Can we detect a negative redshift of –c? / Brad Guth
Brad Guth
“In the case of visible light, a positive redshift does make the
source appear redder (a negative redshift makes it look bluer and the
opposite of a redshift is thus sometimes called a blueshift).” That
visual color shift should only become noticeable at +/- 0.1 c, whereas
+/- 0.999 c is where those visual attributes should become invisible
because those color shifts becomes near infinite.
Our universe is supposedly expanding at the redshift of <c, or perhaps
even interpreted by some as having been expanding at something greater
than c, and as such we simply can’t detect those items as they expand/
exit away from us.
If something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass super-star and its
tidal associated swarm of Jupiter+ sized planets w/moons plus its
outer Oort cloud) was headed as seemingly directly towards us at –c
(-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item and all the associated parts
regardless of their combined size, mass and vibrance of energy be
detected? (outside of whatever is reacting with the –c intruder, I
don’t think so)
A -c blueshift or negative redshift encounter of any substantial star
would likely offer at least a two year window of +/- detection unless
it were part of a –c galactic encounter, in which case a minimum
100,000 year window of detecting spectacular cosmic events would
likely be the case. Of course half way through our (–c) encounter
that’s knocking our galactic socks off, whereas midpoint it instantly
becomes a positive (c) redshift exit phase while zooming itself out
the backdoor of the Milky Way, so to speak.
On Apr 23, 5:09 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
: If your observed star is relatively close by, it's observed
: velocity will be limited by an upper bound approaching c.
: The further away it is (and the closer it gets to our
: cosmic horizon), the motion due to the expansion of the
: space between us and it has to be added to its motion
: through space, decreasing the net observed velocity.
:
: Near the horizon, a body moving at near c in its local space
: in a direction towards us will have a net velocity near
: zero (the best it could do would be to stand still with
: respect to us), and so its red shift would be very small.
:
: There is no way for a body to be observed moving towards
: us at c.
That's pretty much exactly what I’d thought. If we are moving away or
towards other mass at c or -c, we'd be oblivious as to realizing the
core or any central mass of its existence.
I understand there's a few rogue stars within our galaxy moving along
at 1500 km/sec, and it's thought possible that stars further out or
interacting with black holes could easily be moving at .5c(150,000 km/
sec), so what if an incoming star were moving towards the other .5c
outgoing star, making their mutual blueshift closing velocity -c. Due
to their relative closing velocity of this example being -c, could
either of those fast moving stars directly notice the other? (I don't
think so)
It seems anything moving away or towards us at c or –c (relative to
us) becomes either extremely dim or stealth/invisible. This simply
means we’re always at some degree of risk, unless FTL exogravity flux
can be detected. A substantial neutron star or black hole closing in
on us, even if it were passing well outside of Pluto could easily be a
cosmic form of fatal attraction, whereas just the gravitational
shockwave of perhaps as little as one light year radii alone could
perturb and/or traumatize most everything about our solar system.
Depending on its core mass (I’d suggested 2e31 kg), plus the
surrounding gravitational fields as to whatever assortments of large
planets and assorted debris forming their combined ionized particle
saturated shockwave as representing at the very least one light year
radii should offer a 2 year window of realizing its passing existence
(remember that our own solar cryogenic Oort cloud extends to nearly a
light year radii). Of course we'd likely be vaporized or at least
badly affected before we ever realized what just happened.
NGO (near galactic object):
Encountering a large galactic mass of say 1.4e42 kg like Andromeda of
150 ly diameter, might for example offer at least a 150,000 year
window or cycle of detection (more likely w/shockwave <1e6 years
worth). Perhaps a reasonably deductive swag as to our global warming
trend is just offering us such an indication (not that Newtonian tidal
interactions from our moon/Selene, Sirius as well as Andromeda are not
exactly insignificant, and that we humans haven’t been making our
environment measurably worse), whereas the mostly fluid mass of Earth
is acting as a gravitational tsunami detector of what we can’t
otherwise manage to see or detect seems likely.
Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9% c and thereby still
visible, it would likely be 2.5 million years before those pesky
galactic interactions started taking place, plus another couple
hundred thousand years worth of experiencing somewhat considerable
collateral damage before these galaxies parted away from one
another. So, any truly fast arriving galaxy that’s technically
invisible to us because of its –c blueshift velocity, as such could
become a real surprise once those unexplained cosmic interactions
start taking place. No doubt black holes have merged at –c and just
as suddenly gone out the other side at c, so there’s no telling when
or where those next little surprise encounter(s) will take place.
