Re: GOD GLASSES
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
GOD GLASSES
Copyright: George Hammond 2009
The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for what
is called (e.g. by the Catholic Church) the BEATIFIC VISION.
It is not my intent to give a crash course in Religion
for scientific heathens, but I will mention that the
scientific basis of God and the phenomenon of Beatific
Vision has been discovered, proven and published in the peer
reviewed academic literature by me (Hammond 2003):
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
and is now known to be caused by the Secular Trend in human
growth discovered 100 years ago.
Briefly, Secular Trend data shows that no human being is
fully grown, that is, our phenotypic size has never reached
our genotypic size and is only slowly doing so over a long
historical time. Roughly speaking, the average human being
today is about 20% more or less short of full theoretical
growth.
Since our brains are therefore 20% short of full growth,
it is not surprising that we can only see 80% of full normal
reality..... hence the term BEATIFIC VISION is used to
describe the reality that we WOULD see is we had the other
20% of our brain which is missing!
WHILE IT MAY BE HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF
YOU ARE AN ATHEIST, THIS PHENOMENON IS THE SCIENTIFIC
EXPLANATION OF "GOD", "RELIGION", "HEAVEN", "MIRACLES" AND
"ANGELS" AND EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF RELIGION
INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY.
Ok, so the Secular Trend growth deficit of the human
brain causes the world (aka reality) to appear BIGGER AND
FASTER than it actually is-- and it is that fact which
brings us around to the subject of EYEGLASSES.
Most people if they are over 40 develop presbyopia
(farsightedness) and have to start wearing eyeglasses. As
you may have noticed these glasses make things look BIGGER.
On the other hand, 15% of people who wear eyeglasses are
actually NEARSIGHTED (myopic), and they have to wear glasses
with negative lenses that actually make the world look
SMALLER.
AHA.......!
This tells us immediately that myopic (nearsighted)
people must be a very special breed! For one thing, in the
eternal quest towards finding the Beatific Vision which is
to downsize the world to it's true size and speed, MYOPICS
already have a leg up on the problem.... their glasses just
happen to make the world appear SMALLER!
By the same token, we see that the rest of us who are far
sighted just happen to be the victims of an enormous
historical optical accident... our glasses make the world
appear BIGGER which is moving in exactly the WRONG
DIRECTION vis a vis trying to move us towards the Beatific
Vision.
Anyway, this discovery that myopics wear negative glasses
tells us that myopics are actually one step ahead of the
rest of us insofar as actually being able to see the
Beatific Vision, i.e. actually being able to "see Heaven".
In that regard, we might actually consider myopics to be
living examples of what religion calls "angels". As the
scientific proof of God cited above shows, "angels" are
actually human personality types who have above average
growth (small growth deficits) and are generally elected to
leadership roles, many times as public servants. Teddy
Roosevelt was a famous myopic for instance.
This tells us that myopics are very special people
personality wise. And it turns out that I am not the first
one to discover this. Turns out the psychologists have long
been interested in the connection between myopia and
personality and intelligence. Myopics generally score high
on IQ tests and generally they have likeable and even
popular personalities.
According to my theory of course this is caused by the
fact that they develop psychological dominance because they
live in a Gulliver's Travels type of world where they are
actually surrounded by people who look like midgets..
remember their glasses make everybody look SMALLER than they
actually are.
A Google search of "myopia and personality" immediately
turns up numerous studies, but the one that I think hits the
nail on the head most accurately is one by Swanson:
http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/2/149
and here he finds that myopics make powerful CEO's who favor
high salaries for top executives and tend to be very
commanding, dominant and authoritative. All of this of
course points towards possession of a psychologically
dominant personality.
Ok... so we have now discovered the ADVANTAGE of wearing
NEGATIVE GLASSES.... glasses that make the world look
SAMALLER rather than bigger. And that brings me around to
my own particular case.
I am farsighted, and at age 67 I currently find myself
wearing +2.75 reading glasses nearly all day long. These
glasses have a magnification of about +10%... meaning they
make the world look 10% larger than it actually is. This is
a long way from the Beatific Vision needless to say, and
it's beginning to bother me. A 6' man strolling towards me
appears to be 6' 7" tall... which can be quite intimidating
in some circumstances. Generally speaking 10% magnification
of the world can engender an inferiority complex after
awhile.
