Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the bottom.
Most of you probably already know about the face on Mars that resembles
that of a created structure that has great similarities to the face of
the Sphinx here on Earth. However, here is the shocking part. Not far
from the face on Mars people have spotted what appears to be pyramid
shaped structures, see the picture below.
http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityf.html
http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
Ok, now there is only one argument that people can put up in regards
to this while still claiming that they were not intentionally built
by paranormal aliens or other such beings. They would have to explain
how such objects (including the face on Mars) could be formed out of
natural occurrences rather then with intelligent intervention. A close look
at the face on Mars would reveal that the face takes on the shape of
pre-man, or ape-man if you wish to call it that. If you take a closer
look at the eyes of the face you will quickly notice that the eyes are
elongated as that of the Zetas or grays, so this seems to represent a
possible crossbreed or alternative humanoid race that may have occupied
Mars at some time in our past. Most people who understand the nature
of the alien hybridization program will know what I am talking about here.
In general, aliens (mostly the grays) would take beings from various planets
and cross-breed them with their own and sometimes use those races to
create life on other planets. In this sense, aliens are acting as
gods as they work to populate more and more planets with similar beings.
I tend to see the face as well as the nearby pyramid like rocks to be a
symbol of their races. Of course I already have the information readily
available for anyone who dares to take up arguments with me in this thread.
To prove my legitimacy in regards to these issues I will tell you of something
that has yet to be documented by your archeologists about the paranormal
pyramids here on Earth that you seem to not currently know. At the top of
one of the pyramids there was this structure which you now seem to refer to
as the Ankh which undoubtedly is now seen as a symbol that represents life.
It takes on the shape that is not much unlike this ASCII drawing.
0
---
|
|
/ \
/ \
Of course at this point I am not going to try to explain what it was actually
used for as it is quite complicated. I will however make sure that I do so in
my future posts as it is quite fascinating as many people seemed to have lost
what its original meaning was and what it was actually used for and how it was
capable of harvesting electromagnetic energy and was able to sort of manipulate
things. This however is still indeed a long and complicated story that I will
indeed share with you. Don't sweat it. This object also contained a ring inside
the "0" that also helped in its function as well. All I can say is to come to
alt.paranormal and await those posts which are set to be made in a few weeks
to a month from now. I am telling you this information now as I am currently
open for questions in regards to these issues. If of course you are not 100%
sure what I am talking about, feel free to move on.
Now; here is my challenge to the skeptics and even the trolls as this is still
an anti-kill file thread with the exception of the single poster mentioned
below in the disclaimer. The challenge of course is for the skeptics or trolls
to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid like objects found
in the above two photos of Mars including the face on Mars were naturally
created as a freak of nature. Please don't try to give me the stuff about
earthquakes and tornados because that still does not explain the face. ;)
I expect any answer which you have; to be well thought out as my argument
to come is also gonna be well thought out. I have given you (1 MONTH) notice
before this thread was gonna be posted in alt.paranormal and now its your
turn to see if you have what it takes to refute these paranormal possibilities
that the paranormal pyramids and face on Mars may have been built by paranormal
aliens. Hmm. This will indeed be an interesting thread, and yes this is in
fact an anti-kill file thread. Oh, running and copying stuff from biased
websites will not help either, I need it in your own words. Using URLs
as references is acceptable but material simply copied and pasted may
be snipped if the attempt is made to lead these issues out of context to
avoid having to confront these issues directly.
A brief summery of my prior conclusions is as follows: (Please note however
that the content below is material that was already discussed in prior threads,
yes I am still open for discussions in relation to this, but I will not let
you avoid the pyramids on Mars issue as I promise to keep bringing it up
as I do with everything else.)
Summery of prior debates:
1. I have concluded that there are no hieroglyphic messages that
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have contributed
to the construction of the great pyramid without the likely assistance
of paranormal aliens.
2. I have shown that the alleged work-crew signatures were of a later
form of hieroglyphics (phonograms) instead of the earlier form of
hieroglyphic (pictograms) which must have therefore been placed there
at a later time.
3. I have questioned the fact that the alleged human builders did not
write about their so-called greatest achievement, and question as to where
such documentation could be found. So far there has been nothing.
4. I have also shown that even with the fact that there are alleged
work-crew signatures, one does not know for sure that they were the
actual builders. I then compared this to the fact that just because
I carve my name into a picnic table, it does not necessarily mean
that I am its creator simply because I decided one day to carve my
name into it.
5. I have shown that the majority of the ORIGINAL hieroglyphic messages
detail that the paranormal pyramids were inhabited by "gods". These "gods"
of course being the likely paranormal aliens which I have talked about.
6. There were attempts made to steer the discussion away from the great pyramid
to the much smaller "Menkaure's pyramid," which *is* believed to be made by
humans, but I refused to let the major topic be dodged and still await a refutation
to the possibilities that the paranormal great pyramid may have been built by
or with the assistance of paranormal aliens.
7. I have shown that simply copy&pasting material from biased websites such as
a website written by a scientist in favor of that specific scientists viewpoints
while rejecting others would not be acceptable for me to reconsider my conclusion.
8. I have shown that the alleged "rope marks" which were found were much more
likely to be the end result of erosion as water made its way through the rocks.
9. I have shown that the paranormal pyramids at Giza seem to be aligned
with a star cluster in several ways, so far that has yet to be refuted either.
10. I have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there are simply assumptions
being made that the so-called "gods" in which they wrote about were not actually
paranormal aliens.
11. I have shown that scientific carbon dating was not necessarily 100% accurate
for measuring that type of material.
12. I have shown that there are similar structures on Mars including a face that
is a lot similar to the paranormal pyramids and the sphinx here on Earth. Thats
what this thread is meant to focus on. ;)
[Anti Kill-File Disclaimer]
For this thread and threads similar to this I have temporarily
disabled my kill-file. Please note however that there is an
individual on these groups whose posts I will not read due to
the circumstances that he has threatened publicly to usenet of
plans to commit suicide and has also made claims of an illness
that he has had that is life-threating. In respect of that (even
with the possibility that he is lieing) I will not reply
to any posts he makes here, I will also not mention his name.
I will also not reply to those who try to lead the thread off-topic
or continuously avoid placing the refutation to this thread as
requested. Also note that though my kill-file is disabled, I
will not read replies to earlier threads written by those who
were previously in my kill-file in threads prior to this one.
I will not even click to open up your posts so using this anti
kill-file thread to evade the kill-file in other threads will
not work either.
For those interested, prior versions of this thread i.e. parts
I and II can be found at this URL:
http://www.flagship1.com/alt.paranormal/posts.html
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal - Posting to Usenet since July-15-1997.
"With the 2001 officialization of this great new millennium, it has
been shown that the paranormal is mostly what common science has yet
to discover. This is where many skeptics seem to be missing my point."
Official Website -----> http://www.flagship1.com
Official Newsgroup ---> alt.paranormal
Official Usenet ID ---> paran...@flagship1.com
Michael Davis
> Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
No. Very intelligent and resourceful human beings built the pyramids. HTH.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Nature abhors a moron." - H. L. Mencken
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
Michael Davis wrote:
>
> Fraudship1 of the Abnormal trolled:
>
> > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> No. Very intelligent and resourceful human beings built the pyramids. HTH.
It is quite apparent by your writings here that you must have not
made much of an effort of actually reading into the content of
my post before making this reply. In this thread I was discussing
the pyramid shaped objects which were found on Mars. See pictures
linked to the top of this thread for more information. My challenge
still stands.
> --
> The Evil Michael Davis™
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "Nature abhors a moron." - H. L. Mencken
--
Michael Davis
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> [Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
>
> Michael Davis wrote:
> >
> > Fraudship1 of the Abnormal trolled:
> >
> > > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > No. Very intelligent and resourceful human beings built the pyramids. HTH.
>
> It is quite apparent by your writings here that you must have not
> made much of an effort of actually reading into the content of
> my post
True. Your posts are written in a style that causes migraines when one attempts
to study them too closely.
> before making this reply. In this thread I was discussing
> the pyramid shaped objects which were found on Mars.
Oh, I see. My mistake. I thought you had pulled your all-time favorite troll out
of your ass and inflicted it on us again. I see now that you are branching out.
> See pictures
> linked to the top of this thread for more information. My challenge
> still stands.
Then the answer to your answer to your question is no, gullible and overly
imaginative human beings think they see pyramids that aren't really there. HTH.
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
NO. And you have been shown this on numerous occasions.
What's weird is that all of these whackos who question whether or not
human beings are capable of building amazing structures, only question
cultures which are not european in origin. I mean, no one asks is
aliens built stonehenge, or similar structures in Europe do they?
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
*do...@diddydidy.com*
Angleseaô <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:51:19 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> >Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> NO. And you have been shown this on numerous occasions.
>
> What's weird is that all of these whackos who question whether or not
> human beings are capable of building amazing structures, only question
> cultures which are not european in origin. I mean, no one asks is
> aliens built stonehenge, or similar structures in Europe do they?
Alright, enough is enough. I can not disclose how I did it but I built
the Pyramids. I will admit I had a little help from Dore and some
spiritual help from Wollman.
HTH
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.usenet.kooks
[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:51:19 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> >Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> NO. And you have been shown this on numerous occasions.
>
> What's weird is that all of these whackos who question whether or not
> human beings are capable of building amazing structures, only question
> cultures which are not european in origin. I mean, no one asks is
> aliens built stonehenge, or similar structures in Europe do they?
You may wish to consult the pictorial evidence linked at the top of
this thread in which you have snipped. The photos clearly show that
there are indeed pyramid shaped objects on Mars, unless you wish to
try to confirm that NASA produces misleading photos. Once again I
have yet to receive a refutation to these paranormal understandings
that the paranormal pyramid structures found on Mars were placed there
by humans, or have been the end result of a natural occurrence. This
is especially so with the face which has also yet to be refuted beyond
a reasonable doubt.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
Michael Davis wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> > > No. Very intelligent and resourceful human beings built the pyramids. HTH.
> >
> > It is quite apparent by your writings here that you must have not
> > made much of an effort of actually reading into the content of
> > my post
>
> True. Your posts are written in a style that causes migraines when one attempts
> to study them too closely.
It is recommended that people who suffer from these illness either turn down
the brightness of their computer monitors or make other such adjustments
to allow for the ultimate comfort and ease whilst reading posts which
have been made to usenet.
> > before making this reply. In this thread I was discussing
> > the pyramid shaped objects which were found on Mars.
>
> Oh, I see. My mistake. I thought you had pulled your all-time favorite troll out
> of your ass and inflicted it on us again. I see now that you are branching out.
I seem to be missing your point here. I had clearly pointed out at the
top of this thread that I am only interested in discussing issues relevant
to the paranormal pyramid like objects found on Mars and the likelihoods
that they may have been placed there as a result of paranormal alien
visitation.
> > See pictures
> > linked to the top of this thread for more information. My challenge
> > still stands.
>
> Then the answer to your answer to your question is no, gullible and overly
> imaginative human beings think they see pyramids that aren't really there. HTH.
Once again I may ask you to observe the photographs linked at the top of
this thread for more information. I still await an explanation as to how
such objects could occur naturally beyond a reasonable doubt.
> --
> The Evil Michael Davis™
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "Nature abhors a moron." - H. L. Mencken
[Snip]
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>[Groups Removed]
>alt.usenet.kooks
>
>[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
>
>"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:51:19 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
>> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>>
>> NO. And you have been shown this on numerous occasions.
>>
>> What's weird is that all of these whackos who question whether or not
>> human beings are capable of building amazing structures, only question
>> cultures which are not european in origin. I mean, no one asks is
>> aliens built stonehenge, or similar structures in Europe do they?
>
>You may wish to consult the pictorial evidence linked at the top of
>this thread in which you have snipped. The photos clearly show that
>there are indeed pyramid shaped objects on Mars, unless you wish to
>try to confirm that NASA produces misleading photos.
They don't show pyramids, except in your frvered imagination. They
are natural.
> Once again I
>have yet to receive a refutation to these paranormal understandings
>that the paranormal pyramid structures found on Mars were placed there
>by humans, or have been the end result of a natural occurrence. This
>is especially so with the face which has also yet to be refuted beyond
>a reasonable doubt.
the "face" was well and truly refuted.
trippy
"Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
> Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
So, just for the wtf factor. I clicks on the links.
So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more. Any links that would show
this "face" at a different time of day?
The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing more.
Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
--
Trippy
Skepticult # 365-12149-907
Rank : Seargent First Class
Mr.T.t...@chorus.net
(I pity the fool, who doesn't take out Mr.T before e-mailing me)
And I don't want the world to see me
'cuz I don't think that they'd understand
When everything's made to be broken
I just want you to know who I am
Goo Goo Dolls ---- "Iris"
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
trippy wrote:
>
> In article <3AC52A07...@flagship1.com>, paran...@flagship1.com
> "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
> > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> So, just for the wtf factor. I clicks on the links.
>
> So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
> using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
So you are now questioning the very nature of the NASA satellite photos
themselves? I am wondering.
> The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more.
The above is an assumption. Please explain how a shadow effect could
produce such a fine and detailed image of a Face? Hmm. Try this, go
once again to http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
and turn the brightness of your monitor up. Then after that tell me
that your just seeing a shadow effect.
> Any links that would show
> this "face" at a different time of day?
Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
(which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
paranormal.
> The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing more.
They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such. Of course the land
on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
such occurrences.
> Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
> --
> Trippy
>
> Skepticult # 365-12149-907
> Rank : Seargent First Class
>
> Mr.T.t...@chorus.net
> (I pity the fool, who doesn't take out Mr.T before e-mailing me)
>
> And I don't want the world to see me
> 'cuz I don't think that they'd understand
> When everything's made to be broken
> I just want you to know who I am
>
> Goo Goo Dolls ---- "Iris"
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:51:19 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> >> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >>
> >> NO. And you have been shown this on numerous occasions.
> >>
> >> What's weird is that all of these whackos who question whether or not
> >> human beings are capable of building amazing structures, only question
> >> cultures which are not european in origin. I mean, no one asks is
> >> aliens built stonehenge, or similar structures in Europe do they?
> >
> >You may wish to consult the pictorial evidence linked at the top of
> >this thread in which you have snipped. The photos clearly show that
> >there are indeed pyramid shaped objects on Mars, unless you wish to
> >try to confirm that NASA produces misleading photos.
>
> They don't show pyramids, except in your frvered imagination. They
> are natural.
Once again, I still await evidence as well as other such statistical
information which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid
shaped rock objects were the end result of a natural occurrence
rather then one that would be deemed as being paranormal in nature.
You have also neglected to explain the nearby face, unless you
are assuming that it was a natural occurrence as well. Is it
possible that it is just a natural occurrence, yes it is.
However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
including objects not unlike the face discovery.
> > Once again I
> >have yet to receive a refutation to these paranormal understandings
> >that the paranormal pyramid structures found on Mars were placed there
> >by humans, or have been the end result of a natural occurrence. This
> >is especially so with the face which has also yet to be refuted beyond
> >a reasonable doubt.
>
> the "face" was well and truly refuted.
>
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Pete Charest
news:3AC645A9...@flagship1.com...
> I as well as many other paranormalists
Paranormalists?
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now, you're even making up words for your made-up pseudo-science.
You are a buffoon, gullible, credulous, and small-minded.
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
It definitely *IS* a natural occurence, as more high resolution photos
show.
>However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
>that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
>including objects not unlike the face discovery.
No one can convince you, because you are a credophile and a troll.
trippy
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> trippy wrote:
> >
> > In article <3AC52A07...@flagship1.com>, paran...@flagship1.com
> > "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
> > > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > So, just for the wtf factor. I clicks on the links.
> >
> > So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
> > using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
>
> So you are now questioning the very nature of the NASA satellite photos
> themselves? I am wondering.
Then why did you post a link to a russian website. It could very well
have come from NASA, but we don't get to hear the explanation of the face
from them? You would think that would bolster your claim, rather than
detract from it, unless of course, they've disproved it.
> > The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more.
>
> The above is an assumption. Please explain how a shadow effect could
> produce such a fine and detailed image of a Face? Hmm. Try this, go
> once again to http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
> and turn the brightness of your monitor up. Then after that tell me
> that your just seeing a shadow effect.
Changing the brightness on the monitor won't change the shadows in the
picture, it'll just make my screen brighter. A better picture is needed
> > Any links that would show
> > this "face" at a different time of day?
>
> Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
> (which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
> even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
> be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
> going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
> actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
> that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
> is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
> is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
> paranormal.
One thing bothers me about that assumption. Okay, let's take your point
at face value for a second and say it's so.
1) What would be the purpose of such a feature? Since there's no life on
mars, it wouldn't be useful. Interstellar graffiti? Highly doubtful.
2) If it is paranormal, who constructed it? Since people aren't even
really sure of what an alien even looks like, at least not in something
other than in the pop culture sense, how would this translate into a
representation of the alien culture?
> > The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing more.
>
> They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
> the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such.
More than likely, point conceeded.
Of course the land
> on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
> argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
> however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
> explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
> of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
> such occurrences.
How high are the rocks? that's another thing that bothers me, there's no
vertical scale. they could be a high outcropping of rocks, they certanly
seem taller than the "face", but how high is the "face"? I haven't heard
anything about that. Mars has an atmosphere, and since I know nothing of
weather conditions on mars, I'm going to use my example from earth. High
altitudes, mean less density to the air, which means less erosion.
However, some erosion still exists on everest, just not to the drastic
extremes as seen in the picture.
In addition, mars has a layer of permafrost underneath the surface, that
means there's water. Perhaps at one point there were rainstorms, and the
like. They also may have found dry river beds there. The surface soil is
covered with rust, not dirt in the true sense. That may explain the
erosion, but then again without height statistics, it becomes hard to
make a case for anything. Call it speculation if you will, but the only
true thing at this point is that everything is a guess, and everything
just leads to more questions.
> > Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
>
> Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
> to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
> overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
> test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
> are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
> consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
> keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
Nothing further to add on this point.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Older Quotes Removed to Save Bandwidth]
[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> >> They don't show pyramids, except in your frvered imagination. They
> >> are natural.
> >
> >Once again, I still await evidence as well as other such statistical
> >information which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid
> >shaped rock objects were the end result of a natural occurrence
> >rather then one that would be deemed as being paranormal in nature.
> >You have also neglected to explain the nearby face, unless you
> >are assuming that it was a natural occurrence as well. Is it
> >possible that it is just a natural occurrence, yes it is.
>
> It definitely *IS* a natural occurence, as more high resolution photos
> show.
Do you have such photos in which you allege? Hmm. I also still await
an irrefutable explanation as to how there is a greater then 50% likelihood
that the Face as well as the paranormal pyramid like objects were the
end result of a natural occurrence on Mars.
> >However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
> >that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
> >including objects not unlike the face discovery.
>
> No one can convince you, because you are a credophile and a troll.
I seem to be missing your point here. I had clearly pointed out that
in prior threads, my claims of taking part in the art of usenet
trolling was simply a white-lie in which I had made to avoid
an AUK award which BTW I was successful in avoiding. ;) This makes me
one of the FIRST paranormalists on these groups to avoid an AUK award
by confusing people over in AUK, hence the e-mail I intentionally sent
to Jason & Heather which I knew would be passed on. FYI, I am no longer
eligible for KOTY nominations as only people who won KOTM can fill a
slot for it. I can only win KOTM once and therefor cannot win again and
am invaladated for any further awards. Don't sweat it, its one less
hateplots section you have to fuss about so I guess we have both benefited
in our own sort of way. LOL:) Now just if I thought of this in May 2000
instead of trying to slip in the Sock-Puppet white-lie. Then again I only
had a month to think of a way to avoid the award, unlike this one where
I had a great headway and notice. If you still wish to call me a troll,
thats fine by me but you are still being laughed at.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>[Older Quotes Removed to Save Bandwidth]
>
>[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
>
>"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>>
>[Snip]
>>
>> >> They don't show pyramids, except in your frvered imagination. They
>> >> are natural.
