But of course you will not do that because you can not do that as
>> it is beyond your education, formal or self.
>I have a number of interesting finds on the web, mister.
>These finds would be interesting even as my creations.
As noted, you will not provide rigoroud definitions and have not.
Meanwhile -
>what have you ever created with all your alleged brains? Where
>is your website?
http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/mgiwer/index.html
>> To be quite frank about it, you are rather incapable of passing a
>> first quarter high school test in plain geometry. That is very clear.
>How come, I have all these extremely complex, yet correct diagrams
>from geometry, which fit certain prehistoric art? You will never
>ever be able to tackle this fact head-on. You cannot hide that.
>That's all that matters in this discussion. You cannot reprint
>my geometry on your own website, or any other "friendly" website,
>and show us its shortcomings, simply, because there aren't any.
>Instead there is "magic".
You would not pass as drawing shapes has nothing to do with
geometry. To some small extent, constructing shapes from first
principles does. Its primary focus is proving (with logic, from a
minimum set of first principles) that the shapes have be constructed
correctly.
You might get a book on the subject and learn what plane geometry
is all about.
If something is "hidden" it would have to be a proof of some
theorem, not a shape.
>Moreover, my discovery is the only so called lunatic discovery,
>which is being shunned on the skeptical servers like Randi's.
>It is shunned unconditionally, and universally. Facing it,
>all the skeptics lose the gift of logical thinking, and start
>babbling apologetically. That is the truth.
If you are referring to "The Amazing Randi" it is my
understanding his focus is on exposing psychics and the like. It is
unclear what interest he would have in this matter in the first place.
>For instance, how could you criticise a little statement
>about PI, PHI, and the E-constant evident in the following
>little gem describing a continuous section of the borders
>of Cinderella's engraving? These five values are:
>27, 139, 16, 173, 113
>Give us your criticism, please. It should be easy, if I am
>such a loon, as you profess..
As you have been told many times, pi and e can not be any ratio
of whole numbers. If you are claiming there are approximations there,
then you are demonstrating they had no idea they were irrational
numbers.
>Why is the series not an uncommonly rich statement on
>the aforementioned ratios? Huh? We are waiting to hear
>your mathematical intelligence.
Since they are not ratios, they can not be there.
>Are you up to answering this gauntlet with which I slapped
>you (figuratively), or did it knock you out (figuratively)?
You appear to be able to comprehend irrational numbers.
>> >>>Am I
>> >>>not expected to continue the analysis? And if I get results
>> >>>providing solutions, am I to reject them just because you and
>> >>>others like you refuse to look at these results?
>> >>>If you answered Yes, you are a fanatical lunatic.
>
>> >> If you are expecting anyone to take you seriously then YOU must
>> >>defend your position against all comers including those who look such
>> >>as myself.
>
>> >Including mosquito-ninjas? Wrestlers? CIA agents? Creationists?
>> Yes.
>May, I have the fly-swatter, please?
You are still required to do so. Even Einstein was. Of course you
are so far above the requirements upon mere mortals such as Einstein
you get deserve special treatment.
>> >>>> has much more fundamental problems than this
>> >>>> newsgroup can deal with adequately.
>> >>>How deficient! You are trying to evade this discussion.
>> >>>Why, these newsgroups are attended by (some) people,
>> >>>who can think and debate, if they want to. They even
>> >>>pretend to like it.
>> >> After you made assertions regarding Ley Lines I very clearly
>> >>pointed out the deficiencies with talk about Ley lines and asked what
>> >>you used.
>And I told you, remember? You haven't commented on my
>consideration of the statistical chances for ley line
>formation by accident.
You provided NO statistical calculations whatsoever. I am aware
you are incapable of doing so. However, handwaving has nothing to do
with statistical chances. And you gave only a modestly poor handwave.
>> >Bull, you are rewriting history. You are confused about lea
>> >lines in my own studies. There are nonesuch. Lea lines are
>> >in England. My discoveries must be seen separately from the
>> >issue of English lea lines. But, if it interests you, I posted
>> >something theoretical on the subject of lea lines yesterday.
>> It is commonly spelled LEY and you responded on the subject. You
>> posted nothing of value as you know.
>I was very, very tired when writing that reply. Will you check
>the math in my latest on the ley lines, or not? Did I give us
>a simple way of considering the odds for a given number of
>points being on a ley line?
Would you please point out the math? I mean as in starting with
accepted statistical forms and proceeding through equations to arrive
at a final result. Nothing else is a statistical analysis.