So, being a physicist, I got to thinking about a possible
way to make some glasses which would correct my blurry
vision without magnifying the world, and in fact that would
actually MINIFY the world same as myopic glasses. Is this
possible? It turns out it is possible, although not very
convenient or easy.
In the first place, eyeglasses are used to correct
blurred vision. It turns out that the magnification caused
by eyeglasses is entirely ACCIDENTAL. The magnification is
caused by the 15 mm space between your eyes and your
glasses. This is demonstrated by putting on contact lenses
which rest right on the eye and noticing that they
immediately clear up your blurred vision but they produce
VIRTUALLY NO MAGNIFICATION!
This got me to thinking. Suppose a person with 20-20
vision put on positive contact lenses and negative
eyeglasses at the same time. The glasses would cancel out
the contacts so he would maintain clear vision, but since
the glasses magnify while contacts don't.... he would end up
with NEGATIVE MAGNIFICATION the same as myopics have.
In fact, I could do the same thing even though I need
positive correction to begin with. What I could do is go
get fitted for contact lenses to give me clear vision...
then go online and order some of the same contacts but add a
couple of diopters additional strength to the prescription
on the order form, and then buy some negative glasses from
another online source... and voila... I could enjoy the
"Beatific Vision" that the myopic angels already enjoy...
only having suffered with a magnified world for many years,
I could REALLY APPRECIATE IT!
Let me take a second to explain the Physics of all this.
It turns out negative eyeglasses plus positive contact
lenses constitute a "reversed Galilean Telescope". The
magnification of a Galilean telescope is given by F/f where
F and f are the focal length of the positive objective lens
and f is the focal length of the negative eyepiece.
Substituting d=F-f where d is the distance between the
contacts and the eyeglasses we can write the magnification
F/f as:
m=magnification = F/f = 1/(1-d/F) d in mm
this can be put in terms of diopters D, using D=1000/f as:
magnification = 1/(1-Dd) d in meters
for our setup d=15 mm, and if we use a 6D contact lens, the
magnification will be:
m = 1/(1-.015x6) = 1.1 which is a (minus) 10% magnification
which is about exactly what we looking for.
With this miraculous setup... and bear in mind that I
will probably be the FIRST HUMAN BEING IN HISTORY with
farsighted eyes to actually see what the world looks like to
a myopic, I fully expect to take one small step for me and
one large step for mankind into the BEATIFIC VISION ITSLEF.
Now myopics are already seeing this, but bear in mind
that myopics are born that way and therefore, unlike a
hyperopic like me, they don't know the difference... that's
what an angel is, somebody who is born that way and doesn't
know the difference. As for me, if my scientific theory is
correct, I'm about to be "BORN AGAIN"!
I'll be sure to keep you posted on developments as I go
forward with this plan. And by the way, since I am
volunteering to be the human guinea pig for this experiment
(I hesitate to say Hamster) and this is a pro bono non
profit, humane effort... if there is anyone out there who is
interested in the outcome and could assist me in defraying
the expenses of the contacts and eyeglass equipment...
please contact me at:
For your effort you will receive a written report of the
outcome of the experiment and credit in any publications I
make on the subject. And God bless you too.
Regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
Uncle Vic
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:53:37 -0400, George Hammond
>
>
> GOD GLASSES
>
<snip>
>
> Since our brains are therefore 20% short of full growth,
> it is not surprising that we can only see 80% of full normal
> reality..... hence the term BEATIFIC VISION is used to
> describe the reality that we WOULD see is we had the other
> 20% of our brain which is missing!
>
And since theist brains are about 80% short of full growth, it is not
surprising that they can only see about 20% of full normal reality -
the rest they make up to fill in the gaps.
Beatific Vision my ass!