Fortunately, even edge on edge our Milky Way and Andromeda are wide
open spaces, of perhaps 99.9999% empty or devoid of significant
matter. So the odds of direct physical interactions are
astronomically slim. However, each of those passing shock waves
could prove too much for us.
In other words, we'd notice weird stuff before and after the direct
flyby encounter, but not notice the actual item itself if it were
moving at –c or c. At that velocity and associated mass, there’s be
little if any trajectory variation, so at least it’s detected and
computer theorized/simulated path of destruction isn’t going to shift
on us.
A vibrant main sequence star (especially a big one of 2e31 kg) with
its Oort cloud of at least one ly radii is going to take out 2 ly
worth of path just to migrate through our Milky Way at -c or c. Add a
few ly of radii in order to accommodate its outer shockwave and it
could become several extra years worth of being detected by way of all
the collateral damage taking place, not that we'd ever see the star
itself except for an extremely brief time when the blueshift of -c
becomes the redshift of c as it passes by.
On Apr 27, 5:30 am, "Anthony Buckland" wrote:
“Let's return to the impossibility of a material object actually
approaching us at -c, and assume something very close to -c, say 99.99
per cent of c. For another assumption, let's say you would notice a
substantial star with a monster blue shift at 10,000 light years
distance. The photons which are your only means of detecting it,
emitted at 10,000 ly distance, take 10,000 years to reach you.
Meanwhile, the star has moved to within one light year of you. The
photons it emitted at _that_ distance will reach you in a year, but
meanwhile the star will have approached to within less than one light-
hour from you. From the time of first detection, you're going to see
a very, very fast movie of the star's travels, during which time you
need to invent and implement the currently unknown engineering to
enable you to get some survivors the hell out of Dodge to one side of
the star's line of travel.”
You've essentially answered your first question. In other words, we
should notice loads of weird stuff before and after the direct flyby
encounter, but likely not notice the actual item itself if it were
moving at –c or c relative to us.
At a starting detection distance of 10,000 ly, of noticing that cosmic
illusion or weird distorted manifestation as moving directly towards
us at -c, whereas it would take 10,000 years for those initial
shockwaves of that sucker to reach us. It’s forward outer most Oort
cloud and/or the associated shockwaves would have to reach us first
before the primary star or whatever primary item so briefly presented
itself.
The only safe place out of Dodge would have to be several light years
away from its path, or perhaps surviving inside a substantial moon of
Jupiter or Saturn that’s somewhat protected by the enormous mass and
local geomagnetic field of its planet. Our semi hollow moon/Selene
with it’s thick and mineral saturated and fused crust could be
considered as our lifeboat, except that our NASA and DARPA have had
that one classified as taboo/nondisclosure. Of course by the time we
start noticing the cosmic shockwaves of shit hitting God’s fan, it’ll
be downright next to being too late, unless there’s already those
failsafe habitats established within our robust moon/Selene.
A vibrant main sequence star (especially a big or unusually dense one
of 2e31 kg) with its Oort cloud of at least one ly radii is going to
take out a good 2 ly sphere or tunnel worth of it's path just to
migrate through our Milky Way at -c or c. Add a few ly of radii in
order to accommodate its outer shockwave and it could become several
extra years worth of being detected by way of all the collateral
damage taking place, not that we'd ever see the star itself except for
an extremely brief time when the blueshift of -c becomes the redshift
of c as it passes by.
Fortunately, the Andromeda galactic encounter (even if it were
blueshifted at –c) is going to be taking place in relative slow
motion, lagging by 2.5 million years just to get started and then
<250,000 years as it merges and passes through our somewhat smaller
diameter galaxy. Of course by than the human species will no longer
exist on Earth because, roughly 249.9 million years before this
theoretical encounter is when the last viable resources for sustaining
intelligent life as we know it will have been consumed and/or WWX will
have finished off whatever few remaining humans, as well as our having
terminated most other forms of terrestrial biodiversity. However,
many will reasonably and logically argue that there’s no possible way
the resources of Earth and its overpopulation of humanity will outlast
another 100,000 years (not even if you’re a Rothschild).
