Of Strange Flesh - re 666 & chemistry (fwd)
Kerry Delf
PLEASE CC REPLIES TO <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
---------------------------------------------
I know that the post below is simply the esoteric jibberish of a
kook-ranter; unfortunately, there are those who take it seriously.
I am no microbiologist, and therefore do not have the information at my
fingertips with which to debunk this bizarre theory -- I'm hoping someone
with more knowledge of the subject can provide me <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
with a brief, educated explanation as to why human biology just doesn't
work this way. :)
The basic claim made here by Adam Willson (based on the theories of a
well-known [in certain circles] kook, Tani Jantsang) is that there are two
separate species we label "human": one is based on Carbon-12 (6 protons,
6 neutrons), while the other is based on some other Carbon isotope.
Anyone care to take a stab at this one?
Thanks in advance,
-K.Delf
-----------=Kerry Delf=-------------=<k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>=-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I fear sometimes that I have the ambition of a genius, the eye and ear
of a genius, and the talent of a chimneysweep. I go down into the filthy
world, I come up black, I scatter the ashes and cinders of my research
onto white papers, but what have I got? Paper with black marks all over
it." --Orson Scott Card's fictional Honore de Balzac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMAILING RESPONSES TO MY USENET POSTS CONSTITUTES PERMISSION TO POST THEM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:09:43 -0500
From: "Adam D. Willson" <gs0...@panther.Gsu.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Of Strange Flesh - re 666 & chemistry
This is the best explanation I can give at this time w/o getting _too_
esoteric.
666 is the number of man, which is the number of the beast. E.g., of
natural animals, those rooted in nature, following nature etc. It
esoterically represents: SIX protons, SIX electrons, & SIX neutrons.
Scratch asked me what the "strange flesh" would be like? The best answer I
can give is this:
Protons determine electrons, which in turn determines matter which
klippoths surely are. They are matter.
Now the # of neutrons could be diff. which would mean they would look like
any other human, but would only be diff. in terms of behavior.
Now if the neutrons are set free of the demiurgos which encases them they
become Ophioneus (cf. Tani's article "Akarthic & Ophionic States", Karl
recently posted this).
In Genesis 1:2 the 6 constructor sephiroth move over the BAHU which is
called "the waters". 666 is the Foundation/Root which is called BAHU.
Demiurge is the nucleus of our atoms represented by 6 colors (quarks). The
hochmah/vajre/logos must be rooted in the waters, in order to have a
Foundation.
Again if the neutrons are set free of the demiurge which encases them they
become ophionic. All of this is very difficult to get into w/o a
familiarity of the Kaballa, or Jantsang's articles.
I recommend for those who are interested _Serpent Race vs. Adamic Race_
pg. 20. <snip> Or if you want you may read the collection of articles by
Tani on Hr. Vad's website at:
http://www.inet.uni-c.dk/~haroth/Abyss/Vad/index.html
Best regards,
Adam D. Willson
gs0...@panther.gsu.edu
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Kerry Delf <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>PLEASE CC REPLIES TO <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
>---------------------------------------------
>
>
>I know that the post below is simply the esoteric jibberish of a
>kook-ranter; unfortunately, there are those who take it seriously.
>
>I am no microbiologist, and therefore do not have the information at my
>fingertips with which to debunk this bizarre theory -- I'm hoping someone
>with more knowledge of the subject can provide me <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
>with a brief, educated explanation as to why human biology just doesn't
>work this way. :)
>
>The basic claim made here by Adam Willson (based on the theories of a
>well-known [in certain circles] kook, Tani Jantsang) is that there are two
>separate species we label "human": one is based on Carbon-12 (6 protons,
>6 neutrons), while the other is based on some other Carbon isotope.
>
>Anyone care to take a stab at this one?
C-13 algae are rountinely grown from C-13 CO2 to manufacture
high-enrichment C-13 labelled biochemicals. The stuff is obscenely
expensive.