--
Uncle Vic
AA#2011
George Hammond
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
<SNIP HECKLER CRAP>
>
>
Git outta here Schwartz... you're a jackass with nothin to
say.
ken
HAMMOND'S NOBEL SPEECH
This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
(ranting insanity snipped)
FYI..He's a poverty-stricken American physicist who decided to apply
his talents to the field of psychology, where he was extremely
successful, because physicists are smarter than psychologists and thus
have special insights that would never occur to a soft scientist.
Unfortunately, the government, afraid he was too close to discovering
their secret psy-ops experiments, held him as a political prisoner in
a Massachusetts insane asylum. Unperturbed, [Hammond] continued his
research, and in the process accidentally discovered the world's first
Scientific Proof of God. He has since become the leader of the Free
World
Zurab57
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:51:08 -0400, George Hammond
>
> <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
> GOD GLASSES
>
> copyright George Hammond 2009
>
> The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for what
> is called (e.g. by the Catholic Church) the BEATIFIC VISION.
>
> It is not my intent to give a crash course in Religion
> for scientific heathens, but I will mention that the
> scientific basis of God and the phenomenon of Beatific
> Vision has been discovered, proven and published in the peer
> reviewed academic literature by me (Hammond 2003):
>
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
>
> and is now known to be caused by the Secular Trend in human
> growth discovered 100 years ago.
>
> Briefly, Secular Trend data shows that no human being is
> fully grown, that is, our phenotypic size has never reached
> our genotypic size and is only slowly doing so over a long
> historical time. Roughly speaking, the average human being
> today is about 20% more or less short of full theoretical
> growth.
>
> it is not surprising that we can only see 80% of full normal
> reality..... hence the term BEATIFIC VISION is used to
> describe the reality that we WOULD see is we had the other
> 20% of our brain which is missing!
>
>
> For your effort you will receive a written report of the
> outcome of the experiment and credit in any publications I
> make on the subject. And God bless you too.
>
> Regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
I'm sorry, you must realize difference between presbyopia and
hypermetropia (with the use of ABBY Lingvo 12). What about very very
special people for abour 50-100 genetic disorders (without use of
Margalini, Sergio I. And Euclide Scrascia. Dictionary of Medical
Syndromes, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1981.) and every
disease gives most often about 1% in homozygous and about 4% in
homozygous state, (without works of K. Mather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Mather)you
can easily sea, that almost every one of us is very special person.
(with the help of the google speller).
stee
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:03:00 -0700, Uncle Al
>
>
> <SNIP HECKLER CRAP>
...
sir, you are absolutely not controversial
put your shit in two lines if you want me
to read, i dont have time to read that shit,
i have too much to do,
we are electronic engineers around here
Syd
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Vic
>
> <vic...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Git outta here jackass... this is a professional discussion,
>
If it is, your otta your league, Hammond.
PDW
panam...@hotmail.com
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Vic
>
> <vic...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Git outta here jackass... this is a professional discussion,
George, you know better than to post your nonsense to alt.atheism. And
you *should* know better than to post it to s.p.r. They got *real*
physicists over there....
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Syd
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
No answer?
Typical.
PDW
panam...@hotmail.com
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
Reinstate heckler crap!
Read Hammond's website, and you'll know why....<g>
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/
Here's a few sane takes on his "work":
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/midweek-cuckoo-george-hammond/
http://www.insolitology.com/topten/georgehammond.htm
http://jbg.jth.ch/ng/ng_meta.html
George Hammond
<zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
<snip original target post>
>
>
>I'm sorry, you must realize difference between presbyopia and
>hypermetropia (with the use of ABBY Lingvo 12).
>
>
Sorry... actually I didn't know before you pointed out
the difference between the two terms.
I'm not an opthamologist, I'm a physicist, and in common
parlance the words presbyopia and hyperopia are often used
interchangably since they both refer to FARSIGHTEDNESS. I
didn't realize that presbyopia is stricly the common
everyday "old age farsightedness" while hyperopia refers to
a genetic condition of the same type.
Either way however nomenclature difference is irrelevant
to the scientific proposal I have put forward and doesn't
change anything. The proposal would be valid for ANY kind
of farsightedness and obviously it is aimed at common garden
variety presbyopia.