>> >>You declined to answer. Then I pointed out that in absense
>> >>of answers you would need to make predictions as to where to dig. You
>> >>declined to make them public implying you were going to dig their
>> >>yourself and did not want to give it away.
>>
>> >Study what I present so far. Dig later.
>>
>> I have. It is nonsense. Truly whacko material. Indistinguishable
>> from garbage.
>As long as you keep a safe distance, you can bark.
>You can always say later that you were just barking at the Moon..
Your equations please.
>> >> As you have so far avoided all discussions of the preliminaries
>> >>that I raised it is difficult to see upon what you base your claim
>> >>that I am evading discussion.
>> >You are perjuring yourself while trying to sound like a judge..
>> >Pathetic..
>> I have not taken an oath. Consult your local dictionary.
>Judges don't take an oath more than once. Even kangaroo judges.
Your equations please.
>> Which does not change the fact that are still avoiding all
>> discussions of the preliminaries.
>Hey, I told you where to seek some real priceless art and math.
Decent art might be considered priceless. Math is in the
textbooks. Nothing priceless about it.
>Once you are there, you are on your own with the Ancients.
>But, you said that it is all garbage, so why do you still
>speak about the preliminaries?
If you understood what geometry is about you would not be running
off at the fingertips about discoveries.
>If you had any guts, you would publish my Oldest Image
>of a Horseman, along with your comments why this is not so.
>You would graphically destroy my diagrams. Whoever can grasp
>this, can know that I am right.
It is unclear what you want. Drawing a shape has nothing to do
with geometry.
>> >>>>I would suggest you start in
>> >>>> one of the paranet groups.
>> >>>You suggest that I abandon these groups, to which I made
>> >>>more valuable contributions than you ever will?
>> >> Your opinion of their value and even that they are contributions
>> >> appears strangely devoid of support by others.
>> >Not as devoid, as you would think. There is also such a thing
>> >as "intrinsic value"..
>> Devoid of value was not qualified as to intrinsic or extrinsic.
>> Your posts are devoid of value, period.
>Patently untrue.
What is the value? Where is it "proven" that a line has been
bisected? Where is there anything about geometry proven?
>> >>>You have a lot of impertinence.
>> >> Thank you.
>> >?
>> You could at least say, you are welcome.
>?
>> >>>My suggestion is that
>> >>>you move yourself to those "para" groups and stay there.
>> >>>You are the one to dislike the prospect of having to think.
>> >> I would never call the study of art, thinking.
>> >Art and mathematics won't get you thinking?
>> They are not the same despite the fantasies of the nerfbrains who
>> consider themselves artists. Only math requires thought.
>[Guffaw] - Sometimes your thoughts require no other comment,
>knowing that others can read your blasphemous heresies, too.
You are invited to demonstrate the equations upon which the
Beethoven's 9th symphony is based.
>> >>>>>> This is not badgering other than in the sense of, if he wishes to
>> >>>>>> continue to claim to have made discoveries and should be believed that
>> >>>>>> he needs to answer many very basic questions regarding his claim of
>> >>>>>> discovery.
>> >>>>>How many degrees do you need before you can see a horse?
>> >>>> About as many as you need to see a face on Mars in Cydonia.
>> >>>Ok, you cannot see the oldest image of a horseman in the world,
>> >>>which any drunk can see, as well as anybody else. I cannot help
>> >>>you to get over your sensory deprivation, don't blame it on me!
>> >> So you do see a face on Mars. Thought so.
>> >No, your honorarium, Mars is too far from Earth for that.
>> >But, if you must know, I see a pair of nice boobs in the word
>> > "breast"..
>> >and an "Obese Stone-Age madonna without a head" in every circle
>> >with a break at the top.
>> Perhaps you need a bit of an education here. There are formations
>> in the Cydonia region of Mars. People are finding literally hundreds
>> of geometric relationships in those formations. They are much more
>> ingenious and complex than what you are finding. And they are also
>> bullshit.
> So you do see a face on Mars. I always thought so.
I point out the "geometric" relationships are quite complex, as
are yours, but they are not distinguishable from scribbling.
>Snip, spin
>> We are discussing your refusal to provide the basics that even
>> Einstein complied with. I would therefore suggest your arogance is far
>> in excess of anything you would attribute to me.
>Don't mix Einstein into this. - Let's discuss one of the basic concepts.
>!!!
>Do you believe that art can convey exact ideas? !!!
Einstein was obliged to do what you refuse to do. What makes you
so special?
>Snip, spin
>> >>>> Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be
>> >>>> science as the layman equates incomprehensibility and science as
>> >>>> the same thing.
>> >>>You try to relate your flashy but untrue statement to my
>> >>>scientific work. That is kind of (Nazi) low of you.