At the current increase in consumption and rate of population growth,
our terrestrial energy, food, land and mineral resources will likely
be maxed-out by 2050 (call it “peak humanity”), unless significant
technological advancements and methods of food (especially meat),
fresh water and energy efficiency emerge as having little or no
environmental impact. Of course this can all be ignored up until the
very last minute (just like ignoring our glacial ice thaw), because
what could possibly go wrong.
Perhaps our peak humanity will not materialize for another century,
although peak resources may already be taking place, and with time
there’s always a chance of Earth encountering a fast moving asteroid,
an icy planetoid like Sedna, or something entirely exoweird coming our
way at –c that we obviously can’t stop or sufficiently prepare
ourselves for. So why bother trying to detect any –c blueshift? (when
at most any time it’ll all be over in a flash)
”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BURT
Light headed inward of the event horizon would undergo an infinite
energy shift as revealed by Pound Rebka light blue shift. But there
can be no infinite energy light.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
> Can we detect a blueshift of –c?
There is already a thread on that subject! Post there.
Brad Guth
>
> Light headed inward of the event horizon would undergo an infinite
> energy shift as revealed by Pound Rebka light blue shift. But there
> can be no infinite energy light.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Then use -99.9999% c as the negative redshift.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Thanks for that feedback, but this one is the new and improved (more
wordy) topic.
~ BG
BURT
So energy will go to zero in your theory?
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
The full negative redshift or -c blueshift should be extreme gamma,
whereas the positive redshift would be near zero energy.
~ BG
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are you acting like you know?
If red shift goes infinite at the event horizon then anything emitted
there would have zero energy and anything comming in would have
infinite.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
Correct, perhaps as infinite as Planck wavelengths and of >1e6 K for
representing the incoming stuff, and otherwise near zero Hz and near
zero K for the outgoing phase.
In other words, the faster you go the hotter you get. So, what's
heating up our solar system?
~ BG
Brad Guth
until they interact with something, and we only measure the speed of
light and of most everything else via timing, and therefore it’s never
objective.
Riding a planet or moon that’s moving along at c or –c makes no
difference, as long as you’re not running into other stuff that
technically doesn’t exist to the observer because of the +/- c thing.
It seems the same kinds of physics should apply to that of any fast
incoming item plus whatever’s associated that’s running towards or
away from us at 99.9999% c, whereas we can’t directly see it any
better than it can directly see us. In other words, perhaps photons
are extremely slow, as opposed to the weak force of gravity being
extremely fast.
It seems any number of photons and thus infinite energy density can
safely coexist with antimatter (such as black holes of positrons),
while those same photons and ordinary electron populated matter can
not safely coexist.
Perhaps when a positron saturated black hole implodes, it converts its
terrific density of positrons into electrons and photons that become
ordinary reactive matter. Perhaps everything at or above 99.9999% c
becomes essentially a black hole that only accepts photons, and w/o
electrons simply can’t emit photons.
~ BG
BURT
pointed it out at the heart of a black hole.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
A black hole is about all of what Hawking is. Sadly, of what little
mind there is can't hardly think or much less communicate on its own.
Hawking has a team of thinkers and communicators that use his near
functionless body as a nifty PR ruse in order to get mostly their
stuff into mainstream media.
~ BG
BURT
The math demonstrates black hole failure in terms infinities. Infinite
redshifts and blueshifts have been pointed out as nonsense
predictions. So is falling in at light speed at a black hole. This
gravity violating of the motion laws.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
Supposedly black holes represent a great deal of density and thus
capable of representing an astronomical amount of compacted energy, as
somewhat greater density and energy/cm3 than a neutron star, or
perhaps they are merely spent white dwarfs that on their last combined
breaths that shrunk themselves past whatever neutron density.
Multiple super-massive black holes are supposedly within the core of
every galaxy, and as such could pretty much override whatever
surrounding gravity and orbital dynamics in order to toss in or out
whatever excess or nearby mass at near c.
Given the vast number of galaxies, many/most considerably more
substantial than ours, whereas perhaps it’s a wonder we haven’t been
introduced to a few of those rogue displaced items that most galaxies
seem to have in surplus, not to mention the potential of collateral
flack whenever a pair of galaxies merge or sort of go bump in the
night.
Next consideration is the even greater number of white dwarfs that
used to be a whole lot bigger and massive enough as regular stars to
hold onto a large number of planets and their moons. This might
conservatively estimate as our universe hosting on average at least a
million fold more lost/rogue items than galaxies, as having been set
free or ejected at speeds far in excess of their respective escape
velocity.