>> >
>> >Once again, I still await evidence as well as other such statistical
>> >information which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid
>> >shaped rock objects were the end result of a natural occurrence
>> >rather then one that would be deemed as being paranormal in nature.
>> >You have also neglected to explain the nearby face, unless you
>> >are assuming that it was a natural occurrence as well. Is it
>> >possible that it is just a natural occurrence, yes it is.
>>
>> It definitely *IS* a natural occurence, as more high resolution photos
>> show.
>
>Do you have such photos in which you allege?
Well, a short survey of just ONE site, brings out this:
http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/face_discussion.html
http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/vikingproc.html
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/index.html
Quoting you:
"unless you wish to
try to confirm that NASA produces misleading photos"
>>
>> No one can convince you, because you are a credophile and a troll.
>
>I seem to be missing your point here. I had clearly pointed out that
>in prior threads, my claims of taking part in the art of usenet
>trolling was simply a white-lie in which I had made to avoid
>an AUK award which BTW I was successful in avoiding. ;) This makes me
>one of the FIRST paranormalists on these groups to avoid an AUK award
>by confusing people over in AUK, hence the e-mail I intentionally sent
>to Jason & Heather which I knew would be passed on. FYI, I am no longer
>eligible for KOTY nominations as only people who won KOTM can fill a
>slot for it. I can only win KOTM once and therefor cannot win again and
>am invaladated for any further awards. Don't sweat it, its one less
>hateplots section you have to fuss about so I guess we have both benefited
>in our own sort of way. LOL:) Now just if I thought of this in May 2000
>instead of trying to slip in the Sock-Puppet white-lie. Then again I only
>had a month to think of a way to avoid the award, unlike this one where
>I had a great headway and notice. If you still wish to call me a troll,
>thats fine by me but you are still being laughed at.
Can anyone translate the above whacky paragraph?
It seems to be that Flagshit has:
1: admitted he lies
2: claims he didn't win an award, when he patenly did.
The only one being laughed at is Fraudship
Lou Minatti™
> However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
> that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
> including objects not unlike the face discovery.
That's because you are a stupid kook who holds conversations with
electric fans and claims to have sex with ghosts.
--
Watching You Dot Com
http://www.watchingyou.com
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC657C3...@flagship1.com...
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> >
> [Snip]
> >
> > >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:51:19 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> > >> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> Once again, I still await evidence as well as other such statistical
> information which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid
> shaped rock objects were the end result of a natural occurrence
> rather then one that would be deemed as being paranormal in nature.
> You have also neglected to explain the nearby face, unless you
> are assuming that it was a natural occurrence as well. Is it
> possible that it is just a natural occurrence, yes it is.
> However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
> that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
> including objects not unlike the face discovery.
>
Jeez you sound like a SKEPTIC. That is exactly the argument you accuse
US of having with YOU. YOur statement to the world is that <summation>
Beacuse you believe it, it must be true. And no matter how much it's
plausibly
refuted you continue to babble on and on about how these topics cannot be
disproven.
Why don't you take a responsible approach and go to a reputable site or
library
of info rather than some obscure Russian site and really reasearch a topic
before
going off on a soapbox lecture ride of half-baked proportions.
--
The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
*<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
**<Rank: Cardinal>**
'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC665CC...@flagship1.com...
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> > It definitely *IS* a natural occurence, as more high resolution photos
> > show.
>
> Do you have such photos in which you allege? Hmm. I also still await
> an irrefutable explanation as to how there is a greater then 50%
likelihood
> that the Face as well as the paranormal pyramid like objects were the
> end result of a natural occurrence on Mars.
>
http://www.gcrio.org/geo/dune.html
or
http://calspace.ucsd.edu/marsnow/library/science/geological_history/surface_
layers2.html
it's called geomorphology. Read about it.
> > >However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
> > >that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
> > >including objects not unlike the face discovery.
> >
> > No one can convince you, because you are a credophile and a troll.
>
> I seem to be missing your point here. I had clearly pointed out that
> in prior threads, my claims of taking part in the art of usenet
> trolling was simply a white-lie in which I had made to avoid
> an AUK award which BTW I was successful in avoiding. ;) This makes me
> one of the FIRST paranormalists on these groups to avoid an AUK award
> by confusing people over in AUK, hence the e-mail I intentionally sent
> to Jason & Heather which I knew would be passed on. FYI, I am no longer
> eligible for KOTY nominations as only people who won KOTM can fill a
> slot for it. I can only win KOTM once and therefor cannot win again and
> am invaladated for any further awards. Don't sweat it, its one less
> hateplots section you have to fuss about so I guess we have both benefited
> in our own sort of way. LOL:) Now just if I thought of this in May 2000
> instead of trying to slip in the Sock-Puppet white-lie. Then again I only
> had a month to think of a way to avoid the award, unlike this one where
> I had a great headway and notice. If you still wish to call me a troll,
> thats fine by me but you are still being laughed at.
And how many white-lie are imbedded in your claims, disputes, and thinking?
We don't really worry about hateplots. If anything most normal people would
have written off your disassociative personality as pity. Ridicule you yes.
As
for KOTY....it's only April.
And who is being laughed at? You're the only one chuckling here.
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> trippy wrote:
> >
> > In article <3AC52A07...@flagship1.com>, paran...@flagship1.com
> > "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
> > > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > So, just for the wtf factor. I clicks on the links.
> >
> > So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
> > using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
>
> So you are now questioning the very nature of the NASA satellite photos
> themselves? I am wondering.
No one is questioning NASA....it's a RUSSIAN website. Wake up.
>
> > The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more.
>
> The above is an assumption. Please explain how a shadow effect could
> produce such a fine and detailed image of a Face? Hmm. Try this, go
> once again to http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
> and turn the brightness of your monitor up. Then after that tell me
> that your just seeing a shadow effect.
Do you think anyone that gullible.....? You'd only be making it a brighter
black. Don't tell me you're one of those people that try and look around
the people on the TV screen?
>
> > Any links that would show
> > this "face" at a different time of day?
>
> Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
> (which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
> even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
> be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
> going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
> actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
> that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
> is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
> is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
> paranormal.
ODD maybe, but not paranormal. It's like interpreting shapes in the clouds
and such. It is just a case of unusual NATURAL phenomenon. There are
rock formations in the AMERICAN Southwest that resemble faces too. Did
aliens do that too?
>
> > The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing more.
>
> They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
> the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such. Of course the land
> on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
> argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
> however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
> explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
> of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
> such occurrences.
Again go look up geomorphology.
>
> > Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
>
> Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
> to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
> overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
> test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
> are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
> consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
> keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
Both of whom are cash starved and in need of a new source of funds?
Oh please. Two countries dominanted by a ruling class that controls
the resources including information?
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.idiot.flagship1
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:18:36 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> >Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> >[Older Quotes Removed to Save Bandwidth]
> >
> >[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
> >
> >"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
> >>
> >[Snip]
> >>
> >> >> They don't show pyramids, except in your frvered imagination. They
> >> >> are natural.
> >> >
> >> >Once again, I still await evidence as well as other such statistical
> >> >information which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid
> >> >shaped rock objects were the end result of a natural occurrence
> >> >rather then one that would be deemed as being paranormal in nature.
> >> >You have also neglected to explain the nearby face, unless you
> >> >are assuming that it was a natural occurrence as well. Is it
> >> >possible that it is just a natural occurrence, yes it is.
> >>
> >> It definitely *IS* a natural occurence, as more high resolution photos
> >> show.
> >
> >Do you have such photos in which you allege?
>
> Well, a short survey of just ONE site, brings out this:
>
> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/face_discussion.html
>
> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/vikingproc.html
The above are as usual "Government Websites" and are possible to be biased
in order to keep certain information hish hush. Of course given the nature
of this whole issue I cannot confirm or deny that, I can only present my
observations, opinions, and skillful viewpoints. It is up to those interested
to decide. I will however make a few pointers as to some of the material
in the above websites that are inconstant with my argument.
http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/face_discussion.html
- Simply tells us of the location of the said objects in question, it does
not explain just how such objects should be considered as being the result
of a natural occurrence.
"No one in the planetary science community (at least to my knowledge)
would waste their time doing "a scientific study" of the nature advocated
by those who believe that the "Face on Mars" artificial."
The above quote is a flat out admission that they are ignoring these issues
and are refusing to conduct further research.
"Despite providing a number of people involved with the "private" studies
of the "Face of Mars" with exactly the same information presented above,
there appears to be a continuing view that MOC will purposefully avoid
taking pictures of the "Face" and other features."
The above sites make no reference what so ever exactly how such things
could be naturally occurring. In stead it just goes off about how the
photos were taken and where the objects were located. In addition to
making no refutation they FLAT OUT TELL US that they have no plans in
investigating these issues. It does state at the bottom of the site that
there is a PLAN to make further issues but the key-word is PLAN, which
of course is not a promise. Sorry, but I will wait for the Russians.
Now the Second URL:
http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/vikingproc.html
Same deal. All it tells you is of things that may have been wrong with the way
the pictures were taken, however that does not prove nor even state anywhere
on the website that such objects should be deemed as being naturally occurring.
Then, Does the Face have teeth? Thats got to be some kind of flat out
joke. Its quite obvious that it has everything else, but look they find
something it doesn't have and they ignore the rest that it does. What
would they say if they found the Sphinx on Mars, ROTFL WHOA THIS MUST BE
FAKE, it has no NOSE!!!!111!!!!1
> http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/4_6_98_face_release/index.html
>
> Quoting you:
> "unless you wish to
> try to confirm that NASA produces misleading photos"
Woops, almost forgot this one; same deal. I almost jumped out of my seat
when I saw this one, it contains EDITED PHOTOS and even says that certain
features were removed from them. Once again, I will wait for the other
nations to develop the technology to explore these issues before I make
any final conclusions either positive or negative. I still rest with
my 50-75% conclusion as before. Of course its quite obvious by the URLs
linked above that you ran to a search engine and just found the first
sites that fit your fancy. ;)
P.S. How easy do they want it? When somebody finds something strange in
the ORIGINAL photo, create dummy photos to try to cover up the original.
Same ole. I am still not convinced however.
> >> No one can convince you, because you are a credophile and a troll.
> >
> >I seem to be missing your point here. I had clearly pointed out that
> >in prior threads, my claims of taking part in the art of usenet
> >trolling was simply a white-lie in which I had made to avoid
> >an AUK award which BTW I was successful in avoiding. ;) This makes me
> >one of the FIRST paranormalists on these groups to avoid an AUK award
> >by confusing people over in AUK, hence the e-mail I intentionally sent
> >to Jason & Heather which I knew would be passed on. FYI, I am no longer
> >eligible for KOTY nominations as only people who won KOTM can fill a
> >slot for it. I can only win KOTM once and therefor cannot win again and
> >am invaladated for any further awards. Don't sweat it, its one less
> >hateplots section you have to fuss about so I guess we have both benefited
> >in our own sort of way. LOL:) Now just if I thought of this in May 2000
> >instead of trying to slip in the Sock-Puppet white-lie. Then again I only
> >had a month to think of a way to avoid the award, unlike this one where
> >I had a great headway and notice. If you still wish to call me a troll,
> >thats fine by me but you are still being laughed at.
>
> Can anyone translate the above whacky paragraph?
>
> It seems to be that Flagshit has:
Oh, so now its name calling?
> 1: admitted he lies
> 2: claims he didn't win an award, when he patenly did.
I did not win KOTY, your above statement is within itself a lie.
> The only one being laughed at is Fraudship
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Reverend Ludicrous Wack wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC657C3...@flagship1.com...
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > "Wally AngleseaT" wrote:
> > >
> > [Snip]
> > >
> > > >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:51:19 -0500, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> > > >> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
> <EDIT>.
> >
> > Once again, I still await evidence as well as other such statistical
> > information which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid
> > shaped rock objects were the end result of a natural occurrence
> > rather then one that would be deemed as being paranormal in nature.
> > You have also neglected to explain the nearby face, unless you
> > are assuming that it was a natural occurrence as well. Is it
> > possible that it is just a natural occurrence, yes it is.
> > However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
> > that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
> > including objects not unlike the face discovery.
> >
>
> Jeez you sound like a SKEPTIC.
I just play devil's advocate. I am not a skeptic. I dont make absolute
conclusions and have not done so in any of my discussions in relation
to these issues. I leave it to readers to decide.
> That is exactly the argument you accuse
> US of having with YOU. YOur statement to the world is that <summation>
> Beacuse you believe it, it must be true. And no matter how much it's
> plausibly
> refuted you continue to babble on and on about how these topics cannot be
> disproven.
I present evidence, I leave it to others to try to refute. If there is something
questionable that someone brings up, I engage in an argument with them to see
if what they have to say is legitimate or if they are trying to be of a
distraction.
> Why don't you take a responsible approach and go to a reputable site or
> library
> of info rather than some obscure Russian site and really reasearch a topic
> before
> going off on a soapbox lecture ride of half-baked proportions.
I have done a great deal of research in regards to these subjects. I also
never write about something in relation to the paranormal unless there is
a great deal of evidence in my favor, this way I can't lose even if a
small fraction of the evidence is actually refuted. I am a researcher,
and yes I have run into issues both positive as well as negative in
that regard. However I never give up my ship when I say that I am
doing something.
> --
> The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
>
> *<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
> **<Rank: Cardinal>**
>
> 'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
--
Ugly Bob
"Lou MinattiT" <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3AC679...@yahoo.com...
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > However you cannot convince me of that without evidence to explain
> > that such objects can be found all over the entire face of mars
> > including objects not unlike the face discovery.
>
> That's because you are a stupid kook who holds conversations with
> electric fans and claims to have sex with ghosts.
That's goats, Lou. Sex with _goats_
-Ugly Bob
.
>
>Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
>news:3AC645A9...@flagship1.com...
>> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>>
>> trippy wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <3AC52A07...@flagship1.com>, paran...@flagship1.com
>> > "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
>> > > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>> >
>> > So, just for the wtf factor. I clicks on the links.
>> >
>> > So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
>> > using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
>>
>> So you are now questioning the very nature of the NASA satellite photos
>> themselves? I am wondering.
>
>No one is questioning NASA....it's a RUSSIAN website. Wake up.
>
>>
>> > The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more.
>>
>> The above is an assumption. Please explain how a shadow effect could
>> produce such a fine and detailed image of a Face? Hmm. Try this, go
>> once again to http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
>> and turn the brightness of your monitor up. Then after that tell me
>> that your just seeing a shadow effect.
>
>Do you think anyone that gullible.....? You'd only be making it a brighter
>black. Don't tell me you're one of those people that try and look around
>the people on the TV screen?
Are you saying that manipulating light and contrast on an image
does NOT reveal or remove detail?
>>
>> > Any links that would show
>> > this "face" at a different time of day?
>>
>> Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
>> (which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
>> even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
>> be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
>> going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
>> actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
>> that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
>> is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
>> is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
>> paranormal.
>
>ODD maybe, but not paranormal. It's like interpreting shapes in the clouds
>and such. It is just a case of unusual NATURAL phenomenon. There are
>rock formations in the AMERICAN Southwest that resemble faces too. Did
>aliens do that too?
Has ET life been conclusively disproved yet then, Mr Ludicrous Wack?
>>
>> > The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing more.
>>
>> They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
>> the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such. Of course the land
>> on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
>> argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
>> however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
>> explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
>> of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
>> such occurrences.
>
>Again go look up geomorphology.
Which dimensionally similar formations on earth are you referring to,
Mr Ludicrous Wack?
>>
>> > Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
>>
>> Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
>> to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
>> overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
>> test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
>> are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
>> consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
>> keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
>
>Both of whom are cash starved and in need of a new source of funds?
>Oh please. Two countries dominanted by a ruling class that controls
>the resources including information?
Um, are you saying that the western world ruling class *don't* control
resources and information?
H. Chase
Who let Flaggy out unattended? Christ on a pogo stick people, I leave for a
couple months and come back to see this...
"Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC52A07...@flagship1.com...
> Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> Most of you probably already know about the face on Mars that resembles
> that of a created structure that has great similarities to the face of
> the Sphinx here on Earth. However, here is the shocking part. Not far
> from the face on Mars people have spotted what appears to be pyramid
> shaped structures, see the picture below.
Troll. Shameless, impenitent troll.
Dear god! Some call up NASA and tell them! Pyramid-shaped structures on
Mars? Who would have thought?
Now, I know you fancy yourself an Alert Citizen and all, but I take great
pleasure from bursting your bubble of narcissism. We know! Yes! That's
right! Anyone with a television, a computer and an Internet connection (now
follow this logic... that's everyone here) knows! It was in the newspapers
for YEARS! So, this New! Urgent! Information! Is really a decade or three
old, and... guess what else?
You'll never guess.
Astrophysicists have been looking at Mars since then and have determined...
wait for it... That this is a NATURAL PHENOMENON! Now, let's break out the
ticker tape and warm up the presses, because I know you'll need a fanfare of
publicity to convince you. Plain, old boring autocratic fascist scientific
papers on the subject won't convince your discerning palate. No, no! And I
don't suppose that I could offer to jettison you in orbit over Cydonia, to
convince you, either. You and Richard Hoaxgland would make WONDERFUL
satellites around Mars, I think. For that split-second before you freeze and
suffocate, you will know, without a doubt, that this is a natural phenomenon.
Or maybe we could just put you on Mars. Right there in Cydonia, where there
is nearly nothing of any real "shocking" scientific interest, and you can
spend the rest of your short life wandering around the red sand and rocks
until you are convinced that they are, in fact, natural. Or not! I don't
really care, because at least from Mars, you won't be able to post this silly
screed, and I think that is a wonderful justification for funding you a ticket
to ride on the Mars Smart Lander in 2007.
> http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityf.html
> http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
>
> Ok, now there is only one argument that people can put up in regards
> to this while still claiming that they were not intentionally built
> by paranormal aliens or other such beings.
[...]
>Of course I already have the information readily
> available for anyone who dares to take up arguments with me in this thread.
TROLL! Who dares? I dare. I double-dog dare you, sniveling troll. I'm
bored, I'll play.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif
What is that, Flaggy? Hmm? HMMM? What is it?
Why, that's the "face" on Mars! Yes it is! Mars Global Surveyor snapped that
shot JUST for you. Just so we would know. Now, let me guess. This is... a
giant alien footprint, maybe?
> To prove my legitimacy in regards to these issues
<cough> Don't ever use that word again, Flaggy. You may NOT use the word
"legitimacy," ever. Never. You don't know what it means, or you don't care,
or you think this is all really funny, and all of those reasons are reason
enough that you should never, ever put finger to keyboard, or breath to lips,
with the intention to communicate that word. Ever.
> I will tell you of something
> that has yet to be documented by your archeologists about the paranormal
> pyramids here on Earth that you seem to not currently know.
Bullshit. Next!
> Of course at this point I am not going to try to explain what it was
actually
> used for as it is quite complicated.
No doubt at LEAST as complicated as looking up the latest pictures of Cydonia
in a web search engine. Try me. What possible utility could this very well
researched hieroglyph - which was also translated in the Rosetta Stone - have
had besides the commonly understood emblematic one?
> I will however make sure that I do so in
> my future posts as it is quite fascinating as many people seemed to have
lost
> what its original meaning was and what it was actually used for and how it
was
> capable of harvesting electromagnetic energy and was able to sort of
manipulate
> things.