The human claim is plain stooopid, and trivially discounted via mass spec
or C-13 NMR of a tissue sample (or exhalation) if the thermodynamic
argument is over your head.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Anonymous
Kerry Delf wrote:
>
> PLEASE CC REPLIES TO <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> I know that the post below is simply the esoteric jibberish of a
> kook-ranter; unfortunately, there are those who take it seriously.
>
> I am no microbiologist, and therefore do not have the information at my
> fingertips with which to debunk this bizarre theory -- I'm hoping someone
> with more knowledge of the subject can provide me <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
> with a brief, educated explanation as to why human biology just doesn't
> work this way. :)
>
> The basic claim made here by Adam Willson (based on the theories of a
> well-known [in certain circles] kook, Tani Jantsang) is that there are two
> separate species we label "human": one is based on Carbon-12 (6 protons,
> 6 neutrons), while the other is based on some other Carbon isotope.
>
> Anyone care to take a stab at this one?
>
It is somewhat cool that you posted this statement on the last day of
1996. As you may or may not already know, the year 1996 is only like 8
other years in this milleneum in that it contains the number 666 within
it. If you drop the '1' and invert the two '9's, you get the famed
dreaded mark. I have heard that when biological organizms consume large
amounts of food or water laced with deuturium that throughout time the
organism might have a slight slowdown in metabolism. This may
supposedly be due to the increased weight of compounds due to the
doubling in molecular weight of the deuturium over the hydrogen. Carbon
13, however, does not have the extreme amount of added mass to the
compound over that of hydrogen. Probably there would not be the change
in metabolic effects that would be observed from consuming large amounts
of heavy water. You never know, however. If you want to, you might
consider becoming such a mutant being. By consuming large amounts of
C13 seaweed throughout time, you might provide an interesting metabolic
experiment. You would have to do so throughout several years, and
probably nothing would end up happening. Afterwards, however, you might
periodically throughout time dedicate your tissues for CMR analysis,
because they would show up well on such scans. It would also be helpful
in guessing throughout time how quickly certain tissues are replaced
with new material taken in as food. Eating C13 laced food might be
expensive, however, and in the end, you probably wouldn't feel any
different. It's an interesting thought...
-X
Triple Quadrophenic
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961231...@jersey.uoregon.edu>,
k...@jersey.uoregon.edu (Kerry Delf ) dusted off the quill, prised open the
inkwell and wrote...
[Snip]
>The basic claim made here by Adam Willson (based on the theories of a
>well-known [in certain circles] kook, Tani Jantsang) is that there are two
>separate species we label "human": one is based on Carbon-12 (6 protons,
>6 neutrons), while the other is based on some other Carbon isotope.
>
>Anyone care to take a stab at this one?
As a mass spectroscopist involved in metabolism I can tell you that if I
examined samples from a person based on Carbon-X (where X is not 12) then
alarm bells would flash immediately.
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_H...@sbphrd.com or fj...@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Triple Quadrophenic
In article <32C9D3...@efgh.net>, ab...@efgh.net (Anonymous ) dusted off
>
>
>It is somewhat cool that you posted this statement on the last day of
>1996. As you may or may not already know, the year 1996 is only like 8
>other years in this milleneum in that it contains the number 666 within
>it. If you drop the '1' and invert the two '9's, you get the famed
>dreaded mark.
What about 1997? If you remove the 1, the two 9s and the 7; then put in
three 6s you get 666.
Tim Blackmore
In article <5ag2ui$3...@hbu005.ha.uk.sbphrd.com>,
Frank_H...@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>In article <32C9D3...@efgh.net>, ab...@efgh.net (Anonymous ) dusted off
>the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
>>
>
>>
>>1996. As you may or may not already know, the year 1996 is only like 8
>>other years in this milleneum in that it contains the number 666 within
>>it. If you drop the '1' and invert the two '9's, you get the famed
>>dreaded mark.
