Edward Leedskalnin's 'BOOK IN EVERY HOME'
Astronomen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"I have discovered the secrets of the pyramids,
and have found out how the Egyptians and the
ancient builders in Peru, Yucatan, and Asia,
with only primitive tools, raised and set in
place blocks of stone weighing many tons!"
--Edward Leedskalnin (Latvia 1887-Miami 1951)
"Ed used no heavy machinery or any human help
in carving and constructing his home, according
to sworn affidavits dated 1955 from people who
knew him. The statements, which cover a wall
inside the small gift shop, were collected by
a later owner of the property. Ed managed to
carve out giant blocks of coral weighing up to
56,000 pounds and position them into what he
named Rock Gate."--S. Shapiro, Tampa Tribune
It's like Neil Young said of guitarist Jimi Hendrix:
"There's no one even in the same building with that guy!"
Ed Leedskalnin stands alone as the world's foremost
authority on raising and setting huge stone blocks
(in his case, coral blocks weighing up to 28 tons!)
using similar techniques as the ancients did many
millennia ago, as in the same way the Great Pyramid
was built, as Edgar Cayce said, c. 10,490-10,390 BC
i.e., nearly twelve thousand five hundred years ago.
Coral Castle stands as the irrefutable evidence for
Leedskalnin's expertise in this matter, and as they
say, Show me don't tell me! (but once you've shown
me, then feel free to tell me how you did it, too).
Those who criticize such awesomely talented people
like Cayce, Leedskalnin, Nostradamus, et al saints,
they're merely jealous of them since they can't do
what they did, no matter how hard they try. Period.
Interesting links on Ed Leedskalnin & Coral Castle:
http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/magcurnt.txt
http://www.kolumbus.fi/perttu.raivio/every_home.html
http://www.floridainfo.com/travel/stories/coral1.htm
http://www.floridainfo.com/travel/stories/coral2.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/coralcastle.htm
http://www.labyrinthina.com/coral.htm
http://atlantisrising.com/issue12/ar12coralcastle.html
http://www.coralcastle.com/biography.asp
http://www.tje.net/para/wots/9903/99_03_01_02.htm
http://www.luckymojo.com/coralcastle.html
---------------------------------------------------
A BOOK IN EVERY HOME
Containing Three Subjects:
Ed's Sweet Sixteen,
Domestic and
Political Views
By EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN
Published by EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN
Homestead, Florida
COPYRIGHT, 1936,
By Edward Leedskalnin
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
Reader, if for any reason you don not like the things
I say in this little book, I left just as much space
as I used, so you can write your own opinion opposite
it and see if you can do better.
The Author
ED'S SWEET SIXTEEN
TO THOSE MORE than fifteen thousand people who have
seen Ed's Place, I told about Ed's Sweet Sixteen.
Now, I will tell you why I did not get the girl.
In Ed's Place, there was a lasting fame for a
girl's name but it would have taken money to put the
fame upon her. The trouble was that I did not have
the money and didn't make enough. That was the reason
I could not look for a girl.
Now, I am going to tell you what I mean when I say
"Ed's Sweet Sixteen". I don't mean a sixteen year old
girl, I mean a brand new one. If it had meant a
sixteen year old girl, it would have meant at the
same time, that I made money for the sweet sixteen
while she was making love with a fresh boy.
I will furnish all the love making to my girl. She
will never have to seek any from anybody else, for I
believe that there is not a boy or man in this world
good enough to be around my girl and I believe that
the other men also ought to have enough self-respect
so that they would think that I am not good enough to
be around theirs.
Anything that we do leaves its effect, but it
leaves more effect upon a girl than it does upon a
boy or a man, because the girl's body, mind and all
her constitition is more tender and so it leaves more
impressions - and why should one want to be around
anybody's else impressions?
A girl is to a fellow the best thing in this
world, but to have the best one second hand, it is
humiliating.
All girls below sixteen should be brand new. If a
girl below sixteen cannot be called brand new any
more, it is not the girl's fault; the mamma is to
blame! It is the mamma's duty to supervise the girl
to keep those fresh boys away.
In case the girl's mamma thinks that there is a
boy somewhere who needs experience, then she,
herself, could pose as an experimental station for
that fresh boy to prctice on and so save the girl.
Nothing can hurt her any more. She has already gone
through all the experience that can be gone through
and so in her case, it would be all right.
But all the blame does not rest on the mamma
alone. The schools and the churches are cheapening
the girls! They are arranging picnics - are coupling
up the girls with the fresh boys - and then they send
them out to the woods, parks, beaches and other
places so that they can practice in first degree love
making.
Now, I will tell you what the first degree love
making is. The first degree love making is when the
fresh boy begins to soil the girl by patting, rubbing
and squeezing her. They start it in that way but soon
it begins to get dull and there is no kick in it, so
they have to start in on the second degree and keep
on and then by and by, when the right man comes along
and when he touches the girl, then he touches her
like dead flesh. There is no more response in it
because all the response has been worked out with
those fresh boys. Why should it be that way?
Everything we do should be for some good purpose
but as everybody knows there is nothing good that can
come to a girl from a fresh boy. When a girl is
sixteen or seventeen years old, she is as good as she
ever will be, but when a boy is sixteen years old, he
is then fresher than in all his stages of
development. He is then not big enough to work but he
is too big to be kept in a nursery and then to allow
such a fresh thing to soil a girl - it could not work
on my girl. Now I will tell you about soiling.
Anything that is done, if it is with the right party
it is all right, but when it is with the wrong party,
it is soiling, and concerning those fresh boys with
the girls, it is wrong every time.
Now, how can you find out if I am right? Pick out
any girl you want but do it before she has anything
to do with anybody - as soon as she begins to couple
herself with somebody. You watch her every day and
some day you will see the girl coming home with a red
face. One's face is a window for other people to look
in on and when it turns red it shows that there was
something done that her moral conscience told her
should not have been done.
It is shocking to imagine that someone else
produced that red face to my girl. In such a case she
could not be one hundred per cent sweet. As soon as a
girl acquires experience the sweetness begins to
leave her right away. The first experience in
everything is the most impressive. It should be
reserved for the permanent partner - the less of the
new experience is left, the cheaper the affair will
be.