Last but not least; Perhaps in order for the extremely weak force of
gravity to be so capably in charge, its velocity of propagation might
have to be worth 2c.
If any of this seems confusing, it certainly is to me.
~ BG
Brad Guth
compacted energy, as somewhat greater density and energy/cm3 than a
neutron star, or perhaps they are merely spent white dwarfs that on
neutron density.
Multiple super-massive black holes are supposedly within the core of
every galaxy, and as such could pretty much override whatever
surrounding gravity and orbital dynamics in order to toss in or out
whatever excess or nearby mass at near c.
Given the vast number of galaxies, many/most considerably more
substantial than ours, whereas perhaps it’s a wonder we haven’t been
introduced to a few of those rogue displaced items that most star
systems and galaxies seem to have in surplus, not to mention the
potential of collateral flack whenever a pair of galaxies merge or
sort of go bump in the night.
Next consideration is the even greater number of white dwarfs that
used to be a whole lot bigger and massive enough as regular stars to
hold onto a large number of planets and their moons. This might
conservatively estimate as our universe hosting on average at least a
million fold more lost/rogue items than galaxies, as having items set
free or ejected at speeds far in excess of their respective escape
velocity.
Last but not least; Perhaps in order for the extremely weak force of
gravity to be so capably in charge, its velocity of propagation might
have to be worth 2c.
If any of this seems confusing and excessively what-if worthy, it
certainly is to me.
~ BG
BURT
The strength of gravity has a limit. Light always overcomes it.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
>
> The strength of gravity has a limit. Light always overcomes it.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Not always.
~ BG
BURT
There are no boundaries in space. There are no event horizons. The
cosmological rule applies to local gravity.
Mitch Raemsch; The No Boundary Proposal Started with Albert Einstein
Brad Guth
Excessive gravity creates artificial boundaries.
Excessive energy creates matter.
Zero energy = zero mass and zero velocity.
Excessive velocity is lethal to life as we know it.
~ BG
Brad Guth
difference, as long as you’re not running into other stuff that
blueshift or negative redshift thing, although peering up, down and
side to side viewing of passing stars and galaxies should appear as
only somewhat skewed but otherwise normal.
How about accepting that we don’t directly see or otherwise detect the
quantum energy realm of actual photons until they interact with
something, and we only measure their speed or propagation along with
most of everything else via timing those interactions, and therefore
it’s never something entirely objective or otherwise referenced from
any given point in the universe because, everything is continually
moving and otherwise in orbit around something. In other words, it’s
all relative and subsequently subjective because there is not guide
star or even a guide galaxy that we can call our xyz 0,0,0 home or
cosmic hub, unless it’s well hidden somewhere within The Great
Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that’s invisible/
stealth like nothing else.
It seems the same kinds of physics should apply to that of any fast
incoming item plus whatever’s associated that’s running towards or
away from us at 99.9999% c, whereas we can’t directly see it any
better than it can directly see us. In other words, perhaps photons
are extremely slow, as opposed to that weak force of gravity being
extremely fast.
Secondly, it seems any number of photons and thus infinite energy
density can safely coexist with antimatter (such as within the EH of
positron black holes), where those same photons and ordinary electron
populated matter simply can not safely coexist.
Perhaps when a positron saturated black hole implodes, it converts its
terrific density of positrons into becoming electrons and photons that
become ordinary reactive matter. Perhaps everything at or above
99.9999% c has to become essentially a black hole of positrons that
only accepts photons, and w/o electrons simply can’t reflect or
otherwise emit photons to the +/c observer, while the up, down and
side to side viewing remains relatively normal.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Riding a planet or moon that’s moving you along at c or –c makes no
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
If equal amounts of postive matter fall in there is no black hole
evaporation.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
in order to explain everything better than I can muster, but the
intent or gist of what I’m saying shouldn’t be that far off the mark.
Riding a planet or moon that’s moving you along at c or –c makes no
difference, as long as you’re not running into other stuff that
technically doesn’t exist to the local observer because of that –c
blueshift or negative redshift thing, although as for the local
observer peering up, down and side to side that’s viewing other
passing stars and galaxies should appear as only somewhat skewed but
otherwise perfectly normal for observing whatever’s within the 90
degree halo. Any reasonable supercomputer as having accommodated this
3D simulation of light speed travel proves the truth of this analogy
beyond peer reviewed objections.