Yes, in fact, the Ankh is a commonly-found shape in all of our electrical
circuitry today. Flag, why don't we do an experiment! Open up your computer,
pull out the motherboard and look at it carefully. Scry into it and see if
you find Ankhs. Do this for a long time.
> Now; here is my challenge to the skeptics and even the trolls as this is
still
> an anti-kill file thread with the exception of the single poster mentioned
> below in the disclaimer.
His name is Del Mulroy, Flag. We all know. You're showing your ass now, by
not acknowledging him, just because he doesn't take your side.
You know what else? There ARE no sides. There is only the truth. You are
either trying to reach that, or you aren't. If you aren't, then you are what,
in technical terms, we like to call "WRONG" here in the Real World. Not
creative, paranormal, unique, special, blessed, gifted, or anything else. You
are wrong. Willfully, frequently, stupidly wrong. If there were something
more wrong than wrong, you would be it. How about irrelevantly wrong? Hmm.
I'll have to work on that.
> The challenge of course is for the skeptics or trolls
> to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid like objects found
> in the above two photos of Mars including the face on Mars were naturally
> created as a freak of nature.
Done. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif
No freak of nature required. It's called "improved technology". Maybe you've
heard of it? It's that stuff that lets you surf the web, so you can find more
wrong things to add to your phenomenally wrong postulate. That stuff with all
the wires, and electrons in it. We have some in space, too! And they take
things called "pictures" which you then can "download" to "see" for "yourself"
what is "out there." Amazing, huh?
>Oh, running and copying stuff from biased
> websites will not help either, I need it in your own words.
You're still sore from that textual ass-thrashing I gave you about the
pyramids, huh? Poor baby. Want more?
> A brief summery of my prior conclusions is as follows: (Please note however
> that the content below is material that was already discussed in prior
threads,
> yes I am still open for discussions in relation to this, but I will not let
> you avoid the pyramids on Mars issue as I promise to keep bringing it up
> as I do with everything else.)
Well, since I already provided the rebuttal to your little face thing, I can
deal with this, for my amusement.
> Summery of prior debates:
>
> 1. I have concluded that there are no hieroglyphic messages that
> prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have contributed
> to the construction of the great pyramid without the likely assistance
> of paranormal aliens.
That's mostly because if you were to admit that you were wrong, then you might
have to admit that Common Science is right, and that hurts your head too much.
Arrogant little tard. I'm still planning that trip to Egypt this summer. You
're still welcome to go. It's the next best thing to Mars that I can do.
> 2. I have shown that the alleged work-crew signatures were of a later
> form of hieroglyphics (phonograms) instead of the earlier form of
> hieroglyphic (pictograms) which must have therefore been placed there
> at a later time.
No you haven't. You HAVE NOT. You are WRONG. Again! Please do me a favor
and read for me, the following papyri say, since you are so darned good at it.
http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/1.gif
http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/2.gif
I should forewarn you, that I know what they say. So, don't try to bullshit
your way out of this.
> 3. I have questioned the fact that the alleged human builders did not
> write about their so-called greatest achievement, and question as to where
> such documentation could be found. So far there has been nothing.
Yes, they did. We've already discussed this, liar.
> 4. I have also shown that even with the fact that there are alleged
> work-crew signatures, one does not know for sure that they were the
> actual builders. I then compared this to the fact that just because
> I carve my name into a picnic table, it does not necessarily mean
> that I am its creator simply because I decided one day to carve my
> name into it.
There's no "alleged" about it. The za signatures are there. And we've
already talked about how these signatures are in places that would not be
possible if they were inscribed afterwards. On top of which, there are many,
MANY examples of this practice all over Egyptian architecture. Moreover, as
you already know because I've shown you more times than I should have, the
pyramids in Giza are not the first, nor the only examples of pyramid
structures in Egypt. There are 108 pyramids in Egypt, and lots of failed and
half-finished attempts of them by earlier pharaohs. So, don't try to pull the
wool over anyone's eyes, you little troll liar.
> 5. I have shown that the majority of the ORIGINAL hieroglyphic messages
> detail that the paranormal pyramids were inhabited by "gods". These "gods"
> of course being the likely paranormal aliens which I have talked about.
No, they don't. Find one of the original hieroglyphics that says this,
indisputably. Show me. I can read hieroglyphics, hieratic and demotic, and
whatever I can't read I can conveniently have translated for me by one of 18
archaeologists I know. So, let's see them. Liar. Troll.
> 6. There were attempts made to steer the discussion away from the great
pyramid
> to the much smaller "Menkaure's pyramid," which *is* believed to be made by
> humans, but I refused to let the major topic be dodged and still await a
refutation
> to the possibilities that the paranormal great pyramid may have been built
by
> or with the assistance of paranormal aliens.
Menkaure and Khafre pyramids. But let's talk about the Dashur pyramids, too.
Let's talk about Saqqara. Let's talk about Sneferu's pyramid, which was
designed by the same guy who designed the other less-attractive but earlier
pyramids down in Dashur. How about those?
How about this?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/pyramids001115.html
Or this?
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~aera/Giza_Pages/Radiocarbon_Pages/Radiocarbon.html
Oh, fuck it. You don't care. You don't even want to know. Liar. Troll.
> 7. I have shown that simply copy&pasting material from biased websites such
as
> a website written by a scientist in favor of that specific scientists
viewpoints
> while rejecting others would not be acceptable for me to reconsider my
conclusion.
Why don't you understand that scientists work for you, too? In fact, any
government-supported scientist, is in essence, your employee. The information
they find belongs to you. Why do you insist on shooting yourself in the foot,
like this? Do you know any scientists?
> 8. I have shown that the alleged "rope marks" which were found were much
more
> likely to be the end result of erosion as water made its way through the
rocks.
Water? What? I must have missed that.
> 9. I have shown that the paranormal pyramids at Giza seem to be aligned
> with a star cluster in several ways, so far that has yet to be refuted
either.
Yeah! And what's cool is that this helped us to date them! See above!
> 10. I have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there are simply
assumptions
> being made that the so-called "gods" in which they wrote about were not
actually
> paranormal aliens.
I smell a burning strawman. Your grammar is atrocious. Well, I have proven
beyond reasonable doubt that you are merely assuming that these "gods" are
really aliens. Especially when they call them "gods" and they have lots of
"god-like" qualities. Since we don't know what an "alien-like" quality would
be, so therefore your assumption is based upon no information! Ha!
> 11. I have shown that scientific carbon dating was not necessarily 100%
accurate
> for measuring that type of material.
And provided no way to validate your handwaved speculations, against the
plethora of other relative dating techniques we have.
> 12. I have shown that there are similar structures on Mars including a face
that
> is a lot similar to the paranormal pyramids and the sphinx here on Earth.
Thats
> what this thread is meant to focus on. ;)
Yeah, wink nudge. Flag, cut it out. You aren't being cute.
Furthermore... Please understand that I'm not going to argue with you here.
You know, and I know that you are a troll. I respond because you are
attacking scientific knowledge that belongs to everyone, twisting things
around and possibly confusing people. I think that is deplorable... even a
little bit criminal. In either case, spreading lies is at the very least
ethically wrong.
--
Regards,
H. Chase
------
Mandatory Website
http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/
"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and
which will not, speak then to me." --MacBeth, I:3
HVAC
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
I still want to know the difference between "normal" aliens and "paranormal"
aliens.
I'm getting dizzy
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"H. Chase" wrote:
>
> Who let Flaggy out unattended? Christ on a pogo stick people, I leave for a
> couple months and come back to see this...
>
> "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC52A07...@flagship1.com...
> > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> > Most of you probably already know about the face on Mars that resembles
> > that of a created structure that has great similarities to the face of
> > the Sphinx here on Earth. However, here is the shocking part. Not far
> > from the face on Mars people have spotted what appears to be pyramid
> > shaped structures, see the picture below.
>
> Troll. Shameless, impenitent troll.
>
> Dear god! Some call up NASA and tell them! Pyramid-shaped structures on
> Mars? Who would have thought?
>
> Now, I know you fancy yourself an Alert Citizen and all, but I take great
> pleasure from bursting your bubble of narcissism. We know! Yes! That's
> right! Anyone with a television, a computer and an Internet connection (now
> follow this logic... that's everyone here) knows! It was in the newspapers
> for YEARS! So, this New! Urgent! Information! Is really a decade or three
> old, and... guess what else?
What does this have to do with my thread? Claims that I "fancy myself an
alert citizen?" What is that even supposed to mean let alone the fact
that it is all together off-topic. I had made a request for someone to
PROVE to me that such occurrences on Mars could have happened naturally,
just finding people who make a CLAIM that something is naturally occurring
will not work to convince me otherwise. Now note that I am willing to be
convinced about the Mars issue as I have not made absolute solid conclusions.
However, I need evidence to counter the hype in regards to this issue. In
this thread I was hopeing to address that.
> You'll never guess.
>
> Astrophysicists have been looking at Mars since then and have determined...
> wait for it... That this is a NATURAL PHENOMENON! Now, let's break out the
> ticker tape and warm up the presses, because I know you'll need a fanfare of
> publicity to convince you. Plain, old boring autocratic fascist scientific
> papers on the subject won't convince your discerning palate. No, no! And I
> don't suppose that I could offer to jettison you in orbit over Cydonia, to
> convince you, either. You and Richard Hoaxgland would make WONDERFUL
> satellites around Mars, I think. For that split-second before you freeze and
> suffocate, you will know, without a doubt, that this is a natural phenomenon.
So people have made a conclusion that it was a natural phenomenon, I have then
asked what brings people to such a conclusion? Hmm, what exact natural phenomenon
can produce pyramid shaped objects? Hmm.
> Or maybe we could just put you on Mars. Right there in Cydonia, where there
> is nearly nothing of any real "shocking" scientific interest, and you can
> spend the rest of your short life wandering around the red sand and rocks
> until you are convinced that they are, in fact, natural. Or not! I don't
> really care, because at least from Mars, you won't be able to post this silly
> screed, and I think that is a wonderful justification for funding you a ticket
> to ride on the Mars Smart Lander in 2007.
I could probably still post if I had the technology at my fingertips, however
it would just take a lot longer for my posts to reach Earth. IHMO as I have
said, it is way to soon to absolutely conclude either a positive or negative
in regards to Mars at least until another nation besides the US decides to
send a probe up. All I have to go on is a picture supplied by NASA which appears
to have connections with the US Government. This is one reason why I am not
coming to absolute conclusions. However, I still feel the need to argue it,
since there is still the "possibility" that it may actually be something of
interest. You just don't know at the time. Its too soon to call.
> > http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityf.html
> > http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
> >
> > Ok, now there is only one argument that people can put up in regards
> > to this while still claiming that they were not intentionally built
> > by paranormal aliens or other such beings.
>
> [...]
>
> >Of course I already have the information readily
> > available for anyone who dares to take up arguments with me in this thread.
>
> TROLL! Who dares? I dare. I double-dog dare you, sniveling troll. I'm
> bored, I'll play.
>
> http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif
>
> What is that, Flaggy? Hmm? HMMM? What is it?
>
> Why, that's the "face" on Mars! Yes it is! Mars Global Surveyor snapped that
> shot JUST for you. Just so we would know. Now, let me guess. This is... a
> giant alien footprint, maybe?
I am bored too, hence the anti kill-file thread. Please keep in mind that I
did not have you in my kill-file and even when I take up arguments with you
in the future I will be more then willing to give you the extra time. You are
fun to talk to. I still don't know what it is, but I do have a fun time when
I chat with you on these usenet newsgroups.
The JPL sites were also recently discussed with another poster here:
news:3AC69A2A...@flagship1.com
In brief, I have visited the JPL sites long before and all I found there was
excuses of how the equipment may have taking shots at an odd angle, etc. However,
anyone who is skilled in photography knows that it is quite hard to make ordinary
rocks look like pyramids at no matter which angle you decide to shoot it at. Also,
the sites place and even claim to contain EDITED photos which of course were
apparently altered electronically to look as though they were nothing. Yes I
am open for discussion about the Face on Mars due to its immense controversy,
but I am also focusing on the Pyramid like objects. Am I calling those objects
a city? No I am not. I am just looking for an explanation as to exactly how
such objects could be the end result of a natural occurrence. Also note that
as I noted before, I am not making any absolute conclusions about this either
positive or negative as the ONLY images I have are those provided by the US
Government in the first place.
> > To prove my legitimacy in regards to these issues
>
> <cough> Don't ever use that word again, Flaggy. You may NOT use the word
> "legitimacy," ever. Never. You don't know what it means, or you don't care,
> or you think this is all really funny, and all of those reasons are reason
> enough that you should never, ever put finger to keyboard, or breath to lips,
> with the intention to communicate that word. Ever.
I seem to be missing your point here. The only word I don't use is the F*Word.
> > I will tell you of something
> > that has yet to be documented by your archeologists about the paranormal
> > pyramids here on Earth that you seem to not currently know.
>
> Bullshit. Next!
>
> > Of course at this point I am not going to try to explain what it was
> actually
> > used for as it is quite complicated.
>
> No doubt at LEAST as complicated as looking up the latest pictures of Cydonia
> in a web search engine. Try me. What possible utility could this very well
> researched hieroglyph - which was also translated in the Rosetta Stone - have
> had besides the commonly understood emblematic one?
That a similar object found in Egypt can be found on the surface of mars, hence
the 'O' shape in the sand? Hmm. Of course I see that most others have overlooked
that. Did you even notice the 'O' shape in the photos I have referenced? Hmm.
> > I will however make sure that I do so in
> > my future posts as it is quite fascinating as many people seemed to have
> lost
> > what its original meaning was and what it was actually used for and how it
> was
> > capable of harvesting electromagnetic energy and was able to sort of
> manipulate
> > things.
>
> Yes, in fact, the Ankh is a commonly-found shape in all of our electrical
> circuitry today. Flag, why don't we do an experiment! Open up your computer,
> pull out the motherboard and look at it carefully. Scry into it and see if
> you find Ankhs. Do this for a long time.
You may wish to refer to my paranormal alien reverse engineering posts
I posted quite some time ago. Please keep in mind however, that in this
thread I am primarily focusing on the paranormal pyramid issue. I am not
focusing on reverse engineering at this time. Of course I already know
that communications between the government and actual paranormal aliens
are at a minimum, hence the inquires I have relayed to me from the aliens.
Please keep in mind however, that I am not focusing on what technologies
may or may not be current be reversed engineered such as claims of the
Semiconductor, etc. That is not the focus here.
> > Now; here is my challenge to the skeptics and even the trolls as this is
> still
> > an anti-kill file thread with the exception of the single poster mentioned
> > below in the disclaimer.
>
> His name is Del Mulroy, Flag. We all know. You're showing your ass now, by
> not acknowledging him, just because he doesn't take your side.
I will not confirm nor deny that I was referring to "Del Mulroy" at the top
of this thread, Sorry. I have more respect then that.
> You know what else? There ARE no sides. There is only the truth. You are
> either trying to reach that, or you aren't. If you aren't, then you are what,
> in technical terms, we like to call "WRONG" here in the Real World. Not
> creative, paranormal, unique, special, blessed, gifted, or anything else. You
> are wrong. Willfully, frequently, stupidly wrong. If there were something
> more wrong than wrong, you would be it. How about irrelevantly wrong? Hmm.
> I'll have to work on that.
The fact of the matter is that we are not absolutely sure of the unknowing so
any negative assumptions made against it are just that. They are assumptions
which are being made. I was quite certain to point that out in prior
discussions.
> > The challenge of course is for the skeptics or trolls
> > to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the pyramid like objects found
> > in the above two photos of Mars including the face on Mars were naturally
> > created as a freak of nature.
>
> Done. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif
>
> No freak of nature required. It's called "improved technology". Maybe you've
> heard of it?
Its called "editing," sorry but the above is a Government website. I am only
interested in the original photographs. I am not really all too interest in
what modifications were made after the Gov was made aware that they had mistakenly
captured something that was questionable. Please keep in mind that regardless
of this I still do not reach conclusions about this as even the original was
also provided by the Government. In fact the picture above could be of the
Nevada Desert for all we know if of course some kind of cover-up is taking
place. I am not making conclusions until A Russian probe or other such
country gets the chance to survey the area. There is even "MOTION BLUR"
im the picture you presented above, LOL:)
This could be
A. A cover-up hence my only interest in the ORIGINAL photos.
B. Another possible blue-book propaganda spin, hence my interest
in waiting for the Russians, etc.
> It's that stuff that lets you surf the web, so you can find more
> wrong things to add to your phenomenally wrong postulate. That stuff with all
> the wires, and electrons in it. We have some in space, too! And they take
> things called "pictures" which you then can "download" to "see" for "yourself"
> what is "out there." Amazing, huh?
I am only interested in the original photos that were discussed BEFORE
the face on Mars was called to the Government's attention. The rest
could be as I have said in the above if there is indeed some kind of
cover-up going on. Please keep in mind that I am still not making any
conclusions either positive or negative about this until someone else
surveys Mars. I also don't even know if the coardnents of Cydona Mars
which the Government released to the public are the actual coardents
for the alleged Face.
> >Oh, running and copying stuff from biased
> > websites will not help either, I need it in your own words.
>
> You're still sore from that textual ass-thrashing I gave you about the
> pyramids, huh? Poor baby. Want more?
I provided a summery of the points made in those threads here for
those interested. The original threads are still archived at my website
for those interested in these issues.
> > A brief summery of my prior conclusions is as follows: (Please note however
> > that the content below is material that was already discussed in prior
> threads,
> > yes I am still open for discussions in relation to this, but I will not let
> > you avoid the pyramids on Mars issue as I promise to keep bringing it up
> > as I do with everything else.)
>
> Well, since I already provided the rebuttal to your little face thing, I can
> deal with this, for my amusement.
The only way you are going to do that is to explain how such things could
occur naturally, please keep in mind that this thread is not about just
the Face. It is primarily focused on the pyramid like objects found on Mars
which may have been the result of paranormal alien visitation. Of course
knowing that even the original photo before this was pointed out by the
Media (The only one I will accept) was also provided by NASA. Once again
because of that I am not making any positive or negative conclusions. In
this argument I am assuming that the pictures provided by NASA are legitimate
to begin with. I am simply asking for an explanation as to how such paranormal
occurrences if the pictures are indeed legitimate could be naturally occurring.
> > Summery of prior debates:
> >
> > 1. I have concluded that there are no hieroglyphic messages that
> > prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have contributed
> > to the construction of the great pyramid without the likely assistance
> > of paranormal aliens.
>
> That's mostly because if you were to admit that you were wrong, then you might
> have to admit that Common Science is right, and that hurts your head too much.
> Arrogant little tard. I'm still planning that trip to Egypt this summer. You
> 're still welcome to go. It's the next best thing to Mars that I can do.
I still await you to cite pictures of those alleged glyphs that show humans
constructing the paranormal great pyramid, instead of the ones detailing them
building a pyramid that is completely different in which you decided to slip
on to your website to confuse people. I still await you to present evidence
that humans have built the great pyramid without the assistance of paranormal
aliens I.E, Gods as they were once refereed in their own writings. In this
I am going by EXACTLY what that have written, or are you now calling the
Egyptians liars and that they did not have Gods (Paranormal Aliens) helping
them out? Hmm.
> > 2. I have shown that the alleged work-crew signatures were of a later
> > form of hieroglyphics (phonograms) instead of the earlier form of
> > hieroglyphic (pictograms) which must have therefore been placed there
> > at a later time.
>
> No you haven't. You HAVE NOT. You are WRONG. Again! Please do me a favor
> and read for me, the following papyri say, since you are so darned good at it.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/1.gif
The first one is of a language that is not the original one. I am sorry
but I am only familiar and interested in the ORIGINAL scriptures that
are likely to date around the actual construction of the paranormal
pyramids here on Earth. I have pointed that out before that the above
glyphs you presented are of a later form.