>
>
> What about very very
>special people for abour 50-100 genetic disorders (without use of
>Margalini, Sergio I. And Euclide Scrascia. Dictionary of Medical
>Syndromes, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1981.) and every
>disease gives most often about 1% in homozygous and about 4% in
>homozygous state, (without works of K. Mather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Mather)you
>can easily sea, that almost every one of us is very special person.
>(with the help of the google speller).
>
>
Sure there are a myriad eye diseases..... but PRESBYOPIA
is by far the most common reason for wearing glasses in
America today... so again.... the existence of 50 different
genetic diseases is still irrelevant to the scientific
thesis I have put forward.
Thanks for your on topic post.
Immortalist
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Immortalist
There is an evolutionary theory about how humans are born premature
because their heads would be to big for the crack hole size between
mammas legs. There are also evolutionary theories about how features
like being short of full growth could be selected for and be passed on
by the genes. Your theory doesn't make these theories impossible
therefore these theories weaken your theory.
Immortalist
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Zurab57<zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip original target post>
>
> >I'm sorry, you must realize difference between presbyopia and
> >hypermetropia (with the use of ABBY Lingvo 12).
>
> [Hammond]
> Sorry... actually I didn't know before you pointed out
> the difference between the two terms.
> I'm not an opthamologist, I'm a physicist, and in common
> parlance the words presbyopia and hyperopia are often used
> interchangably since they both refer to FARSIGHTEDNESS. I
> didn't realize that presbyopia is stricly the common
> everyday "old age farsightedness" while hyperopia refers to
> a genetic condition of the same type.
> Either way however nomenclature difference is irrelevant
> to the scientific proposal I have put forward and doesn't
> change anything. The proposal would be valid for ANY kind
> of farsightedness and obviously it is aimed at common garden
> variety presbyopia.
>
> > What about very very
> >special people for abour 50-100 genetic disorders (without use of
> >Margalini, Sergio I. And Euclide Scrascia. Dictionary of Medical
> >Syndromes, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1981.) and every
> >disease gives most often about 1% in homozygous and about 4% in
> >can easily sea, that almost every one of us is very special person.
> >(with the help of the google speller).
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure there are a myriad eye diseases..... but PRESBYOPIA
> is by far the most common reason for wearing glasses in
> America today... so again.... the existence of 50 different
> genetic diseases is still irrelevant to the scientific
> thesis I have put forward.
>
If your supposed scientific theory is falsifiable, what kind of
research results would falsify it?
> Thanks for your on topic post.
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
George Hammond
>[Immortalist]
>There is an evolutionary theory about how humans are born premature
>because their heads would be to big for the crack hole size between
>mammas legs. There are also evolutionary theories about how features
>like being short of full growth could be selected for and be passed on
>by the genes. Your theory doesn't make these theories impossible
>therefore these theories weaken your theory.
>
>
[Hammond]
Well thanks for posting something on topic... I am truly
grateful for that small favor.
But no... the well known Secular Trend in Human Growth is
NOT an "Evolutionary theory" certainly not in the sense of
Darwin.
It turns out that the Secular Trend in growth appears in
ALL LIVING SPECIES... including both plants and animals and
is far more general and fundamental biological phenmenon
than mere Evolution.
In fact, it appears that the only living thing (DNA
based) that does not have a Secular Trend in growth is a
VIRUS... since you can actually count the number of atoms in
a virus you can demonstrate that all of them have the same
number of atoms... therefore they are de facto "fully
grown".
As for every other species.... dogs, cats, horses, fish,
bacteria, orchids, trees etc.... there is a definite
shortfall between the phenotype and the genotype and the
slow inevitable decrease in this difference is known as the
"Secular Trend" for that species. Sure, Natural Selection
plays a part in it... but fundamentally it is the increasing
standard of living that is the prime mover of the Secular
Trend.
This increased standard of living is quite obvious in
humans... mainly increasing nutrition over the span of
civilization etc.
Thanks for your post...
George Hammond
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>If your supposed scientific theory is falsifiable, what kind of
>research results would falsify it?