>
>three 6s you get 666.
Jeeze, you've got it all wrong! You simply invert the nines, and remove the
one from the seven! Voila!
Tim Blackmore tim_bl...@notes.ipl.ca
Lou
well....what if you take 666...and leave it alone.
lou
Triple Quadrophenic <Frank_H...@sbphrd.com.see-sig> wrote:
: In article <32C9D3...@efgh.net>, ab...@efgh.net (Anonymous ) dusted off
: the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
: >
: >
: >It is somewhat cool that you posted this statement on the last day of
: >1996. As you may or may not already know, the year 1996 is only like 8
: >other years in this milleneum in that it contains the number 666 within
: >it. If you drop the '1' and invert the two '9's, you get the famed
: >dreaded mark.
: What about 1997? If you remove the 1, the two 9s and the 7; then put in
: three 6s you get 666.
: --
: -- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
: Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
: Frank_H...@sbphrd.com or fj...@tutor.open.ac.uk
: These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
: sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
: team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
--
=======================================================================
email: lo...@primenet.com
Superdave the Wonderchemist
Tim Blackmore (tim_bl...@notes.ipl.ca) wrote:
: In article <5ag2ui$3...@hbu005.ha.uk.sbphrd.com>,
: Frank_H...@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
: >In article <32C9D3...@efgh.net>, ab...@efgh.net (Anonymous ) dusted off
: >the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
: >>
: >
: >>
: >>1996. As you may or may not already know, the year 1996 is only like 8
: >>other years in this milleneum in that it contains the number 666 within
: >>it. If you drop the '1' and invert the two '9's, you get the famed
: >>dreaded mark.
: >What about 1997? If you remove the 1, the two 9s and the 7; then put in
: >three 6s you get 666.
: Jeeze, you've got it all wrong! You simply invert the nines, and remove the
: one from the seven! Voila!
Nope, you subtract 1331 from 1997 and get 666! 1331 is an interesting
number in its own right as it is the same backwards as forewards! Not
only does it shamelessly display the unlucky 13 in both directions, but
it is also the fourth row in pascal's triangle:
1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1 and so on...
If that isn't enough, 1331 is also 11 cubed!!! Remember that
the most common isotope of boron is boron-11 and that boron
has only 3 electrons in its valence shell. Also take into
consideration that boron is famous for its 3 center
bridging bonds. The last 3 comes from the nuclear spin of boron-11,
which is 3/2, and that is 3 times the nuclear spin of hydrogen! Now that
we have boron and hydrogen together, we have boranes. Also 666 is man's
number. What all this means should be obvious by now:
1997 will be the year in which humans use boranes to bring about the
beginning of the end of the world!
-Superdave The Wonderchemist
tjs...@sd.cts.com
Superdave the Wonderchemist wrote:
>
> Tim Blackmore (tim_bl...@notes.ipl.ca) wrote:
> : In article <5ag2ui$3...@hbu005.ha.uk.sbphrd.com>,
> : Frank_H...@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
> : >In article <32C9D3...@efgh.net>, ab...@efgh.net (Anonymous ) dusted off
> : >the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
> : >>
> : >
> : >>
> : >>1996. As you may or may not already know, the year 1996 is only like 8
> : >>other years in this milleneum in that it contains the number 666 within
> : >>it. If you drop the '1' and invert the two '9's, you get the famed
> : >>dreaded mark.
> : >What about 1997? If you remove the 1, the two 9s and the 7; then put in
> : >three 6s you get 666.
>
> : Jeeze, you've got it all wrong! You simply invert the nines, and remove the
> : one from the seven! Voila!
>
> Nope, you subtract 1331 from 1997 and get 666! 1331 is an interesting
> number in its own right as it is the same backwards as forewards! Not
> only does it shamelessly display the unlucky 13 in both directions, but
> it is also the fourth row in pascal's triangle:
>
> 1
> 1 1
> 1 2 1
> 1 3 3 1
> 1 4 6 4 1 and so on...