> http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/2.gif
These glyphs are a little more familiar then the ones mentioned in 1.gif,
however they are still a later form of glyph and were placed there after
an official language was under development that was separate from the one
provided by the common people. For the record writing and language itself
was the end result of higher intelligence given to the people by "Gods" (paranormal
aliens). To be more specific they were referred to as the watchers from the
sky, etc. Of course I am not familiar with how many of those original
scriptures are still around.
> I should forewarn you, that I know what they say. So, don't try to bullshit
> your way out of this.
I have already stated and proven that they were of a later form of Glyphs
which are separate from those of which were the originals. They are phonograms,
and the ones provided in 1.gif are presumably the same however they must
be REALLY NEW since many of them are completely unfamiliar to those who
originally inhabited the paranormal pyramids. This is where you seem
to be missing my point.
> > 3. I have questioned the fact that the alleged human builders did not
> > write about their so-called greatest achievement, and question as to where
> > such documentation could be found. So far there has been nothing.
>
> Yes, they did. We've already discussed this, liar.
I asked you to provide evidence of that and all you provided were random
photos you had placed on your own website. I have already pointed that
out.
> > 4. I have also shown that even with the fact that there are alleged
> > work-crew signatures, one does not know for sure that they were the
> > actual builders. I then compared this to the fact that just because
> > I carve my name into a picnic table, it does not necessarily mean
> > that I am its creator simply because I decided one day to carve my
> > name into it.
>
> There's no "alleged" about it. The za signatures are there. And we've
> already talked about how these signatures are in places that would not be
> possible if they were inscribed afterwards. On top of which, there are many,
> MANY examples of this practice all over Egyptian architecture. Moreover, as
> you already know because I've shown you more times than I should have, the
> pyramids in Giza are not the first, nor the only examples of pyramid
> structures in Egypt. There are 108 pyramids in Egypt, and lots of failed and
> half-finished attempts of them by earlier pharaohs. So, don't try to pull the
> wool over anyone's eyes, you little troll liar.
Once again, they have written of "HIGHER SOURCES". They have written of
gods (or what I call paranormal aliens). The "pharaohs" were human, I
never wrote otherwise. I was only detailing how the "pharaohs" may have
been assisted by the paranormal aliens in which I have described above.
Of course with all of this you are still ignoring the original symbols
which have been presented including arts in the colors of Red, Blue, Yellow,
and Green which were meant to symbolize them. You seem to be missing all of
that and more. Why, its because your science has yet to explore the meaning
of the colors and what they were actually used for when later races started
to use them. So calling me a troll / liar without fist proving this to be
a lie which of course you cant because its the truth, is not likely to get
you anywhere in regards to what ever propaganda you wish to try to spin. ;)
> > 5. I have shown that the majority of the ORIGINAL hieroglyphic messages
> > detail that the paranormal pyramids were inhabited by "gods". These "gods"
> > of course being the likely paranormal aliens which I have talked about.
>
> No, they don't. Find one of the original hieroglyphics that says this,
> indisputably. Show me. I can read hieroglyphics, hieratic and demotic, and
> whatever I can't read I can conveniently have translated for me by one of 18
> archaeologists I know. So, let's see them. Liar. Troll.
I have already proven that all you really did was use a search engine to
find those who agree with you. You also spoke of others of whom you may
have a relationship at N-JPL.
> > 6. There were attempts made to steer the discussion away from the great
> pyramid
> > to the much smaller "Menkaure's pyramid," which *is* believed to be made by
> > humans, but I refused to let the major topic be dodged and still await a
> refutation
> > to the possibilities that the paranormal great pyramid may have been built
> by
> > or with the assistance of paranormal aliens.
>
> Menkaure and Khafre pyramids.
I am only discussing the great pyramid and why they seemingly were unwilling
to write about their greatest alleged accomplishment.
> But let's talk about the Dashur pyramids, too.
> Let's talk about Saqqara. Let's talk about Sneferu's pyramid, which was
> designed by the same guy who designed the other less-attractive but earlier
> pyramids down in Dashur. How about those?
I am still discussing the paranormal great pyramid.
> How about this?
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/pyramids001115.html
Thats mathematical assumptions and estimations. It only calculates when
the stars were last likely to be in those positions, however that all
in all is just a calculation. You also seem to not know the fact that
Stars just like planets have a cycle of revolution so they may have
been in that same position even well before "within five years of
2478 B.C."
> Or this?
> http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~aera/Giza_Pages/Radiocarbon_Pages/Radiocarbon.html
Heather, you are just proving my point that common science is as I said
COMPLETELY UNSURE as to how old the paranormal great pyramid actually is.
This site provides a completely DIFFERENT date and completely DIFFERENT
timeline. "Also shown in the chart is the thick, blue line which indicates
the time span covering the reign of Senwosret II according to the
Cambridge Ancient History, from 1897 B.C.-1878" Of course the sites say
nothing about "The Great Pyramid"
If you want to play this way I can come up with many scientific websites
that are inconstant with eachother which even FURTHER PROVES that common
science is not absolutely sure as to how old the paranormal pyramids actual
are. LOL:) Watch this. This ones for the website:)
Here is PROOOOF that common science is not sure how old the paranormal pyramids are.
http://www.europa.com/edge/giza.html
Claims "4,600-year-old Great Pyramid of Giza"
http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/kpyramid.htm
We can't put two much weight on Proclus words, though, remembering that
when he advanced his theory the pyramid was already over 2000 years old"
http://www.crystalinks.com/elliegp.html
The GP in our 3D program is at least 13,000 + years old -
as we mark time. As long as there have been programs -
it has stood in the center and created."
For the record all of the above 3 were produced in the top of the search
results for "How old is the great pyramid?" at Google. There are many
other different sites with many other different dates that are all completely
inconstant with eachother. LOL:) There is even a site a while back that
claimed that the GP was only 2000 years old, LOL but I forgot the URL.
The ONLY PEOPLE who claim it to be 4,600 years are those who believe
the pyramids to be connected with the 6th dynasty regardless of the fact
that everything else keeps producing completely different and insistent
dates. I could go on and on about this, but I want to try to save
some bandwidth.
> Oh, fuck it. You don't care. You don't even want to know. Liar. Troll.
Oh, I know. You can trust me here. Now I dont know what my sources don't
tell me I will give you that, but I still know just enough to be able to
continue putting up a good argument. Also there is no need for foul language
as this is meant to be a peaceful argument.
> > 7. I have shown that simply copy&pasting material from biased websites such
> as
> > a website written by a scientist in favor of that specific scientists
> viewpoints
> > while rejecting others would not be acceptable for me to reconsider my
> conclusion.
>
> Why don't you understand that scientists work for you, too? In fact, any
> government-supported scientist, is in essence, your employee. The information
> they find belongs to you. Why do you insist on shooting yourself in the foot,
> like this? Do you know any scientists?
I know quite a few scientists and believe it or not I even know someone
who pretty close to me and works at Nasa. He does not have access to any
secrets and if he did I am quite sure that he would not be allowed to tell
me or won't tell me. I also never ask for such things as they have a right
to do with the information they receive as they choose. I receive stuff as
well but am assuming that they know many things that I don't. I just dont
know that. I only know what my sources decide to tell me, I don't know
anything that they may have told our government or other such factions.
All I do know is that many of even my sources deny any involvement with
the government so that really confuses the crap out of me so I just leave
that alone all together as it was not my business in the first place.
> > 8. I have shown that the alleged "rope marks" which were found were much
> more
> > likely to be the end result of erosion as water made its way through the
> rocks.
>
> Water? What? I must have missed that.
Its still on Google and will be reposted here several months
from now according to my usenet schedule but I have been known
to push things back a lot when other issues come up that I feel
the need to immediately discuss.
> > 9. I have shown that the paranormal pyramids at Giza seem to be aligned
> > with a star cluster in several ways, so far that has yet to be refuted
> either.
>
> Yeah! And what's cool is that this helped us to date them! See above!
However there is not just one date, there are many dates produced by
common science that are all inconstant with eachother. I have shown
that simply with the first 10 results of a Google search.
> > 10. I have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there are simply
> assumptions
> > being made that the so-called "gods" in which they wrote about were not
> actually
> > paranormal aliens.
>
> I smell a burning strawman. Your grammar is atrocious. Well, I have proven
> beyond reasonable doubt that you are merely assuming that these "gods" are
> really aliens. Especially when they call them "gods" and they have lots of
> "god-like" qualities. Since we don't know what an "alien-like" quality would
> be, so therefore your assumption is based upon no information! Ha!
Actually the word "Gods" developed over generations. I am referring to the
ORIGINAL scripture which simply displays them for what they were. Beings
from the skies, watchers from the skies, people of the river, people of
the Earth, other such things.
> > 11. I have shown that scientific carbon dating was not necessarily 100%
> accurate
> > for measuring that type of material.
>
> And provided no way to validate your handwaved speculations, against the
> plethora of other relative dating techniques we have.
They are inconsistent with eachother, therefor common science is not
absolutely sure how old the paranormal great pyramid is.
> > 12. I have shown that there are similar structures on Mars including a face
> that
> > is a lot similar to the paranormal pyramids and the sphinx here on Earth.
> Thats
> > what this thread is meant to focus on. ;)
>
> Yeah, wink nudge. Flag, cut it out. You aren't being cute.
>
> Furthermore... Please understand that I'm not going to argue with you here.
> You know, and I know that you are a troll. I respond because you are
> attacking scientific knowledge that belongs to everyone, twisting things
> around and possibly confusing people. I think that is deplorable... even a
> little bit criminal. In either case, spreading lies is at the very least
> ethically wrong.
If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble proving
that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I am
really scared here to tell you the truth. Perhaps if you are able to
convince me that my sources are wrong or that it is just a thing that is
in my head I will feel a lot safer, but with having the feeling of being
watched and under constant surveillance by these beings I will not do
anything that will upset them. If you wish to believe that I am just yet
another practitioner in the art of usenet trolling, thats fine by me. In
order to be convinced however, I need an explanation from someone who
actually explores the issues in which I talk about on these usenet newsgroups.
I for one am quite convinced that the information I have been receiving
from my sources is real and it scares the living crap out of me. I am
being honest here as I feel that I would not otherwise know some of
this information unless something strange was happening. I also never
speak of this stuff in RL. Yes people in RL know about my website and
that, but I tend to keep everything else private and on these newsgroups.
I still, however need refutations to convince me that I may be a possible
"kook" as some say. If you are able to ever convince me of that which
I doubt, then I will come to a different terms of understanding. However,
I cannot do that unless a solid refutation is provided and all I have gotten
so far was inconsistencies between various scientific findings. I need exact
answers for refutations, not questionable answers. If you really think that
I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better then what
you have been doing to try to prove your case.
> --
> Regards,
>
> H. Chase
> ------
> Mandatory Website
> http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/
>
> "If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and
> which will not, speak then to me." --MacBeth, I:3
--
HVAC
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
I ask you once again..... What is the difference between "normal" aliens and
"paranormal" aliens ?
Please answer
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
. <Bau...@virgSPAMin.net> wrote in message
news:SwBx6.8094$u93.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Only if the details are already IN the image could you gain any significance
by changing light and contrast. Else it would only change the intensity of
these shadows. Open your graphics program....fill the picture with a solid
black...then change the controls on your monitor and tell us if you get any
details out of them.
>
> >>
> >> > Any links that would show
> >> > this "face" at a different time of day?
> >>
> >> Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
> >> (which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
> >> even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
> >> be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
> >> going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
> >> actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
> >> that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
> >> is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
> >> is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
> >> paranormal.
> >
> >ODD maybe, but not paranormal. It's like interpreting shapes in the
clouds
> >and such. It is just a case of unusual NATURAL phenomenon. There are
> >rock formations in the AMERICAN Southwest that resemble faces too. Did
> >aliens do that too?
>
> Has ET life been conclusively disproved yet then, Mr Ludicrous Wack?
In order for something to be disproven it must first exist. Yes, there is
suspect
evidence that there is a possiblity of reality, but nothing that definitely
proves it.
That's been my point all along. Present your case for that reality. Of the
small
percentage of "sightings" world-wide that can not be explained does not
automatically
make your case FOR the substantiality of ET. Only that it cannot be
explained
in either case.
BTW....that's Reverend...not Mr.
>
> >>
> >> > The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing
more.
> >>
> >> They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
> >> the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such. Of course the land
> >> on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
> >> argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
> >> however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
> >> explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
> >> of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
> >> such occurrences.
> >
> >Again go look up geomorphology.
>
> Which dimensionally similar formations on earth are you referring to,
> Mr Ludicrous Wack?
Take a look at this one....
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hawp:@FIELD(SUBJ+@band(+Face+Roc
k++Ariz.+++1910+1920.+))
There are other formations in the Arizona and Colorado deserts that are
similar. And naturally formed. Or are you simply going to say that ALL
such natural artifacts are extraterrestrial in origin?
You missed the whole point of what I said. It's a matter of interpretation.
Much like a Rorshach test. Until we send people to Mars to study it we
won't have an answer in either direction.
Write your congressman. Mr. Period.
>
> >>
> >> > Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
> >>
> >> Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
> >> to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
> >> overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
> >> test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
> >> are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
> >> consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
> >> keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
> >
> >Both of whom are cash starved and in need of a new source of funds?
> >Oh please. Two countries dominanted by a ruling class that controls
> >the resources including information?
>
> Um, are you saying that the western world ruling class *don't* control
> resources and information?
>
If you are referring to the American media, they have their own agendas
tied to political influence and money, but not controlled DIRECTLY
as in most nations of extreme class separations. Don't devolve the debate
here
into the conspiracy realm that isn't the argument.
E. L.
also noticed something else that I've constantly posted about all over
the net yet I've never gotten any response to it. Take a look and tell
me what you think.
Look at the original photos of the "face," if you look down a little you
will find what I consider to be a superior anomaly and it escapes me why
no one has posted anything about it.
We're talking Broadway here, folks. The Broadway play PHANTOM OF THE
OPERA was originally advertised with a mask that covered part of the
actor's face as opposed to the later one that was almost a full-face
mask.
So, first, go to:
http://www.eriksmask.homestead.com/imagegallery.html and you'll see a
photo of an actor dressed in a costume and wearing a half-face mask.
Study the face/mask combination and then get yourself a photo of the
Martian "face" before the enhancement showed it to be what it was always
going to be, a natural formation. Now, look down a little and you will
see an almost identical feature to the face/mask. Don't be quick to
judge. Study it.
Now, do you think that this Broadway play, through the mask/face
combination, is really some form of communication from the Martians,
instead of the "face" which turned out not to be? What are they trying
to say here?
Wipe that smile from your face, dammit, I'm serious here! :-)
BTW, Flagship, your ridiculous posts are also ridiculously long, thereby
slowing things down a little. Dig yourself, cut them up into shorter
servings. Just that effort will show that you are considerate.
ed
----------------------------------------------------
Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
Group: alt.alien.visitors Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001, 7:51pm (EDT-1)
From: paran...@flagship1.com (Flagship1 of the Paranormal)
<snip>
Most of you probably already know about the face on Mars that resembles
that of a created structure that has great similarities to the face of
the Sphinx here on Earth. <welldeservedsnip>
E. L.
tell you, Flagship, that pyramids are not restricted to Earth and Mars.
I've found some pyramids on the Moon superior to the ones on Mars
because the ones on the Moon haven't been scoured into shape by violent
winds that permeate the Red planet. The pyramids on the Moon are nicer
shaped, triangular, smoother-looking and found with no others nearby.
So what? Learn to appreciate nature for your mind will always have to
come _up_ to it. Not it to you.
ed
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
Group: alt.alien.visitors Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001, 9:20pm (EDT-1) From:
paran...@flagship1.com (Flagship1 of the Paranormal)
Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
[Anti Kill-File Thread!] - See disclaimer at the top of the thread.
Michael Davis wrote:
Fraudship1 of the Abnormal trolled:
Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
No. Very intelligent and resourceful human beings built the pyramids.
HTH.
It is quite apparent by your writings here that you must have not made
much of an effort of actually reading into the content of my post before
making this reply. In this thread I was discussing the pyramid shaped
objects which were found on Mars. See pictures linked to the top of this
thread for more information. My challenge still stands.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Reverend Ludicrous Wack wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC645A9...@flagship1.com...
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > trippy wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3AC52A07...@flagship1.com>, paran...@flagship1.com
> > > "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
> > > > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> > >
> > > So, just for the wtf factor. I clicks on the links.
> > >
> > > So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
> > > using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
> >
> > So you are now questioning the very nature of the NASA satellite photos
> > themselves? I am wondering.
>
> No one is questioning NASA....it's a RUSSIAN website. Wake up.
NASA is still the one who originally produced the photographs. I
just referred to a russian source to show that people around the world
have a great interest in these likely paranormal issues at hand. I
even posted a thread prior to this one that detailed those images
and why I have chosen them. You may wish to refer to that thread
for more information. Please not of course that the other thread is
a kill-file thread, hence any replies you have made to it were not
received. I plan to re-inforse my kill-file on friday which is a
week after this thread was started. Once again for the record I
do not kill-file people for simply disagreeing with me. I kill-file
those who are proven to be trolls and present troll like articles
such as "Recipes for Aliens," or the infamous "Test posts which I
posted to alt.just-testing after attending a local carnival that one
day." I make a few exceptions for even those trolls who put up interesting
arguments, a sample list includes.
Heather Chase
Martan Stower
Mark H.
James Randi
and others (who produce interesting debates) who I refuse to kill-file.
> > > The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more.
> >
> > The above is an assumption. Please explain how a shadow effect could
> > produce such a fine and detailed image of a Face? Hmm. Try this, go
> > once again to http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
> > and turn the brightness of your monitor up. Then after that tell me
> > that your just seeing a shadow effect.
>
> Do you think anyone that gullible.....? You'd only be making it a brighter
> black. Don't tell me you're one of those people that try and look around
> the people on the TV screen?
You are still missing my point here, the perspective of the shot in the
above URL clearly shows the Face showing height and is not a flat object
or imprint in the sand. It even has a shadow coming from it. Nice try.
> > > Any links that would show
> > > this "face" at a different time of day?
> >
> > Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
> > (which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
> > even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
> > be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
> > going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
> > actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
> > that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
> > is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
> > is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
> > paranormal.
>
> ODD maybe, but not paranormal. It's like interpreting shapes in the clouds
> and such. It is just a case of unusual NATURAL phenomenon. There are
> rock formations in the AMERICAN Southwest that resemble faces too. Did
> aliens do that too?
The above is just a claim that it was a natural phenomenon. I still need
more then just a claim to be convinced of that. I have presented evidence
including shadows created by these objects which PROVE that they are
not just sand imprints. You are still missing my point here.
> > > The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing more.
> >
> > They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
> > the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such. Of course the land
> > on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
> > argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
> > however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
> > explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
> > of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
> > such occurrences.
>
> Again go look up geomorphology.
I still await a geomorphic explanation to how exactly such shallow peaks could
be the end result of a natural occurrence. You have to also keep in mind that
these peaks are in a relatively flat area. Evidence of that rests with the facts
that if there were trenches in the ground there would be shadows. I see no
shadows. I do however see shadows around the pyramid shaped objects as well
as the face like objects which shows that they are not just flat imprints
in the sand.
> > > Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
> >
> > Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
> > to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
> > overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
> > test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
> > are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
> > consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
> > keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
>
> Both of whom are cash starved and in need of a new source of funds?
> Oh please. Two countries dominanted by a ruling class that controls
> the resources including information?