>
[Hammond]
What theory are you talking about? The SPOG, my
discovery of the Structural Model of Personality, my theory
of Myopic visual dominence, or what?
What ever you do don't start with me about scientific
theories in general...I have an M.S. in Physics the purpose
of which is to certify that I know what a valid scientific
theory is and any argument to the contrary is nothing but
pseudointellectual heckling.
Uncle Vic
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Vic
> <vic...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
> Git outta here jackass... this is a professional discussion,
> ....you got nothin to say.
>
You're deriving income from stories about God Glasses? IOW, your'e
fleecing the flock? Where do I sign up?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
My modern calendar ends on 12/31/09. There are no days after that, so
it's obviously the date of the end of the world!
Uncle Vic
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:48:56 -0700 (PDT),
> panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
> <snip>
<snap>
<PLANK>
Haywire
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:53:37 -0400, George Hammond
>
>
> For your effort you will receive a written report of the
> outcome of the experiment and credit in any publications I
> make on the subject. And God bless you too.
>
> Regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
Remember kids: when in doubt, make shit up.
Robibnikoff
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:mqvv85tsjaskl6s5v...@4ax.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Vic
> <vic...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
> Git outta here jackass... this is a professional discussion,
> ....you got nothin to say.
Oh, the irony.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA
#1557
Yap
Ah, you mean you are only 20% developed?
No wonder what you wrote does not make sense.
Our normal human who are 99% developed do not need any god.
jemcd
wrote:
>On Aug 22, 6:12�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:53:37 -0400, George Hammond
>>
>> <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>
>> � � � � � � � � � � � � �GOD GLASSES
>>
..are not as much fun as beer goggles
Neil B.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4A8FFA94...@hate.spam.net...
> George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> GOD GLASSES
>>
>> copyright George Hammond 2009
>>
>> The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for what
>> is called (e.g. by the Catholic Church) the BEATIFIC VISION.
>
> "The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for" money and
> power. Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot
> fill it? Sure! ALL OF THEM.
>
> idiot
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
>
> 1) The halfling faggot god-on-a-stick died for your sins.
> 2) If you do not sin, Christ died in vain.
> 3) Get on with it.
>
> Strike a match lit - that is science.
> Pray the same match lit a second time - that's faith. We'll wait.
>
> The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Hitler's Pope Pius XII. Northern
> Ireland, East Timor. Extermination of 30 million New World indios.
> Tens of thousands of reported cases of priestly homosexual
> pedophilia. Those is the One True Church spreading the faith.
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm
>
> idiot
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Point taken, but I'm not sure about the "faggot" stuff.
Don't forget all those non-religiously motivated Nazis, ethnicity
militants who massacred millions in Rwanda etc, and Communists like
Stalin.
George Hammond
<hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ah, you mean you are only 20% developed?
>No wonder what you wrote does not make sense.
>Our normal human who are 99% developed do not need any god.
>
>
[Hammond]
Na.... Secular Trend data prove conclusively that you are
no where near 99% fully grown.... the population average of
the world is only about 80% and some people a hell of a lot
less... a moron like you probably doesn't even reach 80%.
And BTW having 2 and 1/2 university degrees in
theoretical Physics proves I must be be in the top
percentage.
As for "GOD" that is the visual phenomena caused by the
missing 20% of our brains.... and OBVIOUSLY.... every one
has a "GOD" whether they like it or not or whether they
believe it or not. Tough shit for an atheist, that's for
sure.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Well whoever invented "beer goggles" at least has half a
clue as to what God is... that's more than you can say.
Probably invented by an Irishman do doubt.
jemcd
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:40:29 -0500, jemcd wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:46:22 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 22, 6:12�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:53:37 -0400, George Hammond
>>>>
>>>> <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> � � � � � � � � � � � � �GOD GLASSES
>>>>
>>
>>..are not as much fun as beer goggles
>>
>>
>[Hammond]
> Well whoever invented "beer goggles" at least has half a
>clue as to what God is... that's more than you can say.
>Probably invented by an Irishman do doubt.
And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
I knew I was making a joke, that's more than you can say.