That is the reason why I want a girl the way
Mother nature puts her out. This means before anybody
has had any chance to be around her and before she
begins to misrepresent herself. I want to pick out
the girl while she is guided by the instinct alone.
When I started out in doing things that would make
it possible for me to get a girl, I set a rule in my
behaviour to follow:
The sweet sixteen had to be a beginner and a
likeable girl and with a mild disposition; I had to
be deserving of her. Everybody's sweet sixteen should
be so high in one's estimation that no temptation
could induce one to act behind her back. I always
have wanted a girl but I never had one.
The reason why is that I knew it would produce
several conditions and leave their effects, but I did
not want any effects from past experience left on me
and my sweet sixteen.
A girl will economize, go hungry and endure other
hardships before she will put on another girl's dress
to wear. I will put gunny sacks on before I will wear
another man's clothes, and this is only a step from
having another fellow's girl or another girl's
fellow.
Having such a case the present possessor would
have to clean up the past performer's effects. Now
you see, to clean up the other person's leavings, it
is humiliating, so it would be a cheap and
undesirable affair. I want one hundred per cent good
or none. That is why I was so successfull in
resisting the natural urge for love making.
Now about sweet and how sweet, a girl can be one
hundred per cent sweet to one only and no more. To
illustrate, suppose we are two men and a girl
together somewhere and some one else would ask if she
is sweet and we both would say she is sweet. But let
her act very friendly with the other fellow and then
if someone should ask if she is sweet, I would say
that she is not. Now you see her friendly action with
the other fellow produced a change in me and it would
produca a change in any other normal man.
We always strive for perfection. We are only
one-half of a perfect whole, man is the bigger and
stronger half and the woman is the other. To be
perfect there must be two, but where there is two
there is no room for more, so the third party is left
to go somewhere else with sour feelings.
A normal male is always ready to strive for
perfection, the female is not. It is not only with
human beings, it is the same with every living thing.
If you watch a flock of chickens, where there is a
rooster, and if you add another rooster, you will see
them fight to death. One will have to go or be killed
and this is the same thing with the other living
things.
Lower forms of life are guided by instincts alone
so the present only comes into consideration. As soon
as the other male is chased away, the female is as
good as she ever was, but with us it is different. We
are guided more by reason and thought than by
instinct and so the present, past and future come
into consideration. Now, if it is not good today, it
was not good yesterday and it won't be good tomorrow.
That is why an experienced girl cannot be one hundred
per cent sweet.
According to my observation the girls are wrong in
looking for their permanent partners. They are too
quick. By being too quick, they only get those
fellows with quick emotions. All quick emotions are
irresponsible and short lasting.
There are two kinds of love - sensual and
sentimental. Sensual love has the present and little
future only. The sentimental love has the present,
past and future, so it is more desirable. It will be
slower but it will last longer. Now, girls, when any
fellow jumps quickly at you, you had better keep away
from him. He has no consideration that the action
would do any good to you. You are the weakest side,
so you should have the better deal and if you don't
get the better deal, there is a little brute in him
and it may come very hard to train it out of him. The
fellow who makes an advance toward you, and if he
won't state what the eventual purpose will be, he is
not a gentleman. All men should know that the girl's
primary purpose is to find a permanent partner while
they are young. Those fellows who fail to see this
are not desirable to have around.
Girls below sixteen should not be allowed to
associate with the boys, they are practicing in love
making, such a thing should be discouraged. Love
making should be reserved for their permanent
partners. With every love making affair, their hearts
get bruised and by the time they grow up, their
hearts are so badly bruised that they are no more
good.
Boys and girls start out as friends and finish as
disappointed lovers, now let me tell you. Male and
female are never friends, a friend will not want
anything from a friend, but a boy or a girl, one or
the other, sooner or later, will ask for a little
kiss, so they are not friends, they are lovers.
Let's see what happens when they are selecting
their partners while they are young. They select
their partners on account of good looks. The liking
for the good looks remain but the good looks change
and they change so much in ten years that you would
not recognize them if you had not seen them now and
then - and the boy gets the best deal almost every
time. By that time they are grown up. The girls will
be faded so much that the fellow would not want her
any more so then, any girl who associates with a
fellow only five years older is headed for a bad
disappointment. This all could be avoided with the
right kind of an education.
Now, a few words about education. You know we
receive an education in the schools from books. All
those books that people became educated from
twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that
are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years
from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also
wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong
books is not educated, he is misled. All books that
are written are wrong, the one who is not educated
cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is
not really educated but he is misled and the one who
is misled cannot write a book which is correct.
The misleading began when our far distant
ancestors began to teach their descendants. You know
they knew nothing but they passed their knowledge of
nothing to the coming generations and it went so
innocently that nobody noticed it. That is why we are
not educated.
Now I will tel you what education is according to
my reasoning. An educated person is one whose senses
are refined. We are born as brutes, we remain and die
as the same if we do not become polished. Some are
too coarse to take it. The main base of education is
one's "self-respect". Any one lacking self-respect
cannot be educated. The main bases of self-respect is
the willingness to learn, to do only the things that
are good and right, to believe only in the things
that can be proved, to possess appreciation and self
control.
Now, if you lack willingness to learn, you will
remain as a brute and if you do things that are not
good and right, you will be a low person, and if you
believe in things that cannot be proved, any feeble
minded person can lead you, and if you lack
appreciation, it takes away the incentive for good
doing and if you lack self control you will never
know the limit.
So all those lacking these characteristics in
their makeup are not educated.
DOMESTIC
The foundation of our physical and mental behaviour
is laid while we are in infancy, so the
responsibility of our shortcomings rest upon our
mothers and fathers, but mainly upon our mothers.
Today, I myself would be better than I am if my
mother and father had known how to raise me and the
same is true for almost everybody else.
At the first contraction in any part of your body,
you will never notice any mark, but keep it up and
some day you will see a crease, and it will be
permanent. We all want to look and act the best that
we know how, but we cannot learn from ourselves so we
have to learn from others.