>> >> As part of the Nazi political platform was free univeral higher
>> >> education it is unfortunate for you they did not succeed so you could
>> >> have availed yourself of it.
>> >Then I would be just like you. Full of immutable truths packed
>> >in hot air. Charles, and Jagellonian universities were good enough
>> >for me. Interesting choice of words, you have:
>> >By selecting "unfortunate" and "availed yourself of it" you give away
>> >your inner attitude that I would be a better man, if steeped in Nazi
>> >education. Thus, you admit that you are a Nazi. You can relax,
>> >now that your cover has been blown, and let it all out in a sobbing
>> >confession.
>> It appears you are denying the NSDAP had a political platform
>> that included what I said. You are therefore very ignorant.
>The NSDAP had a platform, which included what you said?!
They published their party platform. That means it is written
down. Copies of it have survived. That means people can read it.
>It .., it means I am net-channeling with Hitler's ghost!
>Sorry, to have hurt your feelings, seine fuhrer..
>How fascinating, though, to meet a real Nazi. I always wanted to
>ask why the Nazis had lied about the Nordic race. As anybody
>can see on television (Bure, Konstantinov, Fedorov, Novotna,
>Korda, Jagr, Kournikova, Navratilova, and many other Slavonian
>athletes), the "schwehrpunkt" of the Nordic race was always in
>the Slavonian nations, such as the Prussians (now, germanized)
>Poles, Czechs,Slovaks, or the Slavonians from the bounds of the
>former Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia.
>There are more Norsemen in Russia than in Germany..
>Why did you guys have to obscure this patently true fact?
>I am not a racist, understand, it's just that this issue
>would put the Nazis funfamentally in the wrong, and make
>into a travesty all their subsequent escapades.
>One thing the Nazis had succeeded in, though, was to create a
>misconception about the looks of an average Russian, or Pole,
>etc., in the western nations. So, if the Nazis were devious
>in such a fundamentally obvious issue, how could we trust
>the promises in their political platform on education?
>BTW, I am willing to discuss the mathematics from my
>discoveries in prehistoric art with anybody, because
>mathematics don't work out for lies. So, don't mind my asides.
> Get to work (real math)!
Naziphobe, a person who fears people he never met based upon next
to no knowledge of them. See also, napoleonaphobia.
>> >However, I was born as too much of a free spirit with an irksome
>> >gift for comparing eternal truths to their reflections in the mirror
>> >of reality, to be valuable to Nazis.
>> You are best employed in home maintenance or the fast food
>> industry.
>You ARE (self) employed in the fertilizer industry..
>Your escapist novelties change nothing. I have discoveries,
>and you haven't a decent thing to say against them.
> Work, or go away.
>Jiri Mruzek, discoverer of ancient Science-Art
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/lab/5586/index.html
Have you tried a letter to Science?
=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.
Kurt Lochner
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> William Wallace wrote:
> >
> > You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
> > scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
> > question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
>
> Let me respond with a question.
No, because that's just more of your typical obfuscations..
> Knowing that certain art contains certain deliberately hidden
> geometrical ideas, how would you go about discovering those?
We do not "know" that, and your guesswork presumes it instead
of building up to the conclusion, premise by premise, proof by proof.
> What specifically did you not like about my methods of uncovering
> those ideas?
That you presume what you say you're trying to prove as a given,
is yet another glaring example of your fallicious logic and skews..
Go figure..
William Wallace
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:14:01 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
<jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
>> > William Wallace wrote:
>> > > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>> > >>William Wallace wrote on 1997/09/04:
>> > >>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>> > >>>>William Wallace wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:07:56 -0700, snai...@ar.com.au wrote:
>> >
>> > >>>>>>> Are you familiar with the scientific method?
>> >
>> > >>>>>> Gee I didn't realize there was a "scientific method" to
>> > >>>>>> badgering.
>> > --------------------------------
>> > Yet, you continue badgering methodically. Who's to say the
>> > "art" of badgering can't be based on the science of propaganda?
>> Propaganda isn't a formal "science" that one will find listed in a
>> college course catalogue, Jiri.. Nor will one find 'Atlantean <ath'
>> listed either..
>Sociology makes the methods of propaganda a subject of its
>study. And what do you think all those adds on television
>might be? They are scientifically devised propaganda. - Next
>question.
That sounds very like "scientific geometry."
Since there are courses in advertising even degree programs in
it, it should be quite simple for you to determine the "science"
courses that form the basis for advertising.
Your groundless addition of "scientific" does not differ from
those who are into "scientific" creationism.