How about also accepting that we don’t directly see or otherwise
detect the quantum energy realm of actual photons until they interact
with something, and we only measure their speed or propagation along
with most of everything else via timing those interactions, and
therefore it’s never something entirely objective or otherwise
referenced from any given point in the universe because, everything is
continually moving and otherwise in orbit around something. In other
words, it’s all relative and subsequently subjective because there’s
not a guide star or even a guide galaxy that we can call our xyz 0,0,0
home or cosmic hub, unless it’s simply well enough hidden somewhere
within The Great Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL
that’s invisible/stealth like nothing else.
It seems the same kinds of physics should apply to that of any fast
incoming item plus whatever’s associated that’s running towards or
away from us at 99.9999% c, whereas we can’t directly see it any
better than it can directly see us until we’re near passing along side
one another. In other words, perhaps photons are extremely slow, as
opposed to that weak force of gravity being extremely fast, because
we’d likely realize the affects of its tidal gravity long before
detecting the item itself.
Secondly, it seems any number of photons and thus infinite energy
density can safely coexist with antimatter (such as within the EH of
positron saturated black holes), where those same photons of ordinary
electron populated matter simply can not safely coexist.
Perhaps when a positron saturated black hole exceeds critical mass and
implodes, it converts its terrific density of most all those positrons
into becoming electrons and photons that instantly morph into ordinary
reactive matter. Perhaps everything at or above 99.9999% c has to
become essentially a black hole of positrons that only accepts
photons, and w/o electrons simply can not reflect or otherwise emit
photons to the +/- c observers, even though their up, down and side to
side worth of local and remote viewing should remain relatively
normal.
In other common words, at +/-c is where the opposite of having forward/
backwards tunnel vision seems to apply, whereas instead there’s only
peripheral vision allowed of noticing whatever’s moving relative at
less than +/-c. I’m also thinking the forward shockwave of any star
and its planets moving at near c might actually to some extent clear a
path.
~ BG
On Apr 27, 7:25 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brad Guth
In other common words; at +/-c is where the opposite of having
forward/backwards tunnel vision seems to apply invisibility, whereas
instead there’s only peripheral vision allowed of noticing whatever’s
moving relative at less than +/-c. I’m also thinking the forward
shockwave of any star and its planets moving at near c might actually
to some extent clear a path.
~ BG
On Apr 27, 7:25 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BURT
mass as it accelerates.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
Perhaps at those speeds of near c, almost anything becomes matter/
antimatter fuel. Directing or projecting the trust of positron
reactions with the IGM of ordinary matter and electrons is all that's
necessary.
~ BG
hanson
---- ahahahaha.. No neg red shift but plenty without the "f" by
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> [edited for clarity] wrote:
No doubt there�s a whole lot better talent to explain everything
better than I can muster, but what I�m saying shouldn�t be that
far off the mark: ... Riding a planet or moon that�s moving you
along at c or �c [snip] hidden somewhere within The Great
Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that�s
invisible/stealth like [snip] remote viewing... ~ BG
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Brad, you said it already much, much better
when you wrote: "No doubt - on the mark - I'm not exactly
convinced that, I, Brad Guth took physics ".... ahahahaha...
>
That is excellent "remote viewing", close up and personal.
But, thanks for the laughs, Brad... ahahahaha... hahahanson
>
PS:
Brad, we did that "remote viewing" thing, professionally, in
ca 1960, and we saw you coming... See it here... remotely
:http://tinyurl.com/hanson-CIA-MI .... -5 is Guth's handler
Brad, learn to === ROLL IN THE RIGHT CIRCLES! ====
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Brad Guth
> ------- AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA -------
> ---- ahahahaha.. No neg red shift but plenty without the "f" by
>
> No doubt there’s a whole lot better talent to explain everything
> better than I can muster, but what I’m saying shouldn’t be that
> far off the mark: ... Riding a planet or moon that’s moving you
> along at c or –c [snip] hidden somewhere within The Great
> Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that’s
> invisible/stealth like [snip] remote viewing... ~ BG
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahaha... Brad, you said it already much, much better when you wrote: "No doubt - on the mark - I'm not exactly
>
> convinced that, I, Brad Guth took physics ".... ahahahaha...
>
> That is excellent "remote viewing", close up and personal.