Ken
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Vic
>
> <vic...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Git outta here jackass... this is a professional discussion,
> ....you got nothin to say.
But you're a Professional Jackass with nothing to say!
Ken
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
Poor Demented George.
No one even bothers to reply to his rantings and ravings, 'cept
himself
Hammond born : 1942, hit his head in 1981, was never the same again.
A well-known kook, having written a book called "The Origin of the
Cross" that featured a weird 4-sided numerology, and having been
featured in the book "Kooks Outtakes" for it, and now putting on a web
site his "THE WORLD'S FIRST SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD".
Georgey is a funny boy, / His mind is missing a cog.
He comes to all the newsgroups, / And shouts about his SPOG
All those who read his ravings / Just shower him with taunts,
But to be our new messiah / Is all George really wants!
He started by studying physics, / But that didn't go too well.
Partly because of his insanity, / And partly 'cause of the smell.
He wound up undercover, / Researched in secret (For ten years!).
Studying the world from a mental home, / Until at last the answer
became clear!
The cause of his pain and his failure! / Brain growth deficiency = God
and hence,
God is a gravity eigenvector / And George is a little too dense!!
AZ Nomad
> As for "GOD" that is the visual phenomena caused by the
>missing 20% of our brains.... and OBVIOUSLY.... every one
>has a "GOD" whether they like it or not or whether they
>believe it or not. Tough shit for an atheist, that's for
>sure.
Tough shit for you, liar.
Emerson
> HAMMOND'S NOBEL SPEECH
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
>
> (ranting insanity snipped)
>
> FYI..He's a poverty-stricken American physicist who decided to apply
> his talents to the field of psychology, where he was extremely
> successful, because physicists are smarter than psychologists and thus
> have special insights that would never occur to a soft scientist.
> Unfortunately, the government, afraid he was too close to discovering
> their secret psy-ops experiments, held him as a political prisoner in
> a Massachusetts insane asylum. Unperturbed, [Hammond] continued his
> research, and in the process accidentally discovered the world's first
> Scientific Proof of God. He has since become the leader of the Free
> World
Oh god this is rich stuff. He got onto this website:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169605&p=2100092#p2100092
My name is anthem on that board. These type of people crack me up...
ken
>
> My name is anthem on that board. These type of people crack me up..
Lil Georgie surfaces on USENET once in a while.
Perhaps he's been given access to the ward's day-room PC as a reward
for behaving himself in front of the other patients.
BTW----I can't claim responsibility for most of the comments
concerning George and his SPOG as they have been copied from
others........................but they are sure funny...K
Emerson
Beatific vision indeed...you know you're basing your 'proof' off a
theory, right? That's just a fallacy within a wrong within a dumb.
ken
Hammond indeed does excel at one subject......Circular Thinking...K
<SNIP HECKLER CRAP>
Don Stockbauer
> On Aug 22, 3:51 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
> > GOD GLASSES
>
> 12 DIFFERENT COLLECTIBLES!
>
> NOW AT WAL-MART!
>
> Only $2.99 each
>
> COLLECT THE WHOLE SET!
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
IF GOD NEEDS GLASSES, DOESN'T THAT KILL THE WHOLE OMNIPOTENCE THEORY?
George Hammond
[Hammond]
christ..... an actual sign of intelligent life!
The ONLY DIFFERENCE between God and Man is that Man only
sees 80% of reality more or less, while God sees 100% of
reality. In technical terms Man sees a CURVED VERSION of
reality.
It turns out that NEGATIVE eyeglasses actually make a
small step towards "UNCURVING" reality. (positive glasses
actually make it worse).
This explains the peculiar personality of myopics, what
has been dubbed by psychologists as the "myopic
personality"... or what I call the "Teddy Roosevelt
personality". Naturally the psycholgists have never been
able to pinpoint exactly what it is... turns out it isn't a
"personality" trait at all, it is a "growth deficit trait",
namely: Negative glasses downsize the world (uncurve the
world) to a noticeable degree, and this eventually gives the
myopic an "angelic presence" whereby they have an artifical
but real psychological dominence from being one step closer
to the Beatific Vision than the rest of us. Of course they
don't know explicitly know it..they intuitively know it, and
they just have to live with it... "amazing grace" I guess
you could call it. There are 3 times as many farsighted
people as nearsighted by the way. And only 1/3 of them wear
really strong glasses... thus making "myopic angels" kind of
rare.