Its still a second source. I don't trust government sources to begin with,
so anything that is produced by them (including paranormal related material)
is questionable. I have never once disagreed with the possibility that the
NASA photos could be fake all together as another blue-book propaganda
spin. In fact there is also the possibility that the Face object was
assigned the wrong coordinates so that when Russia eventually does send
something there, nothing will be found until Russia surveys the other
side of the planet. There are just way too many possibilities here and
way too many things that are still questionable in regards to material
which is submitted to the general public from the US Government. I am
basing these conclusions on the ORIGINAL photos of Mars, I am not at
all interested in the ones the gov may produce AFTER the FACE issue
was brought up. This of course is already being discussed in my replies
to others. I just look at all of the possibilities, I don't just look
at the pictures. If this is indeed a cover-up then yes any photos or
material submitted AFTER THE ORIGINAL is likely to be false and this
even includes the information concerning the actual coordinates of the
Face. For the record I have sent one of my sources to look and nothing
was found there. That leaves 3 possibilities, they overlooked it or
the wrong coordinates were given out, or the photos produced by NASA
are fake altogether as a possible propaganda spin. I am sorry but
I have not made any absolute conclusions in regards to this. I am
only going on the original picture which was supplied by NASA.
> --
> The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
>
> *<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
> **<Rank: Cardinal>**
>
> 'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
--
H. Chase
"HVAC" <hv...@ion.com> wrote in message
news:DKJx6.9387$WZ4.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Oh, that's an easy one. A paranormal alien, by definition, is an alien that
cannot be observed through scientific means. Flaggy doesn't understand that
there's a whole discipline of science called Exobiology that deals with real
alien lifeforms. Or maybe he does. Who knows? Point is, you will never
convince him that science and paranormal aliens will meet and shake hands.
The neat thing about paranormal aliens is that they are so clever to have
outwitted the entire scientific community, but Flaggy is smart enough to
figure them out. When it isn't that, then it is a conspiracy, which of course
science is a part of, and any scientists who claim to not know are either
Dupes or Conspirators. So, you can't win this one. You will never get a
straight answer from him. Not with any amount of logic.
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>[Groups Removed]
>alt.idiot.flagship1
(readded)
<SNIP>
>> >
>> >Do you have such photos in which you allege?
>>
>> Well, a short survey of just ONE site, brings out this:
>>
>> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/face_discussion.html
>>
>> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/vikingproc.html
>
>The above are as usual "Government Websites" and are possible to be biased
>in order to keep certain information hish hush.
Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
ignores the Malin Systems Site.
This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
<SNIP>
H. Chase
"Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> So people have made a conclusion that it was a natural phenomenon, I have
then
> asked what brings people to such a conclusion? Hmm, what exact natural
phenomenon
> can produce pyramid shaped objects? Hmm.
Hmmm. Why don't you ask a fucking geologist, Flag?
> However, I still feel the need to argue it,
> since there is still the "possibility" that it may actually be something of
> interest. You just don't know at the time. Its too soon to call.
Fine, then I say we send someone to Mars. You first.
> > http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif
> >
> > What is that, Flaggy? Hmm? HMMM? What is it?
> >
> > Why, that's the "face" on Mars! Yes it is! Mars Global Surveyor snapped
that
> > shot JUST for you. Just so we would know. Now, let me guess. This is...
a
> > giant alien footprint, maybe?
>
> I am bored too, hence the anti kill-file thread. Please keep in mind that I
> did not have you in my kill-file and even when I take up arguments with you
> in the future I will be more then willing to give you the extra time. You
are
> fun to talk to. I still don't know what it is, but I do have a fun time when
> I chat with you on these usenet newsgroups.
We aren't chatting, Flag. You're babbling, and I'm telling you that you are
wrong. If we were talking in person - which we won't ever, thank Bob - I
would have long since wandered off to go find someone else to play with.
Where's Dan? His buttons are much more amusing to push.
> If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble proving
> that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I am
> really scared here to tell you the truth.
[...]
> If you really think that
> I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better then what
> you have been doing to try to prove your case.
>
No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm just the
one telling you how it is.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
I see that you had snipped a great deal of material here,
so I will leave it for those who are still interested in
this thread and don't think that I am a usenet troll to
take the time to look it over completely.
"H. Chase" wrote:
>
> Troll. I will not bite.
Once again that was to avoid an AUK award, but if you wish to
continue to assume that I may be a practitioner in the art of
usenet trolling, that is fine by me as I always leave it up
to the "readers" to decide which paths to take in these regards.
> "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > So people have made a conclusion that it was a natural phenomenon, I have
> then
> > asked what brings people to such a conclusion? Hmm, what exact natural
> phenomenon
> > can produce pyramid shaped objects? Hmm.
>
> Hmmm. Why don't you ask a fucking geologist, Flag?
Once again, there is no need for foul language. I have been calm from
the start and have not resorted to any tactics that one would find
objectionable. I am interested in friendly discussion about the few
recent issues I seemed to have stumbled across in relation to Mars
and the paranormal likelihoods of alien visitation.
> > However, I still feel the need to argue it,
> > since there is still the "possibility" that it may actually be something of
> > interest. You just don't know at the time. Its too soon to call.
>
> Fine, then I say we send someone to Mars. You first.
>
> > > http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif
> > >
> > > What is that, Flaggy? Hmm? HMMM? What is it?
> > >
> > > Why, that's the "face" on Mars! Yes it is! Mars Global Surveyor snapped
> > > that
> > > shot JUST for you. Just so we would know. Now, let me guess. This is...
> > > a
> > > giant alien footprint, maybe?
> >
> > I am bored too, hence the anti kill-file thread. Please keep in mind that I
> > did not have you in my kill-file and even when I take up arguments with you
> > in the future I will be more then willing to give you the extra time. You
> > are
> > fun to talk to. I still don't know what it is, but I do have a fun time when
> > I chat with you on these usenet newsgroups.
>
> We aren't chatting, Flag. You're babbling, and I'm telling you that you are
> wrong. If we were talking in person - which we won't ever, thank Bob - I
> would have long since wandered off to go find someone else to play with.
> Where's Dan? His buttons are much more amusing to push.
But, thats all you have done is just tell me that I am wrong. Thats just a
statement. First off I can't be wrong when I have not yet made any absolute
conclusions, and second I have yet to receive any solid refutations to
the materials presented at the top of the thread that were undisputable.
> > If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble proving
> > that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I am
> > really scared here to tell you the truth.
>
> [...]
>
> > If you really think that
> > I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better then what
> > you have been doing to try to prove your case.
>
> No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm just the
> one telling you how it is.
I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
> --
> Regards,
>
> H. Chase
> ------
> Mandatory Website
> http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/
>
> "If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and
> which will not, speak then to me." --MacBeth, I:3
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.idiot.flsgship1
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> >> Well, a short survey of just ONE site, brings out this:
> >>
> >> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/face_discussion.html
> >>
> >> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/vikingproc.html
> >
> >The above are as usual "Government Websites" and are possible to be biased
> >in order to keep certain information hish hush.
>
> Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
> ignores the Malin Systems Site.
Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
right after that to directly question the material which was on
the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
to the rest of my reply.
> This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
> <SNIP>
>
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
HVAC
H. Chase <chasema...@DELETE-THIS.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CZMx6.251$DF5....@nnrp3.sbc.net...
> Troll. I will not bite.
I did as ordered and paid a visit to your site. Quite well put together. As
are you.....
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>I see that you had snipped a great deal of material here,
>so I will leave it for those who are still interested in
>this thread and don't think that I am a usenet troll to
>take the time to look it over completely.
>
>"H. Chase" wrote:
>>
>> Troll. I will not bite.
>
>Once again that was to avoid an AUK award,
You didn't avoid it. Your usenet persona, therefore you, recieved it.
>but if you wish to
>continue to assume that I may be a practitioner in the art of
>usenet trolling, that is fine by me as I always leave it up
>to the "readers" to decide which paths to take in these regards.
>
>> "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
>> news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
>> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>> >
>> > So people have made a conclusion that it was a natural phenomenon, I have
>> then
>> > asked what brings people to such a conclusion? Hmm, what exact natural
>> phenomenon
>> > can produce pyramid shaped objects? Hmm.
>>
>> Hmmm. Why don't you ask a fucking geologist, Flag?
>
>Once again, there is no need for foul language. I have been calm from
>the start and have not resorted to any tactics that one would find
>objectionable. I am interested in friendly discussion about the few
>recent issues I seemed to have stumbled across in relation to Mars
>and the paranormal likelihoods of alien visitation.
You would make a saint swear.
I understand Heather's frustration.
You have been refuted on Pyramids, you have been refuted on ether, you
have been refuted on your fuzzy photographs, the JREF challenge, the
list goes on.. But, like a mole, you keep popping up, pretending you
haven't.
Wrong. You *claim* you have made no conclusions, but when presented
evidence that your conclusions are wrong, (ie, better quality photos),
you dismiss them. Therefore you have come to a conclusion. Your
posturing is just a troll.
>
>> > If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble proving
>> > that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I am
>> > really scared here to tell you the truth.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > If you really think that
>> > I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better then what
>> > you have been doing to try to prove your case.
>>
>> No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm just the
>> one telling you how it is.
>
>I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
>refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
>Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
>wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
>positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
>for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
>naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
Geology. Actually, Areology. Mars Odyssey will, no doubt, bring more
detailed photographs, and more kooky claims will accompany them. One
things for sure, idiots like you will still believe in the Face.
HVAC
Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC7A5EA...@flagship1.com...
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
What is the difference between "normal" aliens and "paranormal" aliens.
Please answer soon.........
HVAC
> Mars and the paranormal likelihoods of alien visitation.
What is the difference between "normal" likelihoods of alien visitation and
"paranormal" likelihoods
of alien visitation.
Please answer right away, it's very important.
Pete Charest
>
> "HVAC" <hv...@ion.com> wrote in message
> news:DKJx6.9387$WZ4.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> > Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
> >
> > > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > I ask you once again..... What is the difference between "normal" aliens and
> > "paranormal" aliens ?
> >
> > Please answer
>
> Oh, that's an easy one. A paranormal alien, by definition, is an alien that
> cannot be observed through scientific means. Flaggy doesn't understand that
> there's a whole discipline of science called Exobiology that deals with real
> alien lifeforms. Or maybe he does. Who knows? Point is, you will never
> convince him that science and paranormal aliens will meet and shake hands.
> The neat thing about paranormal aliens is that they are so clever to have
> outwitted the entire scientific community, but Flaggy is smart enough to
> figure them out. When it isn't that, then it is a conspiracy, which of course
> science is a part of, and any scientists who claim to not know are either
> Dupes or Conspirators. So, you can't win this one. You will never get a
> straight answer from him. Not with any amount of logic.
Personally, it seems to me, that he is incapable of a straight answer.
His lights are on....but no one is at "home".
This NG has several like him...and some others, on whom logic is not totally
lost.
But in his case, as well as EL, Raybo, Paul Raygun, and UB, as well as Harold
and Mad Inventor, their faculties and ability to reason rationally have "left
the building".
--
Pete Charest
Truth Terrorist
Michael Davis
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> I see that you had snipped a great deal of material here,
> so I will leave it for those who are still interested in
> this thread and don't think that I am a usenet troll to
> take the time to look it over completely.
Do you really think there are any left?
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:00:42 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> >Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> >I see that you had snipped a great deal of material here,
> >so I will leave it for those who are still interested in
> >this thread and don't think that I am a usenet troll to
> >take the time to look it over completely.
> >
> >"H. Chase" wrote:
> >>
> >> Troll. I will not bite.
> >
> >Once again that was to avoid an AUK award,
>
> You didn't avoid it. Your usenet persona, therefore you, recieved it.
Once again, I did not win KOTY, I have professionally, skillfully, and
cunningly avoided it, see my other reply.
> >but if you wish to
> >continue to assume that I may be a practitioner in the art of
> >usenet trolling, that is fine by me as I always leave it up
> >to the "readers" to decide which paths to take in these regards.
> >
> >> "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
> >> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >> >
> >> > So people have made a conclusion that it was a natural phenomenon, I have
> >> then
> >> > asked what brings people to such a conclusion? Hmm, what exact natural
> >> phenomenon
> >> > can produce pyramid shaped objects? Hmm.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. Why don't you ask a fucking geologist, Flag?
> >
> >Once again, there is no need for foul language. I have been calm from
> >the start and have not resorted to any tactics that one would find
> >objectionable. I am interested in friendly discussion about the few
> >recent issues I seemed to have stumbled across in relation to Mars
> >and the paranormal likelihoods of alien visitation.
>
> You would make a saint swear.
>
> I understand Heather's frustration.
I seem to be missing your point here.
> You have been refuted on Pyramids, you have b en refuted on ether, you
> have been refuted on your fuzzy photographs, the JREF challenge, the
> list goes on.. But, like a mole, you keep popping up, pretending you
> haven't.
Nope. They were just claims of refutations which is exactly what is
happening in this thread in relation to the paranormal like objects
on Mars. I need something more then a claim that something has been
refuted. You are still more then welcome to present links to
http://groups.google.com/.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!11! what was presented were completely different photos
then the ones which I had presented. DUH, In order to refute a photo I
present you have to refute the actual photo I present, not some "other"
photo which you dig up on a search engine. My challenges still stand.
> Therefore you have come to a conclusion. Your
> posturing is just a troll.
Thats not for you to decide, sorry.
> >> > If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble proving
> >> > that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I am
> >> > really scared here to tell you the truth.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > If you really think that
> >> > I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better then what
> >> > you have been doing to try to prove your case.
> >>
> >> No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm just the
> >> one telling you how it is.
> >
> >I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
> >refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
> >Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
> >wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
> >positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
> >for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
> >naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
>
> Geology. Actually, Areology. Mars Odyssey will, no doubt, bring more
> detailed photographs, and more kooky claims will accompany them. One
> things for sure, idiots like you will still believe in the Face.
...because we still await solid refutations. If we ever get them, we
will then move on to something else.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"H. Chase" wrote:
>
> "HVAC" <hv...@ion.com> wrote in message
> news:DKJx6.9387$WZ4.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> > Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
> >
> > > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > I ask you once again..... What is the difference between "normal" aliens and
> > "paranormal" aliens ?
> >
> > Please answer
>
> Oh, that's an easy one. A paranormal alien, by definition, is an alien that
> cannot be observed through scientific means. Flaggy doesn't understand that
> there's a whole discipline of science called Exobiology that deals with real
> alien lifeforms.
That mainly deals with microorganisms found is space, etc. I am not discussing
that, I am discussing paranormal alien races. Why do you insist upon missing
my point here?
> Or maybe he does. Who knows? Point is, you will never
> convince him that science and paranormal aliens will meet and shake hands.
> The neat thing about paranormal aliens is that they are so clever to have
> outwitted the entire scientific community, but Flaggy is smart enough to
> figure them out. When it isn't that, then it is a conspiracy, which of course
> science is a part of, and any scientists who claim to not know are either
> Dupes or Conspirators. So, you can't win this one. You will never get a
> straight answer from him. Not with any amount of logic.
I have been as straight as I can.
I use paranormal aliens to describe likely visitors from the beyond where
as normal aliens are just your typical immigrants from Mexico, etc. Once
again, you are still missing my point. Please keep in mind however that
in this thread I am mainly discussing the paranormal pyramid like objects
found on Mars.
> --
> Regards,
>
> H. Chase
> ------
> Mandatory Website
> http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/
>
> "If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and
> which will not, speak then to me." --MacBeth, I:3
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
>From a recent reply to another poster:
I use paranormal aliens to describe likely visitors from the beyond where
as normal aliens are just your typical immigrants from Mexico, etc. Once
again, you are still missing my point. Please keep in mind however that
in this thread I am mainly discussing the paranormal pyramid like objects
found on Mars.
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Michael Davis wrote:
>
> Fraudship1 of the Abnormal trolled:
>
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > I see that you had snipped a great deal of material here,
> > so I will leave it for those who are still interested in
> > this thread and don't think that I am a usenet troll to
> > take the time to look it over completely.
>
> Do you really think there are any left?
I seem to be missing your point here. There are in fact many pyramid
like structures and other such likely evidence of paranormal
alien visitation which is still around. I will once again refer you
to the material in which you have just snipped for more info.
> --
> The Evil Michael Davis™
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in
> proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
I already have. Please refer to my recent reply to you at:
news:3AC7C814...@flagship1.com for more info on why I
refer to them as paranormal aliens rather then normal aliens
(IE immigrants).
Panos Asproulis
----------
"HVAC" <hv...@ion.com> wrote...
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com...
>
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> I ask you once again..... What is the difference between "normal" aliens and
> "paranormal" aliens ?
>
> Please answer
>
>
I was about to post the same question when I read your
post. I am really curious like you to know what does
"paranormal aliens" as well as "paranormal pyramids"
means! Furthermore, I would like to know what the
concept of "paranormal" means in general. Some people
are also supposed to perform research on "paranormal
phenomena". What does that mean? What is the
distinction between a "normal phenomenon" and a
"paranormal phenomenon"?
--
Dr. Panos Asproulis (London, UK)
MSc, DIC, PhD Aeronautical Engineering
E-Mail: panosas...@freeuk.com
Posted from News Force @ HP Jornada 720
Lou Minatti™
>
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> [Groups Removed]
> alt.idiot.flsgship1
Fixed.
> "Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
> >
> [Snip]
> >
> > >> Well, a short survey of just ONE site, brings out this:
> > >>
> > >> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/face_discussion.html
> > >>
> > >> http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/facepage/vikingproc.html
> > >
> > >The above are as usual "Government Websites" and are possible to be biased
> > >in order to keep certain information hish hush.
> >
> > Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
> > ignores the Malin Systems Site.
>
> Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
> right after that to directly question the material which was on
> the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
> to the rest of my reply.
>
> > This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
>
> The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
There are two options. You are either a credophile/liar (i.e. troll), or
you are insane. So which are you?
--
Kooktrails!
http://www.watchingyou.com/kooktrails.html
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:00:42 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
>> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>> >
>> >I see that you had snipped a great deal of material here,
>> >so I will leave it for those who are still interested in
>> >this thread and don't think that I am a usenet troll to
>> >take the time to look it over completely.
>> >
>> >"H. Chase" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Troll. I will not bite.
>> >
>> >Once again that was to avoid an AUK award,
>>
>> You didn't avoid it. Your usenet persona, therefore you, recieved it.
>
>Once again, I did not win KOTY, I have professionally, skillfully, and
>cunningly avoided it, see my other reply.
<snigger>, whatever you want to believe. Credophile.
<SNIP>
>
>> You have been refuted on Pyramids, you have b en refuted on ether, you
>> have been refuted on your fuzzy photographs, the JREF challenge, the
>> list goes on.. But, like a mole, you keep popping up, pretending you
>> haven't.
>
>Nope. They were just claims of refutations which is exactly what is
>happening in this thread in relation to the paranormal like objects
>on Mars. I need something more then a claim that something has been
>refuted. You are still more then welcome to present links to
>http://groups.google.com/.
credophile
<SNIP>
>>
>> Wrong. You *claim* you have made no conclusions, but when presented
>> evidence that your conclusions are wrong, (ie, better quality photos),
>> you dismiss them.
>
>BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!11! what was presented were completely different photos
>then the ones which I had presented. DUH, In order to refute a photo I
>present you have to refute the actual photo I present, not some "other"
>photo which you dig up on a search engine. My challenges still stand.
Credophile.
>
>> Therefore you have come to a conclusion. Your
>> posturing is just a troll.
>
>Thats not for you to decide, sorry.
Sorry, it is. And I and many others have decided. Try to learn to
live with it.