In my thirty years of studying conditions and
their effects I have come to the conclusion that I
can tell pointers to the people that would be a good
help to them. That is why I wrote this little book.
To accomplish good results, the mothers will have
to keep good watch on their darlings until they
acquire the natural ambition to shine, and the girls
should be more carefully watched than the boys,
because the girl's looks are her best asset and
should be cultivated.
Don't raise the girls too big by over feeding them
and too curved by neglect.
People who want to shine will always have to
restrain themselves, because if they don't, their
actions won't be graceful. Even when one's looks are
good, if he abandons restraint, the performance won't
be good. It is more likely that the person himself
won't notice but others will.
The first thing I notice about other people is, if
there is something wrong and if it could be improved
and the same must be true about other people noticing
my defects and neglects. To correct those neglects,
somebody will have to point them out, but to do it
directly will not do, because they would think you
are mean. That is why I want to point out the defects
and neglects in this book.
The most striking neglect that comes to my
attention is when one is smiling. A smile is always
pleasing if it is regulated but without restraint, it
is not. When smiling, the teeth only should be shown.
As soon as you show the gums, it spoils the good
effect. When showing the gums you are doing triple
harm. First, the gums never look good; second, you
are making too big creases in the side of your mouth
and third, your lips come too wide apart. Especially
should a girl be careful not to show too abnormally
big mouth. Girls should do nothing that would impair
their best looks. I have seen moving picture stars,
public singers and others with their mouths open so
wide that you would think the person lacks
refinement, but if they knew how bad it looks they
would train it out. No doubt they have practiced
before a looking glass, but a looking glass does not
show such an enormous opening, because while they are
looking at the looking glass they are under restraint
and so they really don't know how it looks while they
are not watching themselves. In a looking glass you
will never notice all your neglects and defects. They
have to be pointed out by somebody else.
It is painful to hear other people pointing out
our neglects and defects so do not entrust your
friends to do it. Your friends may not always be your
friends. The best way is to leave that to your own
family. Your mother and father will do nothing to
embarrass you. Your mother will do it better and it
should be started while one is still a baby.
The first thing the mothers should do is to watch
the baby's mouth so it is not hanging open. The
mouth, by hanging open, stretches the upper lip and
when kept open while growing, then when fully grown,
the lips will not fit together any more.
Mothers should keep close watch on their
children's behaviour. As soon as they notice some
action and contraction that is not graceful, they
should correct it immediately, because their actions
leave their effects. To small children, it doesn't
matter how ugly they look, but when they are grown
up, the good looks will be the best thing, and one
with a disfigured face cannot be satisfied with
oneself. The foundation for one's best looks will
have to be laid while one is small.
A graceful smile is pleasing but if it is not
perfect, its pleasing effect is marred. To obtain
better results, don't make the smile too big by
opening the mouth too wide, drawing the lips over the
gums, or drawing one side of the lip more than the
other, or drawing both lips to one side and have them
twisted.
Children should not be encouraged to smile too
much, smiling in due time will produce creases in the
sides of their mouths. It would be better to save the
smiles till they are grown up. Children while they
are growing should be watched, closely. They are
stretching their mouths with their fingers and are
jamming too big objects in their mouths and making
ugly faces. All these actions should be forbidden for
their future's sake.
Eyes should be trained to look in the middle
between both lids, never through the forehead. If
this is done, it will produce creases in the
forehead. When the lids of one eye are more narrow
than the other it should be trained out and
equalized.
In case one leg is shorter and one shoulder lower,
they can be disguised so that other people would not
notice it. In walking the toes should be carried a
little out, by carrying the toes out one can walk
better. Shorter steps would make the walking more
graceful and those who stoop over, higher heels would
help to keep the body more erect.
Girls should take smaller steps than boys. By
taking smaller steps the body would not jump as much
up and down or swing from side to side.
Mothers should study the other people's children
and then pick out the best model from which to train
their own child.
Everybody should be trained not to go out anywhere
before somebody else has examined them to see if
everything is all right. It would save many people
from unexpected embarrassment.
POLITICAL
Before I say anything about the government, let's
establish a base for reasoning. All our ideas should
produce good and lasting results and then anything
that is good now would have been good in the past and
it will be good in the future and it will be good
under any circumstances, so any idea that does not
cover all this broad base is no good.
To be right, one's thought will have to be based
on natural facts, for really, Mother Nature only can
what is right and what is wrong and the way that
things should be.
My definition of right is that right is anything
in nature that exists without artificial modification
and all the others are wrong.
Now suppose you would say it is wrong. In that
case, I would say you are wrong yourself because you
came into this world through natural circumstances
that you had nothing to do with and so long as such a
thing exists as yourself, I am right and you are
wrong. Only those are right whose thoughts are based
on natural facts and inclinations.
It is natural tendency for all living things to
take it easy. You watch any living thing you want to,
and you will see that as soon as they fill up, they
will lie down and take it easy.
The physical comfort, the ease, that is the only
thing in this world that satisfies. It cannot be
overdone and it is the real base of all our actions.
We all cannot take things easy because there is too
much competition from other people only those who
possess good management will succeed by exploiting
domestic animals, machinery, other people and natural
resources.
Everything will have to be produced that is
consumed and to those who have to produce the things
themselves, they are consuming the easy days are not
coming to them.
It has been told to you that the government is for
the purpose of protecting "life" and property, but it
really is to protect "property" and life. Nobody
wants your life but everybody wants your property.
In International dealings, when an army conquers
the land, they don't want the people, they want the
physical property and so do the thieves and the
bandits. They want your money and property and if you
will submit peacefully, they won't harm you.
Now you see, nobody wants you, they want your
property so really the property is the one that needs
the protection and not you. You are the protector
yourself.
Government to be lasting will have to be just.
This means it will have to protect all the property
alike and all the property will have to pay equal
taxes, which means big property, big taxes, and small
property, small taxes. Government cannot exist
without taxes so only those who pay taxes should vote
and vote according to the taxes they pay.
It is not sound to allow the weaklings to vote.
Any one who is too weak to make his own living is not
strong enough to vote, because their weak influence
weakens the state and a degenerated state cannot
exist very long, but every state should be sound and
lasting.