> But, thanks for the laughs, Brad... ahahahaha... hahahanson
>
> PS:
> Brad, we did that "remote viewing" thing, professionally, in
> ca 1960, and we saw you coming... See it here... remotely
> Brad, learn to === ROLL IN THE RIGHT CIRCLES! ====
>
No doubt there’s a whole lot better talent in words and math of
applied physics wisdom, in order to explain everything better than I
can muster, but the intent or gist of what I’m saying shouldn’t be
that far off the mark or implausible, for asking ”Can we detect a
negative redshift of –c?” or “Can we detect a blueshift of –c?”.
Riding a planet or moon that’s moving you along at c or –c makes no
difference, as long as you’re not running into other stuff that
technically doesn’t exist to the local observer because of that –c
blueshift or negative redshift thing, although as for the local
observer peering up, down and side to side that’s viewing other
passing stars and galaxies should appear as only somewhat skewed but
otherwise perfectly normal for observing whatever’s within the 90 (+/-
10) degree halo. Any reasonable supercomputer as having accommodated
this 3D simulation of light speed travel proves the truth of this
analogy beyond peer reviewed objections, but then reasonable or even
logic has nothing to do with anything as far as the mainstream
mindset.
How about also accepting that we don’t directly see or otherwise
detect the quantum energy realm of actual photons until they interact
with something, whereas we only measure their speed or propagation
along with most of everything else via timing those interactions, and
therefore it’s never something entirely objective or otherwise
referenced from any given point in the universe because, everything is
continually moving and otherwise in orbit around something. In other
words, it’s all relative and subsequently subjective because there’s
not a guide star or even a guide galaxy that we can call our xyz 0,0,0
home or cosmic hub, unless it’s simply well enough hidden somewhere
within The Great Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL
~ BG
Too bad our beloved "hanson" is always so dumbfounded. But then
aren't all rednecks?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would assume all morons like you would be too.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
At least I'm some part of your God's plan, and even those seans have
known that I'm not the bad guy. What's your two-faced excuse?
~ BG
hanson
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
"hanson" wrote"
------- AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA -------
better than I can muster, but what I�m saying shouldn�t be that
far off the mark: ... Riding a planet or moon that�s moving you
along at c or �c [snip] hidden somewhere within The Great
Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that�s
invisible/stealth like [snip] remote viewing... ~ BG
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Brad, you said it already much, much better when
you wrote: "No doubt - on the mark - I'm not exactly convinced
excellent "remote viewing", close up and personal.
Brad, we did that "remote viewing" thing, professionally, in
ca 1960, and we saw you coming... See it here... remotely
Brad, learn to === ROLL IN THE RIGHT CIRCLES! ====
>
[snipped Brad's extended **repeat** that hanson posted above
which Brad concluded with some other bizarre comment;]
Too bad our beloved "hanson" is always so dumbfounded.
But then aren't all rednecks
>
I would assume all morons like you, Guth, would be too.
Mitch Raemsch
>
To save face, Bradi returned for an encore and wrote:
At least I'm some part of your God's plan, and even those seans
have known that I'm not the bad guy. What's your two-faced excuse?
>
wow, wow, wow, Bradi, you have or you are developing a bad
case of self-hate, .. common amongst Jews like yourself.
But listen, I never said nor even felt that you are a bad guy.
I wouldn't dream of it. You, and Mitch, have given me countless
hours of entertainment (during my lonely hours at 43k feet) to
keep my good spirits up. It is hilarious for me to read how
other folks do see and cope with the world around them.
Don't let me cramp your style, guys. Please, carry on, fellows....
and TRULY, thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Brad Guth
At least I'm some part of your God's plan, as even those seans have
known that I'm not the bad guy. What's your two-faced excuse?
Your buddy "hanson" shall come to your rescue. Perhaps you can pull
in Art Deco, rabbi Saul Levy and BDK while you're at it.
~ BG
Brad Guth
~ BG
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see you have come around to my personal God.
Cherio.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
>
> I see you have come around to my personal God.
>
> Cherio.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
I've never excluded your God. Just blamed him/her/it for all the bad
shit that could have been easily avoided.
~ BG
BURT
Yes. God kept up all that bad stuff so that you could not avoid Him.
Mitch Raemsch
Brad Guth
Your God is one bad ass dude or queen, a racist without any speck of
remorse to boot. No wonder your ZNR friends continually get away with
murder and worse things.
~ BG