=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.
Jiri Mruzek
Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >
> > William Wallace wrote:
> > >
> > > You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
> > > scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
> > > question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
> > Let me respond with a question.
> No, because that's just more of your typical obfuscations..
So, you admit that I struck a chink in your armor.
> > Knowing that certain art contains certain deliberately hidden
> > geometrical ideas, how would you go about discovering those?
>
> We do not "know" that
Let me rephrase the question, so that you may comprehend it.
If you knew that certain art conceals geometrical ideas,
how would you go about discovering those?
Let me give you a hint. - You would use methods similar
to mine.
> of building up to the conclusion, premise by premise, proof by proof.
That is what I have done, and you cannot face it.
> > What specifically did you not like about my methods of uncovering
> > those ideas?
>
> That you presume what you say you're trying to prove as a given,
> is yet another glaring example of your fallicious logic and skews..
Examples, substantive criticism - you lack those, and therefore
you are an especially despiccable specimen of a lunatic.
Jiri Mruzek
Jiri Mruzek
Kurt Lochner wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Sociology makes the methods of propaganda a subject of its
> > study. And what do you think all those adds on television
> > might be? They are scientifically devised propaganda. - Next
> > question.
> Nope, wrong again, it's called "marketing" and "advertisements."
> Next silly explanation..
> Nope, wrong again, it's called "marketing" and "advertisements."
FYI, marketing and advertisement avail themselves from
the findings of sociological,and psychological research,
much of it conducted specifically for the benefit of
commercial firms ( and kept secret, promptly.)
> > > > >>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
> > > > >>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
> >
> > > > > Then post them.
> >
> > > > Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
> > >
> > > Do that Jiri. We'd truely enjoy the opportunity to tell your ISP
> > > what a tremendous asset you are to the Usenet groups <hint-hint>
> >
> > Hint, hint - your request - hint, hint - will be implemented.
> You're so unwittingly cooperative.. Thanks!
You are so helpless, I have to help you.
> > > > Could I have a word with your dog-guide?
I meant that as in "your dog - your leader (guru)".
> > > That's funny, you can't even grasp the single concept of "guide dog"..
> > ... the concept is not "single", stupid, it is "simple".
> It is, in most instances, a singular, as I have yet to see more
> than one guide-dog with a visually-challenged person..
The concept involves all such dogs in the world.
You bark, but the caravan has long passed by you.
> > Whereas I learned English in my adulthood, as a foreign
> > language, to you it is your mother-tongue. But you speak it
> > like a wayward offspring. You can't even scribe your own
> > tongue better than me - a "lunatic" from Czechoslovakia.
> > Now, that's what I call "terminal" humiliation.
> Generic ad hominems again? Pity...
Very specific truths. Hallelujah!
> > > Oh, and that's why you never reply any more to my counter-replies?
> > > > http://www.egocities.con/jiri.mruzek/vanity.website/deleted.sht
> >
> > Did you write the above? Still wonder, why you are not
> > worth talking to, mealy-mouth?
> Your pseudo-science defaces the earnest efforts of many, imho.
Oh really? Such as? - The scientists, who had declared
Altamira, and La Marche to be forgeries?
The scientists, who deny the Ancient Science, when they
see it, without really seeing it?
> > > > Well, some other people say that all that geometry in the report
> > > > makes it too expert-oriented. However, yours is not an Expert
> > > > Opinion, but instead it is the Babbling of an Alleged Expert..
> >
> > > His mathematics background qualifies him call your nonsense nonsense.
> >
> > Ok, his degrees empower him to talk in vacuous bubbles.
>
> Nope, it enables us to see a mich broader vista of understanding than
> you, which you have expressed more than a little contempt for...
Speak English logically.
> > > Please seek professional help at your soonest opportunity Jiri..
> >
> > All the shrinks are said to be busy with you and your shell-
> > shocked fellow Info-War heroes, and other invalids.
>
> Jiri, you're the mathematically impaired person here..
You have no mathematical creations. I have the Science-Art.
> Comments?
Creations?
Research of your own? - No? Sorry, so far, U are
the mathematical zero, not I.
Jiri Mruzek - discoverer of Prehistoric Mathematics
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
Kurt Lochner
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> > > Sociology makes the methods of propaganda a subject of its
> > > study. And what do you think all those adds on television
> > > might be? They are scientifically devised propaganda. - Next
> > > question.
>
> > Nope, wrong again, it's called "marketing" and "advertisements."
>
> the findings of sociological,and psychological research,
> much of it conducted specifically for the benefit of
> commercial firms ( and kept secret, promptly.)