By voting, the voters dictate the state's destiny
for times to come and then to allow such a weak
influence to guide the state, it is not wise and so
you see one should vote according to how he is
carrying the State's burden.
Another unwise thing about equal voting is that it
gives the loafers and weaklings the power to take the
property away from producers and stronger people, and
then another unjust thing about equal voting is that
it gives the loafers and weaklings the power to
demand an easy life from the producers and leaders.
Self respecting producers will not stand such an
injustice for long. It is not the producers' fault
when one is too weak to make his own living. The
producer's life is just as sweet as the weaklings and
loafers life is to them. All people are independent
so you see everybody will have to take care of
themselves and if they cannot, they should perish and
the sooner they perish the better it will be.
To be lasting, the government should be built in
the same way as the Supreme power of the land "the
army." Governments have been rising and falling but
the army always remains. You know there is no
equality in army and so there can be no equality in
the state if you are not equal producer you cannot be
an equal consumer.
Fifty per cent of the people don't want to lead,
they want to follow. They want somebody else to
furnish the money for their living expenses and as
long as such a condition exists, they are not equal
with their leaders. That is the reason why everybody
should be put in the right place according to their
physical and mental ability.
There is only one way to share the National
income. It is by sharing the production and if you
are not producing equally you cannot share equally.
Nobody is producing anything for the others. They are
producing only for themselves.
People are individuals. For instance, if you want
an excitement you have to test the thrill yourself,
or if you have a pain you will have to bear it
yourself, or if you want to eat you will have to eat
for yourself. Nobody can eat for you and so it is
that if you want the things to eat you will have to
produce them yourself and if you are too weak, too
lazy, lack machinery and good management to produce
them, you should perish and that is all there is to
it."
<e.o.f.>
---------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPFHYPpljD7YrHM/nEQK3rQCdFbBW2jLKoMF0wXjKAwtJhmO1wrwAoP0w
MLjUh6fMMlXknRlxFnC5k0CE
=T9xC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jha_amin
I have read the coral castle was moved from its original site and
reassembled at the present location. And of course, Ed had the driver
leave the truck overnight and the next morning it would be loaded or
unloaded, which ever the case may be. (of course the ever present
block and tackle would be there for show, but never used)
How do you think he did it?
Sean
their head and muttered:
On some 'mystery' show I saw, discover/tlc? they said he would just
have the driver go around the house or something, out of site for a
few moments, when he came back the piece would have moved.
Perhaps love does conquer all?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd
have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but
for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astronomen
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>marcio6067 wrote:
>> Astronomen <astro...@olympvs.mons> wrote:
>> ><snips>
>> > A BOOK IN EVERY HOME
>> > Containing Three Subjects:
>> > Ed's Sweet Sixteen,
>> > Domestic and
>> > Political Views
>> > By EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN
>> > Published by EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN
>> > Homestead, Florida
>> >
>> > COPYRIGHT, 1936,
>> > By Edward Leedskalnin
>>
>> of course this is a methaphor and the best people to discuss this
>> subject is the writer Chritopher Dunn.
>> One approach is from Jiri Mruzeck who says this refer to the golden
>> number phi cause its value of 1.6180.
>
>And the fact that he is speaking of 'sweet' 16, not darling, beloved,
>cherished, beautiful, etc.
>
>> To me in a first impression he is talking about iron and his magnetics
>> properties. The real fact is that Coral Castle is there...
>
>The Coral Castle is certainly there - a rip in the fabric
>of orthodox beliefs.
>
>Regards,
>Jiri
>http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/index.html
>Nazca geometry http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/namon.htm
>La Marche geometry http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/seat1.htm
>Precession Numbers http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/osirnum.htm
>
>> Regards, Marcio.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thanks for the civilized replies (there's a very dreadful
shortage of this). Drop a common nail into a cup of water
and see what happens. Edgar Cayce said in reading 5748-6:
"(Q) How was this particular Great Pyramid of Gizeh built?
(A) By the use of those forces in nature as make for iron
to swim. Stone floats in the air in the same manner. This
will be discovered in '58"
Notably, Ed Leedskalnin died in 1951. Who knows, maybe big
brother deciphered his works by circa 1958 (with help from
Roswell 1947 etc.)? And we know that government keep their
technologies top top secret until they become sufficiently
obsolete for sheople consumption. About the aforesaid nail,
in just a few weeks, you'll see the ferric oxide does swim
by the forces in nature...the water is turning ferruginous.
---
Interesting links you've got there, Jiri. I respectfully
suggest that the Mayan diurnal long-count is the reliable
synodic multiple for tropical precession under solar days,
approximately: 9,360,000 solar days per precessional year.
The Mayans reckoned the haab intercalation interval using
1508 haabs per 1507 tropical years (C.P. Bowditch, c1906),
hence the average value of one Mayan tropical year equals
365.242203, only slightly above modern-day averages. Thus,
by the Mayan tropical year and Mayan longcount great year,
the average duration of the precessional age is 9,360,000
solar days divided by 365.242203 solar days = ~25626.8304
tropical years per great year; divided by 12 = ~2135.5692
tropical years per precessional age, and you can bet that
this is an extremely reliable calculation in reference to
the very long-term average of the precessional great year
and zodiacal age in the iris, i.e., 2135.57 years per age.
The average number of tropical years per great year equals
about 25626.8304 by the ancient Mayan reckoning. Using the
rounded-off figure of 25626.83=>therefore, about 9,360,000
(nine million three hundred sixty thousand) solar days per
great year of precession yields about 26000 solar days per
1/360th of a great year equals one arcdegree of precession
every 26000 solar days equals about 71.1856 tropical years,
revealing clear solar day to precessional degree resonance
on the very long-term average, which the Mayans understood.
Likewise one solar day of precession averages -0.13846 arc-
seconds of ecliptic longitude, thus each solar hour equals
about -0.005769 ecliptic arcseconds of longitude the Earth
precesses against the fixed caelestial sphere. By reducing
this down to one minute--sixty seconds--of solar time, the
Earth precesses on average about -0.000096 arcseconds each
minute thus about -0.0000016 arcseconds per second of time.