>
> If that isn't enough, 1331 is also 11 cubed!!! Remember that
> the most common isotope of boron is boron-11 and that boron
> has only 3 electrons in its valence shell. Also take into
> consideration that boron is famous for its 3 center
> bridging bonds. The last 3 comes from the nuclear spin of boron-11,
> which is 3/2, and that is 3 times the nuclear spin of hydrogen! Now that
> we have boron and hydrogen together, we have boranes. Also 666 is man's
> number. What all this means should be obvious by now:
>
> 1997 will be the year in which humans use boranes to bring about the
> beginning of the end of the world!
>
> -Superdave The Wonderchemist
government
Depree, Jonathan A
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961231...@jersey.uoregon.edu> Kerry Delf <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu> writes:
>From: Kerry Delf <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
>Subject: Of Strange Flesh - re 666 & chemistry (fwd)
>Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:37:54 -0800
>PLEASE CC REPLIES TO <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
>---------------------------------------------
>I know that the post below is simply the esoteric jibberish of a
>kook-ranter; unfortunately, there are those who take it seriously.
>I am no microbiologist, and therefore do not have the information at my
>fingertips with which to debunk this bizarre theory -- I'm hoping someone
>with more knowledge of the subject can provide me <k...@jersey.uoregon.edu>
>with a brief, educated explanation as to why human biology just doesn't
>work this way. :)
>The basic claim made here by Adam Willson (based on the theories of a
>well-known [in certain circles] kook, Tani Jantsang) is that there are two
>separate species we label "human": one is based on Carbon-12 (6 protons,
>6 neutrons), while the other is based on some other Carbon isotope.
>Anyone care to take a stab at this one?
<snip>
Some things just aren't worth bothering with, this is one.
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him. (school history howler)
Anonymous
C13NMR as well as Mass Spec are basic fundamental tools that are used in
chemistry to figure out the molecular composition of unknown organis and
biochemical substances. Any time there would be a great abundance of
C13 in a biological sample, you would get extremely great 'spikes' in
your sample. Also, because many of the C13s might become adjacent, the
spectrum might begin to be more different. C13 is also a factor in the
analysis of biochem mass spec.
With regard to a 'species' carbon-12 and carbon-13 are chemically
equivalent. A very minor variation in chemical activity might take
place due to the difference in mass and inertia in the two atoms, but
they are only noticable when people or animals consume great amounts of
heavy water throughout time (Deuturium has twice the mass of Hydrogen,
whereas C13 has about 13/12ths difference, an effectively much greater
ratio. Everyone has about 1% of so C13 in their bodies. If a person
had more from consuming C13 food throughout time probably their DNA,
protiens, fats, and the like would still work the same. Unless an
organism would become sterile from 50 to 100% or so of it's body being
C13, (which might or might not be so for I don't know the biological
effects) such organisms would still be able to 'breed true', the
hallmark of a species (at least I think so, for I imagine the increased
mass would not make it different). Also, I should remind you that
people eat 'food' all the time. Unless for some reason that food has
been specifically made from the products of isotopic sorting, there is
not much reason why there would not be the standard 1 or so percent of
C13 in it, and people and animals construct their bodies from the carbon
compounds in the food they eat. There is, of course, also a small
percentage of C14, which is not stable, but decays into Nitrogen. That
can have significant mutagenic effects when the C14 is in the bases of a
DNA chain. There are many 'editing' protiens that will travel up and
down DNA chains that will specifically try to stop mutations that could
occur from such radioactive decays. A C13 organism would probably be
very similar to a C12 organism, and could be easily detected from basic
analytical techniques. You could become a C13 organism yourself by
eating C13 food throughout time, but I hear that would be expensive.
Anyway I am not sure that modifying the isotopic composition of an
organism by modifying its food intake would be the same as creating a
new species.