That still doesn't cause me to suspend my disbelief while you
explain yet another trivial diversion from the topic of your
so-called 'science-art' being completely without substantiation.
> > > > > >>No, the point is that you admit that there was only general
> > > > > >>critique. Of course, I have the answers to general criticism.
> > >
> > > > > > Then post them.
> > >
> > > > > Ok, I'll repost about 500 articles.
> > > >
> > > > Do that Jiri. We'd truely enjoy the opportunity to tell your ISP
> > > > what a tremendous asset you are to the Usenet groups <hint-hint>
> > >
> > > Hint, hint - your request - hint, hint - will be implemented.
>
> > You're so unwittingly cooperative.. Thanks!
>
> You are so helpless, I have to help you.
Post more, your ISP shall hear of it..
> > Your pseudo-science defaces the earnest efforts of many, imho.
>
> Oh really? Such as? - The scientists, who had declared
> Altamira, and La Marche to be forgeries?
> The scientists, who deny the Ancient Science, when they
> see it, without really seeing it?
You have no idea what you're talking about...
> > Jiri, you're the mathematically impaired person here..
>
> You have no mathematical creations. I have the Science-Art.
Don't lay no cosmic debris on me Jiri...
Kurt Lochner
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >
> > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > >
> > > William Wallace wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
> > > > scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
> > > > question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
>
> > > Let me respond with a question.
>
>
> So, you admit that I struck a chink in your armor.
Nope, you were avoiding answering, answering a question with another
question. Typical of your preposterous postings..
> > > Knowing that certain art contains certain deliberately hidden
> > > geometrical ideas, how would you go about discovering those?
> >
> > We do not "know" that
>
> Let me rephrase the question, so that you may comprehend it.
> If you knew that certain art conceals geometrical ideas,
> how would you go about discovering those?
I do *NOT* "know" any such item to be so.
> Let me give you a hint. - You would use methods similar
> to mine.
No Jiri, I would *NOT* use your 'methods'..
> > of building up to the conclusion, premise by premise, proof by proof.
>
> That is what I have done, and you cannot face it.
You're dreaming Jiri..
> > > What specifically did you not like about my methods of uncovering
> > > those ideas?
> >
> > That you presume what you say you're trying to prove as a given,
> > is yet another glaring example of your fallicious logic and skews..
>
> Examples, substantive criticism - you lack those, and therefore
> you are an especially despiccable specimen of a lunatic.
One does not argue against a negative, and hence false, claim..
That's why I don't concern myself with your specifics, as they are
all couched in the same unprovable assumptions..
chao..
Jiri Mruzek
Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > William Wallace wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You are simply being called to book to the use of elementary
> > > > > scientific methods. Nothing more. That you refuse to do so is not in
> > > > > question. You object to being reminded you have not done so.
> >
> > > > Let me respond with a question.
> >
> >
> > So, you admit that I struck a chink in your armor.
>
> Nope, you were avoiding answering, answering a question with another
> question. Typical of your preposterous postings..
It was a question relevant to the subject at hand.
Typical for you to gloss the fact over.
> > > > Knowing that certain art contains certain deliberately hidden
> > > > geometrical ideas, how would you go about discovering those?
> > >
> > > We do not "know" that
> >
> > Let me rephrase the question, so that you may comprehend it.
> > If you knew that certain art conceals geometrical ideas,
> > how would you go about discovering those?
>
> I do *NOT* "know" any such item to be so.
Kurt, you admit ignorance? I am sure many a reader here
knows hor wrong you are. You have much to learn. Maybe too
much..
> > Let me give you a hint. - You would use methods similar
> > to mine.
> No Jiri, I would *NOT* use your 'methods'..
<Guffaw> Ok, what methods would you use?
> > > of building up to the conclusion, premise by premise, proof by proof.
> >
> > That is what I have done, and you cannot face it.
>
> You're dreaming Jiri..
Prove it by going through my premises, proof by proof.
> > > > What specifically did you not like about my methods of uncovering
> > > > those ideas?
> > >
> > > That you presume what you say you're trying to prove as a given,
> > > is yet another glaring example of your fallicious logic and skews..
> >
> > Examples, substantive criticism - you lack those, and therefore
> > you are an especially despiccable specimen of a lunatic.
>
> One does not argue against a negative, and hence false, claim..
Lack of examples creates negativity in you, not me.
> That's why I don't concern myself with your specifics, as they are
> all couched in the same unprovable assumptions..
As long as you admit that you cannot face those specifics,
you can say anything else, and it will have the value of hot air.
Jiri Mruzek- discoverer of the world's oldest image of a horseman
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html