<SNIP>
>>
>> Geology. Actually, Areology. Mars Odyssey will, no doubt, bring more
>> detailed photographs, and more kooky claims will accompany them. One
>> things for sure, idiots like you will still believe in the Face.
>
>...because we still await solid refutations. If we ever get them, we
>will then move on to something else.
Credophile.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.idiot.flagship1
"Lou Minatti™" wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> > > Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
> > > ignores the Malin Systems Site.
> >
> > Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
> > right after that to directly question the material which was on
> > the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
> > to the rest of my reply.
> >
> > > This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
> >
> > The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
>
> There are two options. You are either a credophile/liar (i.e. troll), or
> you are insane. So which are you?
The above is a prime example of the fallacy of false / limited alternatives.
I have shown time and time again that I am neither of the two in which you
describe as the vast amount of evidence in which I have presented in this
thread and others alike, remains unrefuted. Also there is nothing bizarre
about my hometown of Wilkes-Barre in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I
am sorry of whatever prejudices you may have against people from my town,
however that has little to do with the actual subject of this thread. Tell
me this, what city is on Cops more often?
A. Wilkes-Barre Pa?
B. Katy, Houston, and Dallas Ft. Worth Texas?
In fact, come to think of it I will create a special section on my website
which features "photos" of my home-town. Then people will once and for all
see where it is that I actually come from. For now those interested in
Wilkes-Barre can visit this URL - http://www.wilkesbarrescranton.com/
Please keep in mind that in this thread I am mainly discussing the paranormal
pyramids and paranormal alien visitation.
> --
> Kooktrails!
> http://www.watchingyou.com/kooktrails.html
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:28:59 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
Your only recent replies to my message were as follows:
1. "<snigger>, whatever you want to believe. Credophile."
2. "credophile"
3. "<SNIP>"
4. "Credophile."
5. "Sorry, it is. And I and many others have decided. Try to learn to
live with it."
6. "<SNIP>"
7. "Credophile."
Where are the refutations the paranormal related material in which I
have presented in regards to Mars? Hmm. Once again, all I am getting
are statements which are being made.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3) [Continued]
>
>[Groups Removed]
>alt.idiot.flagship1
readded, and AUK added.
>
>"Lou Minatti™" wrote:
>>
>[Snip]
>>
>> > > Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
>> > > ignores the Malin Systems Site.
>> >
>> > Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
>> > right after that to directly question the material which was on
>> > the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
>> > to the rest of my reply.
>> >
>> > > This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
>> >
>> > The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
>>
>> There are two options. You are either a credophile/liar (i.e. troll), or
>> you are insane. So which are you?
>
>The above is a prime example of the fallacy of false / limited alternatives.
Not at all You have admitted you are a liar. On several occasions.
You are a credophile. Question, Flaggy, Do you even know what a
credophile is?
>I have shown time and time again that I am neither of the two in which you
>describe as the vast amount of evidence in which I have presented in this
>thread and others alike, remains unrefuted. Also there is nothing bizarre
>about my hometown of Wilkes-Barre in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
'Well, they let you live there. Every town needs it's village idiot I
suppose.
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:28:59 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
>> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
>Your only recent replies to my message were as follows:
>
>1. "<snigger>, whatever you want to believe. Credophile."
>
>2. "credophile"
>
>3. "<SNIP>"
>
>4. "Credophile."
>
>5. "Sorry, it is. And I and many others have decided. Try to learn to
> live with it."
>
>6. "<SNIP>"
>
>7. "Credophile."
>
>Where are the refutations the paranormal related material in which I
>have presented in regards to Mars?
The links I, and others gave you, credophile.
HVAC
> > What is the difference between "normal" aliens and "paranormal" aliens.
> I use paranormal aliens to describe likely visitors from the beyond
where
> as normal aliens are just your typical immigrants from Mexico, etc.
Once
> again, you are still missing my point. Please keep in mind however that
> in this thread I am mainly discussing the paranormal pyramid like
objects
> found on Mars.
Thanks for clearing that up. So what you are saying is that paranormal
aliens built the paranormal
pyramids on paranormal Mars?
Paul Rayment
thread, they're are quite a few similarities to the play Phantom of the
Opera.
My POV is that maybe these Martians are so much like us or should I say our
image and obviously they know we have been studying Mars for quite along
time.
Who really knows the answer to that question, not trying to be a sceptic
here, just clouding my opinion as whatever I say I am criticised.
E.L email me on this one, it may be the best way.
"E. L." <skept...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:348-3AC...@storefull-155.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Here we go again! When I first became aware of the "face" on Mars I
also noticed something else that I've constantly posted about all over
the net yet I've never gotten any response to it. Take a look and tell
me what you think.
Look at the original photos of the "face," if you look down a little you
will find what I consider to be a superior anomaly and it escapes me why
no one has posted anything about it.
We're talking Broadway here, folks. The Broadway play PHANTOM OF THE
OPERA was originally advertised with a mask that covered part of the
actor's face as opposed to the later one that was almost a full-face
mask.
So, first, go to:
http://www.eriksmask.homestead.com/imagegallery.html and you'll see a
photo of an actor dressed in a costume and wearing a half-face mask.
Study the face/mask combination and then get yourself a photo of the
Martian "face" before the enhancement showed it to be what it was always
going to be, a natural formation. Now, look down a little and you will
see an almost identical feature to the face/mask. Don't be quick to
judge. Study it.
Now, do you think that this Broadway play, through the mask/face
combination, is really some form of communication from the Martians,
instead of the "face" which turned out not to be? What are they trying
to say here?
Wipe that smile from your face, dammit, I'm serious here! :-)
BTW, Flagship, your ridiculous posts are also ridiculously long, thereby
slowing things down a little. Dig yourself, cut them up into shorter
servings. Just that effort will show that you are considerate.
ed
----------------------------------------------------
Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
Group: alt.alien.visitors Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001, 7:51pm (EDT-1)
From: paran...@flagship1.com (Flagship1 of the Paranormal)
<snip>
Most of you probably already know about the face on Mars that resembles
that of a created structure that has great similarities to the face of
the Sphinx here on Earth. <welldeservedsnip>
HVAC
Paul Rayment <ant...@lisp.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a9kvl$fkk$1...@merki.connect.com.au...
> E.L, I checked out the image of the masked face on Mars before reading
your
> thread, they're are quite a few similarities to the play Phantom of the
> Opera.
>
> My POV is that maybe these Martians are so much like us or should I say
our
> image and obviously they know we have been studying Mars for quite along
> time.
>
> Who really knows the answer to that question, not trying to be a sceptic
> here, just clouding my opinion as whatever I say I am criticised.
>
> E.L email me on this one, it may be the best way.
Ya.....That way I can't call you an asshole...........Asshole!
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> >Your only recent replies to my message were as follows:
> >
> >1. "<snigger>, whatever you want to believe. Credophile."
> >
> >2. "credophile"
> >
> >3. "<SNIP>"
> >
> >4. "Credophile."
> >
> >5. "Sorry, it is. And I and many others have decided. Try to learn to
> > live with it."
> >
> >6. "<SNIP>"
> >
> >7. "Credophile."
> >
> >Where are the refutations the paranormal related material in which I
> >have presented in regards to Mars?
>
> The links I, and others gave you, credophile.
They were already discussed. I had already pointed out at least several
issues in which the websites did not touch on including the issue of
what exact weather phenomena would have been likely to produce these
paranormal-like objects on Mars which is a possible indication of a
history of paranormal alien visitation / intervention with ancient
Mars. Even if it was not the result of paranormal alien visitation
of Mars it is still a great mystery in regards to the nature of these
objects including the face.
To this moment I have yet to see your viewpoints in attempting to
label me now as a "credophile," or what ever James Randi's bizarre
little words or supposed to mean when he resorts to his usual, but
well familiar art of personal attacks and name calling to evade the
actual issues.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.idiot.flagship1
koks
alt.usenet
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:38:48 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> >Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3) [Continued]
> >
> >[Groups Removed]
> >alt.idiot.flagship1
>
> readded, and AUK added.
> >
> >"Lou Minatti™" wrote:
> >>
> >[Snip]
> >>
> >> > > Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
> >> > > ignores the Malin Systems Site.
> >> >
> >> > Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
> >> > right after that to directly question the material which was on
> >> > the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
> >> > to the rest of my reply.
> >> >
> >> > > This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
> >> >
> >> > The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
> >>
> >> There are two options. You are either a credophile/liar (i.e. troll), or
> >> you are insane. So which are you?
> >
> >The above is a prime example of the fallacy of false / limited alternatives.
>
> Not at all You have admitted you are a liar. On several occasions.
Please present evidence that proves that I ever claimed to be a
liar in relation to the paranormal.
> You are a credophile. Question, Flaggy, Do you even know what a
> credophile is?
Why would I *want* to know?
> >I have shown time and time again that I am neither of the two in which you
> >describe as the vast amount of evidence in which I have presented in this
> >thread and others alike, remains unrefuted. Also there is nothing bizarre
> >about my hometown of Wilkes-Barre in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
>
> 'Well, they let you live there. Every town needs it's village idiot I
> suppose.
This is the United States. People have a right to live in the town of their
choice. I had made the choice to live in Wilkes-Barre. There is nothing at all
wrong with the city in which I live. Also it is not even a small-town. 1. This
region has a greater population number then Las Vegas, hence the higher Nelson
DMA ranking. 2. It is a peaceful and soothing place to live and grow up in.
There is only 3 places in the US which I feel may be more peaceful. Raleigh,
Durham, Fayettville in North Carolina. There is also Colorado Springs
Colorado. Those are two other nice places off the top of my head. There is
just no end, I enjoy them all. The third of course is Salem Massachusetts which
is a refreshing but highly rejuvenating town to live in and is in nice commuting
distance to Boston.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Vishrut Seera
Systems)?
Read the book by Graham Hancock titled "The Mars Mystery". It is a
very well researched book. See the references, they all check out.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1(www.geekcode.com)
GCM/GCS/GMU/J d+ s++:++ a--->a? C++++>$ UL++++ P+
L++>L+++>L++++ E+ W+++ N++++@ o? K+++++>K++++++
w+++++ O-@ M-- V-- PS PE+++ Y++>Y+++ PGP++>PGP+++
t 5 X+ R++>R+++ tv+++ b++++ DI+++ D++>D+++ G++
e- h!>h++ r !z+?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3) [Continued]
>
>[Groups Removed]
>alt.idiot.flagship1
>koks
>alt.usenet
readded. You are always on topic in auk
>
<SNIP>
>>
>> Not at all You have admitted you are a liar. On several occasions.
>
>Please present evidence that proves that I ever claimed to be a
>liar in relation to the paranormal.
You *really * are obtuse. You *admitted* you are a liar. It's
enough. You don't *need* to admit you are a liar to anything.
>
>> You are a credophile. Question, Flaggy, Do you even know what a
>> credophile is?
>
>Why would I *want* to know?
It's always good to know what you are flaggy.
<SNIP>
Wally Anglesea™
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
>"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>>
>[Snip]
>>
>> >Your only recent replies to my message were as follows:
>> >
>> >1. "<snigger>, whatever you want to believe. Credophile."
>> >
>> >2. "credophile"
>> >
>> >3. "<SNIP>"
>> >
>> >4. "Credophile."
>> >
>> >5. "Sorry, it is. And I and many others have decided. Try to learn to
>> > live with it."
>> >
>> >6. "<SNIP>"
>> >
>> >7. "Credophile."
>> >
>> >Where are the refutations the paranormal related material in which I
>> >have presented in regards to Mars?
>>
>> The links I, and others gave you, credophile.
>
>They were already discussed.
Yeah, and you are not saying that NASA doctors the images to hide the
facts are you ?
>I had already pointed out at least several
>issues in which the websites did not touch on including the issue of
>what exact weather phenomena would have been likely to produce these
Ahhh, well, you see, MArs is *not* Earth. So we learn new things the
more we see it. Weathering too, on Earth (the technical name is
"erosion" Can you say that word Flaggy, try it, you pronounce it
E-ROW-ZHE-AHN. See, not a hard word at all!.
So anyway, erosion causes rocks and things to be transformed from, for
instance, a large rock, to a boulder for instance. Erosion is a
powerful force that can act over millions of years. This is why we
have strange formations in rock faces on Earth. It's also why we have
sand. It's also why we have beaches. Say that word again Flaggy,
EROSION.
>paranormal-like objects on Mars which is a possible indication of a
>history of paranormal alien visitation / intervention with ancient
>Mars.
Nope. there are no paranormal objects on Mars. Therefore no paranormal
aliens.
> Even if it was not the result of paranormal alien visitation
>of Mars it is still a great mystery in regards to the nature of these
>objects including the face.
You should be interested in this then:
"Liquid carbon dioxide breakouts rather than water probably created
the martian gullies discovered last summer in high-resolution images
from the Mars Global Surveyor orbiter camera."
"Donald S. Musselwhite, Timothy D.Swindle, and Jonathan I. Lunine of
the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory publish their
hypothesis in the April 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters."
>
>To this moment I have yet to see your viewpoints in attempting to
>label me now as a "credophile," or what ever James Randi's bizarre
bzzzzt wrong. Not Randi's words, but you are getting warmer.
>little words or supposed to mean when he resorts to his usual, but
>well familiar art of personal attacks and name calling to evade the
>actual issues.
I calls a spade a spade., Liar, Kook, Troll.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Yes, except the planet of Mars in general is not paranormal as common
science is currently aware of it and the nature of its existence. There
are certain things that are paranormal, and there are certain things
that are not. This is why you will usually find the word "paranormal"
used by myself to describe things that are paranormal in nature.
"Mars" is not paranormal, but planet Erra is from this POV. In that
sense I would refer to it as the paranormal planet of Erra.
HVAC
> "Mars" is not paranormal, but planet Erra is from this POV. In that
> sense I would refer to it as the paranormal planet of Erra.
"Erra"? Where is, "Erra"?
Paul Rayment
duck's back.news:T03y6.10343$WZ4.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
HVAC
Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC8D856...@flagship1.com...
>The third of course is Salem Massachusetts which
> is a refreshing but highly rejuvenating town to live in and is in nice
commuting
> distance to Boston.
Not to mention some nice strip clubs ! .....................
Ugly Bob
>
> H. Chase <chasema...@DELETE-THIS.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:CZMx6.251$DF5....@nnrp3.sbc.net...
> > Troll. I will not bite.
>
As
> are you.....
Hmmm, I seem to be missing your point here...
-Ugly Bob
HVAC
Ugly Bob <ugly_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac91071$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> > I did as ordered and paid a visit to your site. Quite well put together.
> As
> > are you.....
>
> Hmmm, I seem to be missing your point here...
>
> -Ugly Bob
Come ON man.........She's pretty hot.........
HVAC
> Give it up HVAC your remarks are quickly wearing thin, like water off a
> duck's back.
Seems to bother YOU, Raybeam! .... That's all I want....."An idiot, and a
star to steer him by"
You fit the bill just fine......
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
alt.idiot.flagship1
alt.usenet.kooks
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> >> The links I, and others gave you, credophile.
> >
> >They were already discussed.
>
> Yeah, and you are not saying that NASA doctors the images to hide the
> facts are you ?
I said that I was only interest in the ORIGINAL releases which dates
before NASA was notified that people have discovered the Face. This
is where you seem to be missing my point.
Look to news:3AC763E5...@flagship1.com
> >I had already pointed out at least several
> >issues in which the websites did not touch on including the issue of
> >what exact weather phenomena would have been likely to produce these
>
> Ahhh, well, you see, MArs is *not* Earth.
Well, I think I sort of figured out the fact that Mars is not my
current home planet. At this time I am currently taking up residence
here on planet Earth.
> So we learn new things the
> more we see it. Weathering too, on Earth (the technical name is
> "erosion" Can you say that word Flaggy, try it, you pronounce it
> E-ROW-ZHE-AHN. See, not a hard word at all!.
>
> So anyway, erosion causes rocks and things to be transformed from, for
> instance, a large rock, to a boulder for instance. Erosion is a
> powerful force that can act over millions of years. This is why we
> have strange formations in rock faces on Earth. It's also why we have
> sand. It's also why we have beaches. Say that word again Flaggy,
> EROSION.
You have yet to provide an explanation as to how erosion can result in
objects that fit the nature and especially the SHAPES of the paranormal
pyramid like objects found on mars, including the face which has
height and also has a shadow. Look at:
http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
Also note that shallow like pyramid peaks that precisely resemble those
found on Mars is extremely uncommon in relatively flat areas here on
Earth.
> >paranormal-like objects on Mars which is a possible indication of a
> >history of paranormal alien visitation / intervention with ancient
> >Mars.
>
> Nope. there are no paranormal objects on Mars. Therefore no paranormal
> aliens.
Once again you are still making automatic negative assertions. Please keep
in mind that I am referring to ancient visitors here, not recent ones.
> > Even if it was not the result of paranormal alien visitation
> >of Mars it is still a great mystery in regards to the nature of these
> >objects including the face.
>
> You should be interested in this then:
>
> "Liquid carbon dioxide breakouts rather than water probably created
> the martian gullies discovered last summer in high-resolution images
> from the Mars Global Surveyor orbiter camera."
> "Donald S. Musselwhite, Timothy D.Swindle, and Jonathan I. Lunine of
> the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory publish their
> hypothesis in the April 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters."
Gullies do not produce pyramid shapes. Please keep in mind that these were
found in a relatively flat area.
Do you see any pyramid shapes in this pic?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/423452.asp?cp1=1
> >To this moment I have yet to see your viewpoints in attempting to
> >label me now as a "credophile," or what ever James Randi's bizarre
>
> bzzzzt wrong. Not Randi's words, but you are getting warmer.
It was just my guess. Usually its Randi who dreams up these bizarre
terms that do not otherwise show up in dictionaries, ROTFL. This term
is often used in conjunction with the word "Woo Woo" according to
looney rhetoric. (Being Sarcastic)
> >little words or supposed to mean when he resorts to his usual, but
> >well familiar art of personal attacks and name calling to evade the
> >actual issues.
>
> I calls a spade a spade., Liar, Kook, Troll.
Assumption, um another assumption, woops an inconsistency.
I cannot be a kook and a troll at the same time.
> --
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Mad Inventor
OK now, Paul, you must admit ... that was funny.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Its a very long story and will require several threads which I do intend to
post later this summer. For now you may wish to look to these two URLs.
http://www.billymeier.com (Speaks a little of Erra)
-and-
http://www.lettersfromandromeda.com/dsg1/masterindex.html (Alex Collier - Bigger Source)
HVAC
> > "Erra"? Where is, "Erra"?
>
> Its a very long story and will require several threads which I do intend
to
> post later this summer. For now you may wish to look to these two URLs.
Could you please move up your timetable?
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
I am usually really flexible with that, I may consider it.
Michael Davis
Don't encourage the troll.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3) [Continued]
>
> [Groups Removed]
> alt.idiot.flagship1
>
> >
> [Snip]
> >
> > > > Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
> > > > ignores the Malin Systems Site.
> > >
> > > Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
> > > right after that to directly question the material which was on
> > > the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
> > > to the rest of my reply.
> > >
> > > > This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
> > >
> > > The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
> >
> > There are two options. You are either a credophile/liar (i.e. troll), or
> > you are insane. So which are you?
>
> The above is a prime example of the fallacy of false / limited
alternatives.
> I have shown time and time again that I am neither of the two in which you
> describe as the vast amount of evidence in which I have presented in this
> thread and others alike, remains unrefuted.
Now wait a minute....the links you submitted you say could be violated. And
the links that have been posted in refute of your statement are false....yet
they
are essentially the same source. All that aside all you have presented is
conjecture
with no real proof other than you say it is. Seems you spend more time
arguing
your credibility and sexual-status than you doing discussing the issue
before us.