Likewise 9360000 solar days divided by five equals 1872000
solar days per Mayan Age of the Sun, with the first of the
five ages (which begins the great year) beginning with the
winter solstice Sun conjoined 5 degrees Sagittarius, which
is the caelestial sacred tree near the galactic center, or
the apparent intercept of the ecliptic and galactic planes
which is located very nearly 3 ecliptic arcdegrees east of
the galactic center itself Sgr A* at 2 degrees Sagittarius.
The present precessional Age of the Sun is counted "Fifth"
and reaches its end precisely on December 21, 2012, at the
time of the winter solstice 11:11:23 UT, noting the Sun is
05Sag01'12.315" in reference to Aldebaranu 15Tau00'00.000"
also 4Sag58'07.892" in reference to Sgr A* 02Sag00'00.000".
I ran this calculation proleptically to the first of seven
great years, since after the commencement of tropical ages
circa 200,000 BC, hence a sabbath of great years completed:
8TH BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Fri 21 Dec 2012 AD Gregorian
8 Dec 2012 AD Julian
Julian Day 2456283; *1.2.15.0.0.0.0
13.0.0.0.0; 3 Kankin; 4 Ahau
7TH BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Sat 1 Mar 23,615 BC Gregorian
27 Aug 23,615 BC Julian
Julian Day -6903717; *0.19.10.0.0.0.0
-52.0.0.0.0; 3 Kayab; 4 Ahau
6TH BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Sun 10 May 49,242 BC Gregorian
15 May 49,241 BC Julian
Julian Day -16263717; *0.16.5.0.0.0.0
-117.0.0.0.0 ;18 Pop; 4 Ahau
5TH BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Mon 18 Jul 74,869 BC Gregorian
1 Feb 74,867 BC Julian
Julian Day -25623717; *0.13.0.0.0.0.0
-182.0.0.0.0; 18 Zotz; 4 Ahau
4TH BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Tue 26 Sep 100,496 BC Gregorian
21 Oct 100,494 BC Julian
Julian Day -34983717; *0.9.15.0.0.0.0
-247.0.0.0.0; 18 Yaxkin; 4 Ahau
3RD BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Wed 4 Dec 126,123 BC Gregorian
9 Jul 126,120 BC Julian
Julian Day -44343717; *0.6.10.0.0.0.0
-312.0.0.0.0; 18 Yax; 4 Ahau
2ND BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Thu 12 Feb 151,749 BC Gregorian
28 Mar 151,746 BC Julian
Julian Day -53703717; *0.3.5.0.0.0.0
-377.0.0.0.0; 18 Mac; 4 Ahau
1ST BIRTH OF THE SUN IN TREE OF LIFE
Fri 22 Apr 177,376 BC Gregorian
14 Dec 177,373 BC Julian
Julian Day -63063717; *0.0.0.0.0.0.0
-442.0.0.0.0; 18 Pax; 4 Ahau
*calabtun.pictun.baktun.katun.tun.uinal.kin;
*first birth of the sun after tropical years
began circa 200,000 years i.e. four thousand-
hundred vernal and autumnal equinox-times BC.
Enjoy!
Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPGYCCpljD7YrHM/nEQJDswCgi+uaU2mvAvXKj0iTcuxtTzd8xkoAoMTc
hB9oUF4NC6J3hgGwgMz8yf5D
=I3ze
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Astro-Charts Homepage of Daniel Joseph Min:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=90A68W7A372...@frog.gilgamesh.org
R. Spanjaard
news:HRO8N0QP3729...@frog.gilgamesh.org...
> Thanks for the civilized replies (there's a very dreadful
> shortage of this).
Now, why would that be?
Oh, I know!
YOU'RE POSTING ASTROLOGY MESSAGES IN ASTRONOMY GROUPS!
How long will it take before you finally understand the difference between
astrology and astronomy?
--
Kindest regards (see? civilised!)
Robert
Watcher
I found this on the Min's " astro guru " page. Shakespere shows to agree.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KY17VN0I372...@anonymous.poster&output=gplain
I found this on the Min's reply string. This guy has got you pegged.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=89RTCNB23729...@frog.gilgamesh.org
You should be more careful. Your troll record is showing.
--
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=Spanjaard&hl=en
R. Spanjaard
news:5ZJO9CPN3729...@frog.gilgamesh.org...
>
> I found this on the Min's " astro guru " page. Shakespere shows to agree.
"Small have continual plodders ever won
Save base authority from others' books.
These earthly godfathers of heaven's lights
That give a name to every fixed star*
Have no more profit of their shining nights
Than those that walk and wot not what they are."
Act i. Sc. 1, Love's Labour 's Lost,
--William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
And what is it, that he agrees with? It doesn't say anything about the
difference between astrology and astronomy.
The text below that quote doesn't have anything to do with Shakespeare. It's
just more nonsense written by DJM. Shakespeare doesn't have anything to do
with astrology or astronomy.
> I found this on the Min's reply string. This guy has got you pegged.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=89RTCNB23729...@frog.gilgamesh
.org
Another nonsense post by DJM. He explains how to get rid of trolls by
placing them in a killfile. Now check DJM's way of posting. Look at the way
he keeps changing nyms. He does that to stay OUT of killfiles.
Said, isn't it?
> You should be more careful. Your troll record is showing.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=Spanjaard&hl=en
Go ahead. Not exactly a 'troll' record. In fact, from the three of us (or
two, if YOU're DJM), I'm the only one who's not trying to hide behind
different nyms and an anonymous mail2news service. Now who's the troll?
--
Regards,
Robert
Astronomen
"Jiri Mruzek" wrote:
>Astronomen wrote:
>> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
>> >marcio6067 wrote:
>> >> Astronomen <astro...@olympvs.mons> wrote:
>>
>> synodic multiple for tropical precession under solar days,
>> approximately: 9,360,000 solar days per precessional year.
>
>rather than 25,776, or 25,920 years?
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Yes, per the reliable Mayan long-count, one great year
takes approximately 25626.8 tropical years to complete,
based on the ancient Mayan haab intercalation interval
in conjunction with the Mayan long count of solar days.
1508 "haabs" is commensurate with ~1507 tropical years.
One haab equals 365 solar days, thus 1508 haabs equals
1508 x 365 = 550420 solar days per 1507 tropical years,
Therefore one tropical year equals 365.2422 solar days,
therearound, remembering this is the long-term average,
and is *very* close to modern-day averages of the year.
Once you know that there are about 365.2422 solar days
in an average tropical year, the formula becomes clear:
1 great year = 1 sidereal gyration of
terrestrial precession;
= 12 zodiacal ages
= 5 ages of the Sun
=~ 5 x 13 Baktun
=~ 5 x 13 x 144,000 solar days
=~ 9,360,000 solar days;
=~ 25626.83 tropical years.
It's really not that complicated, just simple addition,
multiplication, and division, based on ancient records.
Since ancient Mayan astronomers did predict the winter
solstice of Dec 21, 2012 with such tremendous accuracy,
it follows that they had a likewise awesome talent for
predicting Earth's slow gyration against her celestial
firmament, i.e. the local standard of rest. That's got
to be based on long ages of careful observation of the
heavens. Such universal knowledge seems to echo across
continents and oceans of ancient and prehistoric times.
It's the "A" word that archaeologists are so afraid of.
Hope that helps,
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPGVvs5ljD7YrHM/nEQL3xACdETye/eomljeO1pKvuBYkPIyEJ1gAoLQU
wiZg910bSYXtj/RagJt7DPSV
=/LfJ
R. Spanjaard
news:ISN8J0YL3729...@frog.gilgamesh.org...
> Hope that helps,
> Daniel Joseph Min
No, it doesn't. You're still posting in alt.astronomy, while you know you
don't belong there.
--
Regards,
Robert
jha_amin
> On some 'mystery' show I saw, discover/tlc? they said he would just
> have the driver go around the house or something, out of site for a
> few moments, when he came back the piece would have moved.
>
> Perhaps love does conquer all?
Well, love sure can help you get your rocks sorted. ;)
The sacsahuaman fortress of peru is made of stones fitted by some
unknown means (nestled together by grinding or some how matching the
surface of each stone to the other as if each had been rendered
pliable when laid in place) some of them weighing two hundred tons.
This feat of exact fitting of extremely large stones could not be
equaled today with modern equipment.
Astronomen
"Jiri Mruzek" wrote:
>Astronomen wrote:
>> >marcio6067 wrote:
>> >> Astronomen <astro...@olympvs.mons> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
PS Though I mentioned this in my first reply,
it should really be emphasized the extreme
coincidence that each 26,000 solar days is
commensurate with one sidereal arcdegree of
terrestrial precession per Mayan long-count:
I.e., 360 x 26000 solar days = 1 great year;
i.e., 1 great year / 360 = 26000 solar days.
That's an extraordinary coincidence in my
humble opinion. 26,000 days per arcdegree
of precession. The stars do bear witness.
That's all I wanted to say.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPGbiSZljD7YrHM/nEQLJWQCfVivOjA7QXi4WpXke67wywSJk85UAnjlg
NktzO2duHBWT5TbEXwhALvW8
=qZ0d
R. Spanjaard
> That's all I wanted to say.
Finally.
Thanks.
Astronomen
Just a reminder with St. Valentine's Day coming up,
the predominant rulerships of Mercury 6R, Venus 7R,
Mars 8R Lilith 8R, Saturn 10R, Node 11R, which has
been in effect since January 28th 2002, will reach
it fruition by February 16 2002, and is especially
effective to the Sun's detriment by February 13th,
with the Sun 7d under Venus superior, & falling to
Uranus on the caelestial zodiac beginning February
13th through March 14th with the Sun in caelestial
Aquarius with Uranus who is sidereal eighth heaven.
The Sun will ingress caelestial Aquarius Wednesday
13-Feb-2002 17:01:27 UT; then, just 4 3/4 minutes
later conjoins Uranus Wed 13-Feb-2002 17:06:10 UT:
Body Caelestial_Lon Latitude r Velocity
Pluto : 22Sco28'17.498" +9:51'39" R +0.0192403
Mercury : 05Cap10'44.363" +1:33'48" - +0.5151789
Neptune : 14Cap15'08.255" +0:05'50" - +0.0368607
/Uranus : 00Aqu00'11.951" -0:41'44" R +0.0576337 <=
\Sun : 00Aqu00'11.956" -0:00'00" F +1.0110336 <=
Venus : 07Aqu15'43.260" -1:27'04" - +1.2526000
Moon : 15Aqu14'22.183" -4:52'32" - +11.905759
Lilith : 24Aqu45'54.253" -5:07'48" - +0.1120373
Mars : 23Pis49'34.628" +0:02'46" - +0.7180132
Saturn : 13Tau14'43.983" -1:37'53" - +0.0106818
Aldebaran : 15Tau00'00.000" -5:28'04" alTau
True Node : 00Gem29'33.568" +0:00'00" - -0.2049959
Jupiter : 11Gem13'31.754" +0:05'55" F -0.0523613
Radial Distance/v
Eart: 0.0000000~
Plut: 30.8338899+
Nept: 31.0436664+
Uran: 20.9787185-
Satu: 8.7809003-
Jupi: 4.4829460-
Mars: 1.8246212-
Sun : 0.9874853-
Venu: 1.6956168+
Merc: 0.8380110-
Moon: 0.0027126-
Node: 0.0025735+
Lili: 0.0027106~
Uranus takes to turn benefic Thu 14-Feb-2002 15:39 UT
whist the Sun recedes malefic. Venus & Pluton are in
especially good shape at this time--most detrimental
for those who despise beauty & justice & equilibrium,
but is most excellent for those love their valentine.
Happy Valentine's!
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPGcCpZljD7YrHM/nEQI3zACdGYQSpRRL41eSSRHEoKJBTmNZKsQAnjAM
P/LQZbcrn3oPCpOhA+A5KoWo
=pTg2
Sean
their head and muttered:
>Sean <te...@XYZhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<v7q86uc3qr0sjn9sf...@4ax.com>...