Yet, when someone does refute you...you don't respond. You go on and on
about the remarks made on your character. Go research GEOMORPHOLOGY.
You say that you do extensive digging into theses stories yet only give few
rudimentary photos from questionable sources and much opinion.
> Please keep in mind that in this thread I am mainly discussing the
paranormal
> pyramids and paranormal alien visitation.
Really it looks like your busy in the name-calling industry.
BTW...those MSS photos give a much better look.
--
The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
*<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
**<Rank: Cardinal>**
'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
RonQ
At least she seems to think so.
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC8D856...@flagship1.com...
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3) [Continued]
>
> > 'Well, they let you live there. Every town needs it's village idiot I
> > suppose.
>
> This is the United States. People have a right to live in the town of
their
> choice. I had made the choice to live in Wilkes-Barre. There is nothing at
all
> wrong with the city in which I live. Also it is not even a small-town. 1.
This
> region has a greater population number then Las Vegas, hence the higher
Nelson
> DMA ranking. 2. It is a peaceful and soothing place to live and grow up
in.
> There is only 3 places in the US which I feel may be more peaceful.
Raleigh,
> Durham, Fayettville in North Carolina. There is also Colorado Springs
> Colorado. Those are two other nice places off the top of my head. There is
> just no end, I enjoy them all. The third of course is Salem Massachusetts
which
> is a refreshing but highly rejuvenating town to live in and is in nice
commuting
> distance to Boston.
>
> > --
Please don't come to NC....we don't need you. And how you can rate
Fayetteville
so highly I have no idea...the city is a breeding ground for Kooks and
immorality.
Not only that the entire city is one giant parking lot.....course there are
nearly
200,000 people there with access to automatic weapons (cops have them as
standard issue). Raleigh is nice and Durham is one big factory....go
figure.
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> >
> > Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> > > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In article <3AC52A07...@flagship1.com>,
paran...@flagship1.com
> > > > "Flagship1 of the Paranormal" says...
> > > > > Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So much for NASA coming up with the pictures, unless they've started
> > > > using cyrillic and just didn't bother to inform the public.
> > >
> > > So you are now questioning the very nature of the NASA satellite
photos
> > > themselves? I am wondering.
> >
> > No one is questioning NASA....it's a RUSSIAN website. Wake up.
>
> NASA is still the one who originally produced the photographs. I
> just referred to a russian source to show that people around the world
> have a great interest in these likely paranormal issues at hand. I
> even posted a thread prior to this one that detailed those images
> and why I have chosen them. You may wish to refer to that thread
> for more information.
Yes, I did. The photos are not quite as good a quality as the NASA
photos or the MSS photos though. It was your predilection for contradicting
yourself they questioned.
Please not of course that the other thread is
> a kill-file thread, hence any replies you have made to it were not
> received. I plan to re-inforse my kill-file on friday which is a
> week after this thread was started. Once again for the record I
> do not kill-file people for simply disagreeing with me. I kill-file
> those who are proven to be trolls and present troll like articles
> such as "Recipes for Aliens," or the infamous "Test posts which I
> posted to alt.just-testing after attending a local carnival that one
> day." I make a few exceptions for even those trolls who put up interesting
> arguments, a sample list includes.
>
> Heather Chase
> Martan Stower
> Mark H.
> James Randi
> and others (who produce interesting debates) who I refuse to kill-file.
Seems you have made another contradiction. If you didn't receive my
replies, then I was 'kill-filed'. hmmmmmmm
>
> > > > The "face" -- A trick of light, nothing more.
> > >
> > > The above is an assumption. Please explain how a shadow effect could
> > > produce such a fine and detailed image of a Face? Hmm. Try this, go
> > > once again to http://www.drbit.com.ru/x-lab/photo/mars/cityandf.html
> > > and turn the brightness of your monitor up. Then after that tell me
> > > that your just seeing a shadow effect.
> >
> > Do you think anyone that gullible.....? You'd only be making it a
brighter
> > black. Don't tell me you're one of those people that try and look
around
> > the people on the TV screen?
>
> You are still missing my point here, the perspective of the shot in the
> above URL clearly shows the Face showing height and is not a flat object
> or imprint in the sand. It even has a shadow coming from it. Nice try.
>
No you missed my point. I haven't seen anyone argue that it is a flat
artifact. Simply that turning up the brightness or contrast won't reveal
any detail. Only make a brighter black. You'd have to manipulate the
image directly....and then would only get details if they were already in
the
photo.
> > > > Any links that would show
> > > > this "face" at a different time of day?
> > >
> > > Not that I currently know of, perhaps when a Russian satellite
> > > (which is what I am waiting for) gets there we will have some
> > > even closer images of this controversial face. It would indeed
> > > be quite interesting. If there is indeed something paranormal
> > > going on I have my doubts that the US Government or NASA will
> > > actually be the first to tell us. I do agree with you however,
> > > that we most certainly need more photos before an absolute conclusion
> > > is reached, however I find it reasonable to conclude that there
> > > is at least a 50-75% chance that we are indeed seeing something
> > > paranormal.
> >
> > ODD maybe, but not paranormal. It's like interpreting shapes in the
clouds
> > and such. It is just a case of unusual NATURAL phenomenon. There are
> > rock formations in the AMERICAN Southwest that resemble faces too. Did
> > aliens do that too?
>
> The above is just a claim that it was a natural phenomenon. I still need
> more then just a claim to be convinced of that. I have presented evidence
> including shadows created by these objects which PROVE that they are
> not just sand imprints. You are still missing my point here.
>
Again nobody said they were sand imprints.........YOU are missing the point,
or simply ignoring it. Read MY other posts here. You are ignoring those
who dispute you in a WAY you don't like.
> > > > The "city" -- A group of rocks worn down by wind erosion, nothing
more.
> > >
> > > They are more likely to be the result of lack of erosion, just as
> > > the pointy peaks of Mount Everest are as such. Of course the land
> > > on mars where these structures are found is relatively flat. One may
> > > argue that its a lack of erosion that resulted in these shallow peaks,
> > > however they would still be faced by the obligation of trying to
> > > explain just how exactly they took on the shapes of pyramids instead
> > > of just mounds especially with wind as a factor as well as other
> > > such occurrences.
> >
> > Again go look up geomorphology.
>
> I still await a geomorphic explanation to how exactly such shallow peaks
could
> be the end result of a natural occurrence. You have to also keep in mind
that
> these peaks are in a relatively flat area. Evidence of that rests with the
facts
> that if there were trenches in the ground there would be shadows. I see no
> shadows. I do however see shadows around the pyramid shaped objects as
well
> as the face like objects which shows that they are not just flat imprints
> in the sand.
>
Ummmmmmmmmm......I do not disagree that they are not flat imprints.
Anything
of height will show a shadow. That's a given. You went way off subject.
As for
natural occurence....wind, water, impact, geological shift...there are
numerous ways
they could be explained. Again see my previous posts. But since we don't
know the
structure of the rock formations we cannot explain in detail the mechanics
of the formation.
I mean is the rock pourous? Stratified? Igneous? Solid metamorphic? Have
you
got a scale to measure distance and size? This in no way PROVES YOUR
point....but
then again...you reallly don't care.
> > > > Or it could be doctored.... that whole "conspiracy" thing and all.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is the possibility that NASA may have released fake photos
> > > to later place in another blue book propaganda spin such as there fly
> > > overs of aircraft that looks like saucers and claims of dropping crash
> > > test dummies in the desert. I as well as many other paranormalists
> > > are still quite familiar with that possibility and often take it into
> > > consideration before making any absolute conclusions. For now I am
> > > keeping a close eye on Mexico and Russia.
> >
> > Both of whom are cash starved and in need of a new source of funds?
> > Oh please. Two countries dominanted by a ruling class that controls
> > the resources including information?
>
> Its still a second source. I don't trust government sources to begin with,
> so anything that is produced by them (including paranormal related
material)
> is questionable. I have never once disagreed with the possibility that the
> NASA photos could be fake all together as another blue-book propaganda
> spin. In fact there is also the possibility that the Face object was
> assigned the wrong coordinates so that when Russia eventually does send
> something there, nothing will be found until Russia surveys the other
> side of the planet. There are just way too many possibilities here and
> way too many things that are still questionable in regards to material
> which is submitted to the general public from the US Government. I am
> basing these conclusions on the ORIGINAL photos of Mars, I am not at
> all interested in the ones the gov may produce AFTER the FACE issue
> was brought up. This of course is already being discussed in my replies
> to others. I just look at all of the possibilities, I don't just look
> at the pictures. If this is indeed a cover-up then yes any photos or
> material submitted AFTER THE ORIGINAL is likely to be false and this
> even includes the information concerning the actual coordinates of the
> Face. For the record I have sent one of my sources to look and nothing
> was found there. That leaves 3 possibilities, they overlooked it or
> the wrong coordinates were given out, or the photos produced by NASA
> are fake altogether as a possible propaganda spin. I am sorry but
> I have not made any absolute conclusions in regards to this. I am
> only going on the original picture which was supplied by NASA.
And what source have you sent to look? And how? IF it isn't there...where
is it?
Or could it have been a one-shot fluke?
>
> > --
> > The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
> >
> > *<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
> > **<Rank: Cardinal>**
> >
> > 'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
>
Ugly Bob
Oh, okay, I went there too. I understand now. Nevermind.
-Ugly Bob
Moley
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> HVAC wrote:
>
> > "Erra"? Where is, "Erra"?
>
> Its a very long story and will require several threads which I do intend to
> post later this summer. For now you may wish to look to these two URLs.
>
> http://www.billymeier.com (Speaks a little of Erra)
Oh you have GOT to be joking!
How you can sit there with a straight face and expect us to pay any credence to Billy
"Pie-Dish" Meier is beyond me.
I loved his photos of the so called inhabitants of Erra that turned out to be photos of
models from the Dean Martin Show and the Sears catalogue. Priceless.
Try these for a little more:
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/expobilly.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~A_U_R_A/Meierhoax.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/scam.html
______________
M
HVAC
> > > Its a very long story and will require several threads which I do
intend
> > to
> > > post later this summer. For now you may wish to look to these two
URLs.
> >
> > Could you please move up your timetable?
>
> I am usually really flexible with that, I may consider it.
Thanks
Sir-A...@webtv.net
in the desert. What for?
Sir-Anthony
Dingleberry Dogg
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:38:48 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> >Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3) [Continued]
> >
> >[Groups Removed]
> >alt.idiot.flagship1
>
> readded, and AUK added.
> >
> >>
> >[Snip]
> >>
> >> > > Nice double standard. Flagship uses his crap Russian site, but
> >> > > ignores the Malin Systems Site.
> >> >
> >> > Did you read the rest of my reply or did you stop there? I went on
> >> > right after that to directly question the material which was on
> >> > the websites in which you had mentioned. You may wish to refer
> >> > to the rest of my reply.
> >> >
> >> > > This is the behaviour of a credophile and liar.
> >> >
> >> > The above is yet another assertion in which you are making.
> >>
> >> There are two options. You are either a credophile/liar (i.e. troll), or
> >> you are insane. So which are you?
> >
> >The above is a prime example of the fallacy of false / limited alternatives.
>
>
> credophile is?
>
> >describe as the vast amount of evidence in which I have presented in this
> >about my hometown of Wilkes-Barre in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
>
> suppose.
>
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
What *is* a credophile?
Wally Anglesea™
<c-b...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>
> What *is* a credophile?
AT LAST!, I've been waiting for someone to ask. :-))
L. Sprague de Camp (sf author) made up the term. It should be part of
everyones dictionary :
"The Credophile collects beliefs the way a jackdaw collects nest
ornaments: not for utility but for glitter. And, once having embraced
a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let
go."
Describes Flagship, vegas_lunatic and a few others.
UB
news:qjpkcts8evl0edmlu...@4ax.com...
> ornaments: not for utility but for glitter. And, once having
embraced
> a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let
> go."
>
I am yet to see a proof or disproof of anything here...
UB
Pete Charest
news:DLty6.51$216...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> I am yet to see a proof or disproof of anything here...
I am yet to see you being anything other than a doofus.
UB
news:9adq48$skp$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
I was waiting for your post. You can't keep your brain farts to
yourself for long, can you? hehehehehehe
UB
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Older Quotes Removed to Save Bandwidth]
Reverend Ludicrous Wack wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> > > No one is questioning NASA....it's a RUSSIAN website. Wake up.
> >
> > NASA is still the one who originally produced the photographs. I
> > just referred to a russian source to show that people around the world
> > have a great interest in these likely paranormal issues at hand. I
> > even posted a thread prior to this one that detailed those images
> > and why I have chosen them. You may wish to refer to that thread
> > for more information.
>
> Yes, I did. The photos are not quite as good a quality as the NASA
> photos or the MSS photos though. It was your predilection for contradicting
> yourself they questioned.
Once again I referred to an independent sources due to the possibility that
any recent photos may have been edited or replaced with newer ones. LOL:)
> > Please not of course that the other thread is
> > a kill-file thread, hence any replies you have made to it were not
> > received. I plan to re-inforse my kill-file on friday which is a
> > week after this thread was started. Once again for the record I
> > do not kill-file people for simply disagreeing with me. I kill-file
> > those who are proven to be trolls and present troll like articles
> > such as "Recipes for Aliens," or the infamous "Test posts which I
> > posted to alt.just-testing after attending a local carnival that one
> > day." I make a few exceptions for even those trolls who put up interesting
> > arguments, a sample list includes.
> >
> > Heather Chase
> > Martan Stower
> > Mark H.
> > James Randi
> > and others (who produce interesting debates) who I refuse to kill-file.
>
> Seems you have made another contradiction. If you didn't receive my
> replies, then I was 'kill-filed'. hmmmmmmm
Well if you were in my kill-file which I believe you were, then I would
obviously not receive any of your replies at least until you use a
different sock. Once restarted anything with "Ludicrous" in the sender's
name will be filtered out.
> > > Do you think anyone that gullible.....? You'd only be making it a
> > > brighter
> > > black. Don't tell me you're one of those people that try and look
> > > around
> > > the people on the TV screen?
> >
> > You are still missing my point here, the perspective of the shot in the
> > above URL clearly shows the Face showing height and is not a flat object
> > or imprint in the sand. It even has a shadow coming from it. Nice try.
>
> No you missed my point. I haven't seen anyone argue that it is a flat
> artifact. Simply that turning up the brightness or contrast won't reveal
> any detail. Only make a brighter black. You'd have to manipulate the
> image directly....and then would only get details if they were already in
> the
> photo.
The so-called refutation photos show the face as a flattened object. I
had clearly pointed out that the fact it has a shadow proves it was not
just an imprint in the sand.
> > > ODD maybe, but not paranormal. It's like interpreting shapes in the
> > > clouds
> > > and such. It is just a case of unusual NATURAL phenomenon. There are
> > > rock formations in the AMERICAN Southwest that resemble faces too. Did
> > > aliens do that too?
> >
> > The above is just a claim that it was a natural phenomenon. I still need
> > more then just a claim to be convinced of that. I have presented evidence
> > including shadows created by these objects which PROVE that they are
> > not just sand imprints. You are still missing my point here.
>
> Again nobody said they were sand imprints.........YOU are missing the point,
> or simply ignoring it. Read MY other posts here. You are ignoring those
> who dispute you in a WAY you don't like.
Thats what the alleged refutation picture was taken of which was presented
in an earlier post. I had already pointed that out.
> > > Again go look up geomorphology.
> >
> > I still await a geomorphic explanation to how exactly such shallow peaks could
> > be the end result of a natural occurrence. You have to also keep in mind that
> > these peaks are in a relatively flat area. Evidence of that rests with the facts
> > that if there were trenches in the ground there would be shadows. I see no
> > shadows. I do however see shadows around the pyramid shaped objects as well
> > as the face like objects which shows that they are not just flat imprints
> > in the sand.
> >
>
> Ummmmmmmmmm......I do not disagree that they are not flat imprints.
> Anything
> of height will show a shadow. That's a given. You went way off subject.
> As for
> natural occurence....wind, water, impact, geological shift...there are
> numerous ways
> they could be explained.
How, and why are such occurrences rare here on Earth? Also explain why such
pyramid shaped objects cannot be found all over Mars? Hmm.
> Again see my previous posts. But since we don't
> know the
> structure of the rock formations we cannot explain in detail the mechanics
> of the formation.
> I mean is the rock pourous? Stratified? Igneous? Solid metamorphic? Have
> you
> got a scale to measure distance and size? This in no way PROVES YOUR
> point....but
> then again...you reallly don't care.
It just proves that common science is only guessing at what they
probably are in the first place IE all of the questions above. They
are still just rocks as so the skeptics claim, yes?
Once again, all I know is what I am told.
[Snip]
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Moley wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > HVAC wrote:
> >
> > > "Erra"? Where is, "Erra"?
> >
> > Its a very long story and will require several threads which I do intend to
> > post later this summer. For now you may wish to look to these two URLs.
> >
> > http://www.billymeier.com (Speaks a little of Erra)
>
> Oh you have GOT to be joking!
The above is not the only site in which I have presented, though yes
I do follow some of his writings.
> How you can sit there with a straight face and expect us to pay any credence to Billy
> "Pie-Dish" Meier is beyond me.
Please explain how one would make a "Pie-Dish" maneuver in the fashion
on his website.
> I loved his photos of the so called inhabitants of Erra that turned out to be photos of
> models from the Dean Martin Show and the Sears catalogue. Priceless.
Actually I was quite fond of the photos, however its doubtful that they
were taken from a Sears catalogue. In fact, can I ask you if you have a
copy of such catalogue that will prove your conclusion?
> Try these for a little more:
> http://www.sightings.com/ufo/expobilly.htm
> http://members.tripod.com/~A_U_R_A/Meierhoax.html
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/scam.html
>
> ______________
> M
--
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
> But, thats all you have done is just tell me that I am wrong. Thats just a
> statement. First off I can't be wrong when I have not yet made any
absolute
> conclusions, and second I have yet to receive any solid refutations to
> the materials presented at the top of the thread that were undisputable.
You just contradicted yourself again. You've already made the conclusion
that
the "pyramids" were built, not formed. Again you are using your own
argument
against yourself.
>
> > > If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble
proving
> > > that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I am
> > > really scared here to tell you the truth.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > If you really think that
> > > I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better then
what
> > > you have been doing to try to prove your case.
> >
> > No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm
just the
> > one telling you how it is.
>
> I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
> refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
> Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
> wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
> positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
> for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
> naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
So noted.
Reverend Ludicrous Wack
Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
news:3AC7C7CB...@flagship1.com...
> Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
>
> >
> > On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:00:42 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> > <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > Wrong. You *claim* you have made no conclusions, but when presented
> > evidence that your conclusions are wrong, (ie, better quality photos),
> > you dismiss them.
>
> BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!11! what was presented were completely different
photos
> then the ones which I had presented. DUH, In order to refute a photo I
> present you have to refute the actual photo I present, not some "other"
> photo which you dig up on a search engine. My challenges still stand.
Here is the crux of the matter. You refuse to take on the challenge of
other evidence. The MSS photos are of the SAME thing! Sounds
like troll posturing to me. By logic of your argument above if I took a
picture of my face and claimed it was the face on MARS, then you
couldn't refute it because you can't prove that it isn't.
Also by reasoning you have accepted your theory and will not take
on a 'debate'. Must be troll posturing.
>
> > Therefore you have come to a conclusion. Your
> > posturing is just a troll.
Seems that way.
>
> Thats not for you to decide, sorry.
>
> > >> > If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble
proving
> > >> > that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I
am
> > >> > really scared here to tell you the truth.