>> On some 'mystery' show I saw, discover/tlc? they said he would just
>> have the driver go around the house or something, out of site for a
>> few moments, when he came back the piece would have moved.
>>
>> Perhaps love does conquer all?
>
>Well, love sure can help you get your rocks sorted. ;)
>
>The sacsahuaman fortress of peru is made of stones fitted by some
>unknown means (nestled together by grinding or some how matching the
>surface of each stone to the other as if each had been rendered
>pliable when laid in place) some of them weighing two hundred tons.
>This feat of exact fitting of extremely large stones could not be
>equaled today with modern equipment.
I saw a great show on the ancient wonders. They were contemplating
how the statue of zeus was made of ivory. From texts they got some
clues and started experimenting.
Apparently, if you soak ivory in vinegar for a couple of days, it will
become pliable, enabling it to be molded. Guess those alchemy classes
paid off ;)
Anyway, don't know what the stones are made of, haven't seen much data
on them, but perhaps something similar?
George Black
>
> Sean <te...@XYZhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<v7q86uc3qr0sjn9sf...@4ax.com>...
> > On some 'mystery' show I saw, discover/tlc? they said he would just
> > have the driver go around the house or something, out of site for a
> > few moments, when he came back the piece would have moved.
> >
> > Perhaps love does conquer all?
>
> Well, love sure can help you get your rocks sorted. ;)
>
> The sacsahuaman fortress of peru is made of stones fitted by some
> unknown means (nestled together by grinding or some how matching the
> surface of each stone to the other as if each had been rendered
> pliable when laid in place) some of them weighing two hundred tons.
> This feat of exact fitting of extremely large stones could not be
> equaled today with modern equipment.
It (modern technology) certainly could but there is no need.
dwoz
with all due respect, Robert...I found this post to be very much
on-topic. I find information about ancient astronomy very relevant, as
it touches upon the methods and motives of people looking at the stars
millenia ago, compared to average 'joes' like you and me looking at the
stars today.
Here's my question. Given: celestial precession. Given: prehistoric
methodology.(i.e. egyptian or mayan tools). So, with that on the table,
how many years of observing would be required to ascertain first that
there IS precession, and secondly, what it's period is?
Another way of looking at it is, could I, in my lifetime, without using
excruciatingly precise atomic clocks and exquisite optics, "discover"
precession, and calculate its period (assuming I possessed the requisite
intelligence and creativity...don't go there!), or would my great,
great, great grandchildren be the ones to discover it, based on my work
today?
What would be my toolset?
--
dwoz
jha_amin
Excellet point. What was the need then, i wonder. The earth is
blanketed with such sites and it appears our ancestors expended a
great deal of effort moving large rocks around. Did they know
something we don't?
Allow me to backpedal then, George.
How did the ancients do it? Most of the time there is no evidence of
even
the most rudimentary modes of transport such as the wheel.
R. Spanjaard
news:3C67C463...@verizon.net...
> with all due respect, Robert...I found this post to be very much
> on-topic.
Ok, you're right. I posted too quickly.
My apologies to Daniel for this one. But ONLY this one.
--
Regards,
Robert
R. Spanjaard
news:F0KL92LE3729...@frog.gilgamesh.org...
> [off topic] [...as usual]
> Daniel Joseph Min
dwoz
yeah...let's not get out-of-hand. Only a SINGLE POST
get-out-of-jail-free card for Daniel. :-)
seriously, though...any thoughts on my question about discovering and
calculating celestial precession?
--
dwoz
Odysseus
>
> seriously, though...any thoughts on my question about discovering and
> calculating celestial precession?
>
the vernal point one degree WRT the fixed stars. So if you could make
observations with a precision of half a degree (approximately the
apparent diameter of the Sun's disc, or the Moon's), assuming your
time-keeping ability to be more or less commensurate, after 35 years of
observing you would be just able to detect the movement. To estimate the
length of the precessional cycle to within 10% of its true value from
measurements taken 35 years apart, you would therefore have to be able
to make observations to a precision of about 1/20 degree (3
arc-minutes). I don't know what level of precision is obtainable without
optical aid, but I doubt it can be a whole lot better than the latter
figure. If you were to measure the time interval between the rising (or
setting) of the Sun and a certain fixed star on a certain day of each
solar year (i.e. when the Sun is at a specific, precisely known
longitude), a shift of 3' in their relative positions would create a
timing discrepancy of only about 1.2 hours.
--Odysseus
George Black
1 They had time.
2 They had muscle, the lever, the ramp and the sledge.
3 A religious belief that required such structures.
Note that, at no time did these people build a skyscraper.
Ziggurats, solid structures, yes,
jha_amin
> 1 They had time.
A good bit of their time would have been required just to find McFood.
Food production would have been highly labor intensive.
> 2 They had muscle, the lever, the ramp and the sledge.
Assuming the average healthy male could lift 200 lbs, how many of them
would have to grab hold of a 200 ton conerstone to move it into
postition? awesome task.
> 3 A religious belief that required such structures.
That is speculation. I figure they would be more apt to worship
something to eat if they were as backward as most scientists think.
Our religous beliefs are not tied into diesel trucks, large screen tv,
movie theaters etc? (er, actually they are, but you know what i mean)
>
> Note that, at no time did these people build a skyscraper.
> Ziggurats, solid structures, yes,
Skyscrapers, ballpoint pens and styrofoam are not neccesarily the
signs of an "advanced culture".
Everett Hickey
news:33b7880.02021...@posting.google.com...
> George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3C689954...@ihug.co.nz>...
>
>
> > 1 They had time.
>
> A good bit of their time would have been required just to find McFood.
> Food production would have been highly labor intensive.
In Egypt? They had so much time that monumental projects were part of how
the Pharoes kept their people in line. Almost all of the agricultural work
was done within a few months each year (flooding of the nile). Roughly two
thirds of their year, all those farmers had to find other work. That's
something rarely seen in the ancient OR modern world - free time and leisure
are one promise that technology has never kept... hehe. So there was PLENTY
of time, and PLENTY of manpower. (to get an idea of what sort of conditions
they worked under, you once had a slave revolt because the slave's weren't
getting their full makeup ration - not food, cosmetics!).
> > 2 They had muscle, the lever, the ramp and the sledge.
>
> Assuming the average healthy male could lift 200 lbs, how many of them
> would have to grab hold of a 200 ton conerstone to move it into
> postition? awesome task.
A few years ago some researchers actually moved some blocks, using only what
they knew of Egyptian technology and methods. It was a lot of work (for 15
people), but it was very possible. It was demonstrated on film (I've seen
it), and probably shown on tv by now. If 15 (relatively) unfit researchers
could move a number of stones of the same size as those in many of the
pyramids, over a good distance and into position, imagine what thousands of
very fit, otherwise unemployed, workers could accomplish over a period of
years?
> > 3 A religious belief that required such structures.
>
> That is speculation. I figure they would be more apt to worship
> something to eat if they were as backward as most scientists think.
> Our religous beliefs are not tied into diesel trucks, large screen tv,
> movie theaters etc? (er, actually they are, but you know what i mean)
>
> >
> > Note that, at no time did these people build a skyscraper.
> > Ziggurats, solid structures, yes,
>
> Skyscrapers, ballpoint pens and styrofoam are not neccesarily the
> signs of an "advanced culture".
Technology and engineering aren't neccessarily signs, either.
Yes, I know I used the Egyptians as an example... but a few years ago people
had trouble with the idea of people accomplishing that much on such little
technology. It's unlikely they had similar methods for building the aztec
pyramids, or the fortress in Peru. But one thing that's been made obvious
over and over again... engineering can often rival our own, even without
technology... ESPECIALLY without it. In our own time (or era, anyway) we've
accomplished amazing feats while lacking the required technology, and then
later we couldn't think of a way to do it without that technology.
no
jha_amin wrote in message
<33b7880.02021...@posting.google.com>...
How advanced were they. Did they have computers?
jha_amin
All of the posters on apn have computers, Dee.
Are they advanced? ;)
Possibly the ancients were more in tune with the universe. Spiritually advanced.
George Black
>
> George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3C689954...@ihug.co.nz>...
>
> > 1 They had time.
>
> A good bit of their time would have been required just to find McFood.
> Food production would have been highly labor intensive.
The reason mainly for such building booms in Egypt at the time was the
surplus food produced by the Nile inudations
> > 2 They had muscle, the lever, the ramp and the sledge.
>
> Assuming the average healthy male could lift 200 lbs, how many of them
> would have to grab hold of a 200 ton conerstone to move it into
> postition? awesome task.
You evidently didn't see the following words lever ramp sledge
> > 3 A religious belief that required such structures.
>
> That is speculation. I figure they would be more apt to worship
> something to eat if they were as backward as most scientists think.
> Our religous beliefs are not tied into diesel trucks, large screen tv,
> movie theaters etc? (er, actually they are, but you know what i mean)
They most definitely were not backward. And if you knew anything of the
religions of the area the Pharoah was a living god and the building of
his tomb was pretty much a work of love.
The history of Egypt is a marvellous story.
Go search for matters Egyptian and start reading
> >
> > Note that, at no time did these people build a skyscraper.
> > Ziggurats, solid structures, yes,
>
> Skyscrapers, ballpoint pens and styrofoam are not neccesarily the
> signs of an "advanced culture".
Point out where, in past times, such technologies were available or even
possible
no
Nice dream, but Zawass (or some other great name) showed how the stones were
moved by ancient, not alien-inspired-necessarily ancients.
jha_amin
[snip]
> religions of the area the Pharoah was a living god and the building of
> his tomb was pretty much a work of love.
> The history of Egypt is a marvellous story.
> Go search for matters Egyptian and start reading
>
No doubt that would benifit me greatly. However, i have never
mentioned Egypt or Pyramid in this thread. My original
statement/query was: The sacsahuaman fortress of peru is made of
stones fitted by some
unknown means (nestled together by grinding or some how matching the
surface of each stone to the other as if each had been rendered
pliable when laid in place) some of them weighing two hundred tons.
This feat of exact fitting of extremely large stones could not be
equaled today with modern equipment.
But her is another you would have a tough time getting your lever
under.
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Baalbek/Baalbek.html
thanks
no
were not backward. And if you knew anything of the
>
>[snip]
>
>> religions of the area the Pharoah was a living god and the building of
>> his tomb was pretty much a work of love.
>> The history of Egypt is a marvellous story.
>> Go search for matters Egyptian and start reading
>>
>
>No doubt that would benifit me greatly. However, i have never
>mentioned Egypt or Pyramid in this thread. My original
>statement/query was: The sacsahuaman fortress of peru is made of
>stones fitted by some
>unknown means (nestled together by grinding or some how matching the
>surface of each stone to the other as if each had been rendered
>pliable when laid in place) some of them weighing two hundred tons.
>This feat of exact fitting of extremely large stones could not be
>equaled today with modern equipment.
Can you give a legit site for this. Scientific American would do.
>But her is another you would have a tough time getting your lever
>under.
>http://www.bearfabrique.org/Baalbek/Baalbek.html
Neat picture. I suppose over a hundred men with levers could make a
difference. But the block isn't positioned spectacularly. It is near the
quarry it came from. And it might have been a different shape when it was
being moved. It might have had rounder sides, for easier moving with levers.
Once they gave up; they could have made the sides more flat.
..............
>thanks
DrPostman
prophecy wrote:
>No doubt that would benifit me greatly. However, i have never
>mentioned Egypt or Pyramid in this thread. My original
>statement/query was: The sacsahuaman fortress of peru is made of
>stones fitted by some
>unknown means (nestled together by grinding or some how matching the
>surface of each stone to the other as if each had been rendered
>pliable when laid in place) some of them weighing two hundred tons.
>This feat of exact fitting of extremely large stones could not be
>equaled today with modern equipment.
On the contrary, NOVA had a show about it. The transcript might
be an interesting read for you:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2404inca.html
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Why don't you tell this MAD-DOG she'll cure her own HYSTERIA with a
HYSTERECTOMY? That may calm the BITCH down a little. Tell her you know a
good veterinarian."
-Fake "Dr" Turi shows his light and love