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> > If you really think that
> > >> > I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better
then what
> > >> > you have been doing to try to prove your case.
> > >>
> > >> No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm
just the
> > >> one telling you how it is.
> > >
> > >I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
> > >refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
> > >Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
> > >wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
> > >positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
> > >for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
> > >naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
You just said all refutations are moot because they don't fit your
criteria. Hippocrite.
> >
> > Geology. Actually, Areology. Mars Odyssey will, no doubt, bring more
> > detailed photographs, and more kooky claims will accompany them. One
> > things for sure, idiots like you will still believe in the Face.
>
> ...because we still await solid refutations. If we ever get them, we
> will then move on to something else.
Yes you have stirred up enough excitement to get your fill this time huh?
And since you can't solidly prove it, yes we should go on.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Reverend Ludicrous Wack wrote:
>
> >
> > But, thats all you have done is just tell me that I am wrong. Thats just a
> > statement. First off I can't be wrong when I have not yet made any absolute
> > conclusions, and second I have yet to receive any solid refutations to
> > the materials presented at the top of the thread that were undisputable.
>
> You just contradicted yourself again. You've already made the conclusion that
> the "pyramids" were built, not formed. Again you are using your own
> argument against yourself.
Once again, you have yet to produce an explanation as to how such pyramid
shaped objects can be naturally formed. The only way to refute that they
were built is to show that they were naturally formed and were not the
aftereffect of paranormal alien visitation. I hinted at exactly how you
can go about doing it even. All you have to do is see if you can find
such structures all over Mars. So far I have yet to see anything that would
even come close to implying that such objects could have been naturally
formed that easily and that close together in a relatively flat area.
> > > No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm just the
> > > one telling you how it is.
> >
> > I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
> > refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
> > Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
> > wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
> > positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
> > for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
> > naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
>
> So noted.
Please refer to the above.
> --
> The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
>
> *<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
> **<Rank: Cardinal>**
>
> 'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Reverend Ludicrous Wack wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC7C7CB...@flagship1.com...
> > Re: Did paranormal aliens build the pyramids? (Part 3)
> >
> > "Wally AngleseaT" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:00:42 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> > > <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > > Wrong. You *claim* you have made no conclusions, but when presented
> > > evidence that your conclusions are wrong, (ie, better quality photos),
> > > you dismiss them.
> >
> > BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!11! what was presented were completely different photos
> > then the ones which I had presented. DUH, In order to refute a photo I
> > present you have to refute the actual photo I present, not some "other"
> > photo which you dig up on a search engine. My challenges still stand.
>
> Here is the crux of the matter. You refuse to take on the challenge of
> other evidence. The MSS photos are of the SAME thing! Sounds
> like troll posturing to me.
Those "other" versions of the photos which are quite different were
presented "after" NASA was made aware of the face discovery. This is
where you seem to be missing my point as for why I am only referring
to the original findings until at least someone else sends a probe up.
> By logic of your argument above if I took a
> picture of my face and claimed it was the face on MARS, then you
> couldn't refute it because you can't prove that it isn't.
I could, however show it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I will agree with
you that absolute yesses or nos cannot always be found. I cannot ABSOLUTELY
prove that it isn't, but can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt by showing
you were not in a space-suit, etc, etc. I still await a refutation to
the material in which I had presented that proves BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT that such objects on Mars were the result of natural occurrences.
Taking my request for a refutation out of context will not help you
escape the argument.
> Also by reasoning you have accepted your theory and will not take
> on a 'debate'. Must be troll posturing.
I am still open for debate. This is why I save threads like these for
extremely slow weeks so that I can use them to keep myself occupied.
> > > Therefore you have come to a conclusion. Your
> > > posturing is just a troll.
>
> Seems that way.
I seem to be missing your point here.
> > Thats not for you to decide, sorry.
> >
> > > >> > If these are lies then why do you apparently have so much trouble
> proving
> > > >> > that these are lies? Please prove my sources to be wrong, because I
> am
> > > >> > really scared here to tell you the truth.
> > > >>
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>
> > > >> > If you really think that
> > > >> > I am crazy or am a usenet troll, then please do something better
> then what
> > > >> > you have been doing to try to prove your case.
> > > >>
> > > >> No. I refuse. This isn't my case. This is the Way Things Are. I'm
> just the
> > > >> one telling you how it is.
> > > >
> > > >I see that you are still undergoing this steadfast refusal to present a
> > > >refutation. You stated in the above that you are just telling me stuff.
> > > >Thats all your doing is making statements that I am somehow in the
> > > >wrong in relation to issues which I have yet to even make any absolute
> > > >positive or negative conclusions about. In this thread I only asked
> > > >for an explanation as to how such objects on Mars could have occurred
> > > >naturally other then the result of paranormal alien intervention.
>
> You just said all refutations are moot because they don't fit your
> criteria. Hippocrite.
Once again, I was only stating in this thread that I am only interested
in the original releases which date before NASA being notified.
> > > Geology. Actually, Areology. Mars Odyssey will, no doubt, bring more
> > > detailed photographs, and more kooky claims will accompany them. One
> > > things for sure, idiots like you will still believe in the Face.
> >
> > ...because we still await solid refutations. If we ever get them, we
> > will then move on to something else.
>
> Yes you have stirred up enough excitement to get your fill this time huh?
> And since you can't solidly prove it, yes we should go on.
I never stated that I had reached an absolute yes or no conclusion in
this thread. I had pointed this out several times that even the original
photo was provided by a Gov source.
A. It could be more blue-book propaganda.
B. The images could be fake altogether.
C. They could be legitimate.
D. Many other possibilities.
I have stated many times that I am still waiting for further evidence
before coming to a final conclusion and that I am basing this argument
solely on the images supplied by the Gov at this time.
> --
> The Reverend Ludicrous Wack
>
> *<S_CuLT# 371-15197-097>*
> **<Rank: Cardinal>**
>
> 'Reality is a concept of the mentally inept'--RLW
--
.
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:06:57 GMT, Dingleberry Dogg
><c-b...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>
>>
>> What *is* a credophile?
>
>AT LAST!, I've been waiting for someone to ask. :-))
Indeed : ))))))
>L. Sprague de Camp (sf author) made up the term.
So, you admit it is fiction, or 'make believe.
>"The Credophile collects beliefs the way a jackdaw collects nest
>ornaments: not for utility but for glitter. And, once having embraced
>a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let
>go."
>
>Describes Flagship, vegas_lunatic and a few others.
Except it is a "made up term", you cretin!! So, using your logic,
that makes YOU the 'credophile' for using make believe terms to
describe others!!
BTW, what is a 'waht' ?
HTH.
Martin Stower
>
[SNIP]
> Summery of prior debates:
>
> 1. I have concluded that there are no hieroglyphic messages that
> prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have contributed
> to the construction of the great pyramid without the likely assistance
> of paranormal aliens.
>
> 2. I have shown that the alleged work-crew signatures were of a later
> form of hieroglyphics (phonograms) instead of the earlier form of
> hieroglyphic (pictograms) which must have therefore been placed there
> at a later time.
>
> 3. I have questioned the fact that the alleged human builders did not
> write about their so-called greatest achievement, and question as to where
> such documentation could be found. So far there has been nothing.
>
> 4. I have also shown that even with the fact that there are alleged
> work-crew signatures, one does not know for sure that they were the
> actual builders. I then compared this to the fact that just because
> I carve my name into a picnic table, it does not necessarily mean
> that I am its creator simply because I decided one day to carve my
> name into it.
>
> 5. I have shown that the majority of the ORIGINAL hieroglyphic messages
> detail that the paranormal pyramids were inhabited by "gods". These "gods"
> of course being the likely paranormal aliens which I have talked about.
[SNIP]
Here's one I posted earlier (20 October 2000):
<quote>
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: What Is The Sound of One Flag Blathering?
>
> [Groups Removed]
> alt.usenet.kooks
[Groups restored: alt.usenet.kooks]
> Martin Stower wrote:
> >
> > Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
> >
> > [Groups added: alt.paranormal.pyramid, alt.usenet.kooks]
> >
> > > [. . .] Another red herring was
> > > introduced about alleged work-crew markings. Was it absolutely
> > > proven that those really were work-crew markings, no. It was
> > > just a theory. The markings spelled out phyles (spelling may
> > > be off) I have shown that it consisted of PHONOGRAMS a later
> > > form of hieroglyphics and were likely to have been placed there
> > > at a later time, any how. [. . .]
> >
> > Liar! You have shown nothing of the sort. You were nailed, pinned down and
> > exposed, in all your abject, pitiful, degenerate IGNORANCE of the question. It
> > has been explained to you VERY, VERY CLEARLY that the EARLIEST examples of
> > Egyptian writing we have ALREADY contain phonograms - so clearly that your
> > persistence in this falsehood can only be considered a deliberate, conscious,
> > wilful LIE.
> >
> > No, the markings did NOT spell out "phyles". How many times do you need to be
> > told this? When are you going to DO THE WORK and find out what they really
> > say? "Phyle" is a GREEK word which does NOT appear in the markings. All you've
> > done is misunderstood a transcript of Mark Lehner's statement, in which he
> > spelled out the word to distinguish it from its homophone "file". "Phyle" is
> > the word used in certain bilingual inscriptions as an equivalent for the ancient
> > Egyptian word "za" (which was a unit of labour organisation). I've explained
> > this to you and H[eather]'s explained it to you - besides which, it's clearly
> > explained in the original transcript, for those of us with a functioning grasp
> > of English comprehension. The very act of repeating this falsehood displays
> > your utter ignorance of the marks.
> >
> > It has also explained to you VERY clearly just why it's extremely UNLIKELY that
> > the marks were placed there later.
>
> I have already shown that these marks could have only been placed there at
> a later time.
Compounding the offence by repeating the falsehood. Later than when,
Fraudship? You're clearly making assumptions about when the pyramid was built,
yet when you're asked to state them explicitly, all we get is a spasm of evasion
on your part. Dating the pyramid - crucial to your argument, if we may so
dignify your sequence of banal assertions - suddenly becomes off-topic.
> This is where you are missing my points.
Don't flatter yourself. There's nothing in the least original, remarkable or
difficult about what you're saying. On the contrary, it's paranoid fantasy of
the most banal kind. I see your point perfectly. I also see that it's entirely
spurious. The point you keep missing (or pretending to miss) is the vast
preponderance of evidence against you.
> The markings consisted
> of a LATER form of hieroglyphics knowen as PHONOGRAMS.
Compounding the offence by repeating the falsehood. No modest caveats here; no
talk of "possibilities". What we get is a categorical assertion - an assertion
not only unsubstantiated by the evidence but also flatly contradicted by it.
H[eather] correct me if I'm wrong, but this kind of dogmatism in the face of
contrary evidence is highly characteristic of paranoia (in its proper sense,
denoting systematised delusion, not necessarily of persecution).
Since the earliest examples of Egyptian writing that we have already contain
PHONOGRAMS - which I certainly know more about than you do - how do you justify
the above statement? Answer: you can't.
> Unless of course you
> are referring to some other markings that I don't yet know about.
So you know about these markings? Come on, then! Give us a transcription!
You'll surely be willing to do that, Flagtroll - because if you don't, you're
building a monument to yourself with this inscription on the pedestal:
"Fraudship1, Shameless Liar, Embarrassment to Himself and Paranormalists
Everywhere".
I'll put it another way. Where do you get off contradicting me about this?
What knowledge do you have and what study have you done which justifies it? You
know NOTHING about the topic! You know LESS than nothing! You `know' so much
that's WRONG that your account of knowledge is in debit! How dare you put
finger to keyboard on the topic? How dare you even THINK of doing so?
> Lets say for
> the sake of argument, even if these markings were made by humans, how does it
> prove that they actually built the paranormal great pyramid/s?
Hedging again? WHICH pyramids?
First of all, the marks represent the ancient Egyptian system of labour
organisation. I've cited a whole book on this topic: Ann Macy Roth's "Egyptian
Phyles in the Old Kingdom". YOU dismissed it out of hand, sight unseen.
Second, such is the location of the marks that they could only have been placed
there DURING construction - a fact confirmed by such well-known defenders of
orthodoxy as Graham Hancock and John Anthony West.
Third, I've cited associated evidence. The presence of explicit cubit markings
is parallelled by the evident use of the Egyptian royal cubit by the builders
(for example: height 280 cubits, base-side length 440 cubits, King's Chamber
10x20 cubits). The evidence of core drilling, amply parallelled elsewhere in
ancient Egyptian art and architecture. The semicircular bosses on granite
components, again, amply parallelled elsewhere in ancient Egyptian architecture.
The evidence forms a coherent whole which flatly contradicts the fantasy you've
built on NO evidence whatsoever.
> Analogy. If I carve Flagship1 into a table, does it mean that I built the
> table. You are still not being logical here. This was already discussed.
Bad analogy. You're deliberately missing the point. Pardon me for deflating
your masturbatory fantasies, but however great your sense of self-importance,
the implications of your name are scarcely equivalent to those of an ancient
Egyptian god-king's - especially when that name could only have been placed
there during construction.
> P.S. When I wrote Phyles in the above I wrote ahead of time that the
> spelling may have been off. Off-topic grammar attacks do not refute these
> paranormal likelihoods either. Sorry, but it does not work that way with
> people like myself.
You're really NOT VERY OBSERVANT, are you? I didn't comment on your spelling.
There was no need to. I commented on your false assumption that the word
"phyles" appears in the markings, an assumption based solely on a sloppy
misreading.
> > And AGAIN we get this bogus requirement of ABSOLUTE proof of anything
> > contradicting your fond imaginings, whereas you've produced no evidence at all
> > to connect any of the pyramids with "paranormal aliens" (sic).
>
> The above is only based upon your assumptions due to your obsessive
> ignoring of the evidence presented.
That's good. That's really good. Such are the wonders of projection. For me
to ignore the evidence you've presented, you'd have had to present some. You
haven't. The nearest you've come to doing so is some entirely made-up and
spurious assertions. Such as, your cock-and-bull story about inscriptions at
Giza which attribute the pyramid to Ra. When I told you what the inscriptions
really contain - names and titles, many of them indicating a relationship with
Khufu and his pyramid complex - you suddenly lost interest. Another example is
your speculative fantasy - in the face of the evidence - about when phonograms
appeared in Egyptian writing. Sorry to disappoint you, Flaggy, but your wanking
fantasies don't constitute evidence - and far from ignoring what you've said,
I've dealt with it, decisively.
I know this is an unfashionable view, but I strongly suspect that your major
problem is not being slapped enough for lying, when you were a child.
Martin
</quote>
Here's another (19 September 2000):
<quote>
This is to correct a certain piece of misinformation which has been posted on
these groups. The following is from _Egypt_ by Vivian Davies and Renee
Friedman, published by the British Museum Press in 1998:
Until recently it was thought that the earliest writing system was invented
by the Sumerians in Mesopotamia towards the end of the fourth millennium BC
and that the idea was borrowed by the Egyptians at the beginning of the
First Dynasty (c.3100 BC). However, recent discoveries at Abydos have shown
that the Egyptians had an advanced system of writing even earlier than the
Mesopotamians, some 150 years before Narmer. Remarkably, there is no
evidence that this writing developed from a more primitive pictographic
stage. Already, at the very beginning, it incorporated signs for sounds.
Unlike Mesopotamian writing, which can be shown to have gradually evolved
through a number of stages, beginning as an accounting system, Egyptian
writing appears to have been deliberately invented in a more-or-less
finished form, its underlying principles fully in place right from the
outset. . . .
In other words, phonograms are already present in the earliest Egyptian writing
(and possibly the earliest writing per se) that we have.
The following sites have material on the Abydos discoveries:
http://www.archaeology.org/9903/newsbriefs/egypt.html
http://www.netgain.co.nz/writing.htm
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/alfabet2.html
Whether or not there was an earlier pictographic stage, phonograms were
certainly a long-established feature of the script by Khufu's time. The
presence of phonograms is exactly what we'd expect in inscriptions containing
names of Khufu. They certainly do not provide grounds for disputing the crew
names in the Great Pyramid.
Martin
</quote>
And another (also 19 September 2000):
<quote>
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: On phonograms
>
> Martin Stower wrote:
> >
> > This is to correct a certain piece of misinformation which has been posted on
> > these groups. The following is from _Egypt_ by Vivian Davies and Renee
> > Friedman, published by the British Museum Press in 1998:
> >
> > Until recently it was thought that the earliest writing system was invented
> > by the Sumerians in Mesopotamia towards the end of the fourth millennium BC
> > and that the idea was borrowed by the Egyptians at the beginning of the
> > First Dynasty (c.3100 BC). However, recent discoveries at Abydos have shown
> > that the Egyptians had an advanced system of writing even earlier than the
> > Mesopotamians, some 150 years before Narmer. Remarkably, there is no
> > evidence that this writing developed from a more primitive pictographic
> > stage. Already, at the very beginning, it incorporated signs for sounds.
> >
> > Unlike Mesopotamian writing, which can be shown to have gradually evolved
> > through a number of stages, beginning as an accounting system, Egyptian
> > writing appears to have been deliberately invented in a more-or-less
> > finished form, its underlying principles fully in place right from the
> > outset. . . .
> >
> > In other words, phonograms are already present in the earliest Egyptian writing
> > (and possibly the earliest writing per se) that we have.
> >
> > The following sites have material on the Abydos discoveries:
> >
> > http://www.archaeBOOM!!!!!
> >
> > http://www.netgaPLONK!!!!!
> >
> > http://victorian.fortUCH!!!!!
> >
> > Whether or not there was an earlier pictographic stage, phonograms were
> > certainly a long-established feature of the script by Khufu's time. The
> > presence of phonograms is exactly what we'd expect in inscriptions containing
> > names of Khufu. They certainly do not provide grounds for disputing the crew
> > names in the Great Pyramid.
>
> This has already been discussed. If the paranormal great pyramid was
> built by only humans then why do we find phonograms and not Ideograms
> (I mistakenly called them pictograms) which is an earlier form of
> glyphs as being are ALLEGED work crew signatures? Common science
> is not absolutely sure that the paranormal great pyramid was built
> by only humans. Anyone who uses a search engine would see clearly
> that phonograms are NOT the earliest form of hieroglyphics.
The implication of the discovery (in case you missed it) is that phonograms are
just as early as any other form of Egyptian hieroglyph. You've got it wrong.
Oh, and you do know what a determinative is, don't you?
Why have you changed the URLs, Flaggy? That's not very honest of you. Did you
even look? No, let me guess: you decided they were "biased", so you didn't need
to look at them. This doesn't make you biased, of course. This is of course
one of your more common forms of evasion - while changing the URLs is outright
trolling, I'd have to say. Oh, and yes, I found them with a search engine.
URLs restored:
http://www.archaeology.org/9903/newsbriefs/egypt.html
http://www.netgain.co.nz/writing.htm
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/alfabet2.html
The flow of information is restored. Welcome to Usenet.
Martin
</quote>
Pete Charest
news:%MFy6.776$bL6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >> What *is* a credophile?
> >
> >L. Sprague de Camp (sf author) made up the term.
>
> So, you admit it is fiction, or 'make believe.
>
> >"The Credophile collects beliefs the way a jackdaw collects nest
> >ornaments: not for utility but for glitter. And, once having embraced
> >a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let
> >go."
> >
> >Describes Flagship, vegas_lunatic and a few others.
>
> Except it is a "made up term", you cretin!! So, using your logic,
> that makes YOU the 'credophile' for using make believe terms to
> describe others!!
>
> BTW, what is a 'waht' ?
Hello, DOT/Bauman/Twonky...whatever.
Why don't you go stand in a crop circle and wait for someone to give you a clue.
Sir-A...@webtv.net
Sir-Anthony