This means that if I rig some glasses that will allow a
hyperopic (farsighted) person like me to see the reality a
myopic (nearsighted) person sees... I can actually get one
step closer to Heaven... two steps actually because I'm
already one step away from it by wearing positive glasses.
Frankly I can't wait to see it.... all I have to do is go
get fitted for contacts, order some extra strength ones and
then buy some negative glasses to neutralize the extra
magnification and I will wind up with say a minus 7%
(myopic) view of reality.
Maybe if I stop smoking two packs of ciggarettes a day at
7 bucks a pack I can get up the money to actually do this.
I'll keep you posted on progress.
Ragnar
"Emerson" <gon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a94d11fc-ed50-49df...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Oh god this is rich stuff. He got onto this website:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169605&p=2100092#p2100092
My name is anthem on that board. These type of people crack me up...
Er... do you mean 'anathema' ?
R.
Ken
Your Mommy should have been snipped prior to her impregnation.
Hey Georgie....A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but that comment
is way too late 4U
hanson
-------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
----- Science off-shoot from the 3rd Reich --------
-------------------- by --------------------
Gergi/Grodi/Georgi, the Nazi & Arch Anti-Semite, aka
the ungodly Hemorrhoid Hammond "George Hammond"
<Nowh...@notspam.com> who pontificated & wrote:
[edited for brevity, clarity & Grodi's benefit who said]
>
Gergi/Grodi wrote:
GOD "GL" ASSES (copyright George Hammond 2009)
The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for what is
>
It is my intent to crash Religion for scientific heat but I am
Beating off God as was proven by me, Hammond, in 2003:
http://wangodan.googlepages.com/KriminalHammondInferno2.jpg
BEATIFIC VISION WHILE IT MAY BE HARD FOR YOU TO
BELIEVE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF "GOD",
make the world look SMALLER in the WRONG DIRECTION.
>
Actually the scientific POOF of God cited above shows "angels"
which according to my theory look SMALLER than they actually
are thru the ADVANTAGE of wearing NEGATIVE GLASSES.
>
||||| I, Hammond am farsighted, and at age 67 I currently
>
So, being a physicist, I got to correct my blurry vision without
magnifying the world that would MINIFY the world entirely and
ACCIDENTALLY produce VIRTUALLY NO MAGNIFICATION
with NEGATIVE MAGNIFICATION ... and voila... I could enjoy
the "Beatific Vision" that the myopic angels APPRECIATE!
>
The Physics of negative eyeglasses plus positive contact
lenses constitute a "reversed Galilean Telescope" with
### m=magnification = F/f = 1/(1-d/F) d in mm ####
With this miraculous setup I will be the FIRST HUMAN BEING
IN HISTORY with BEATIFIC VISION to be "BORN AGAIN"!
>
The ONLY DIFFERENCE between God & Man is that Man only
sees 80% of reality more or less, while God sees 100% of
reality. In technical terms Man sees a CURVED VERSION of
>
|||| This explains my, G. Hammonds, peculiar personality as a
|||| "cerebral growth deficit trait" with "amazing grace" thus
|||| making "myopic angels" kind of rare. I can actually get one
|||| one step away from it by wearing positive glasses.
|||| 7 bucks a pack I can get up the money to actually do this.
>
>
=====================================
Primary site [all corrected for accuracy]
http://webspaced-out.com/hemmies/grodi_hammond
1st Hemorrhoid's mirror site
http://georgi.com/scientific_Poof_of_god
2nd Hemorrhoid's mirror site
http://Poof-of-god.on-the-freehustling.com
GOD=G_uv (an un-godly poof by G_oofy George)
=====================================
=======================================
>
>
Previous fun with Hemmie Hammond:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8aafb6c2930d6b38
http://tinyurl.com/m8sreg
Thanks for the laughs, Grodi, you Aryian Brown Shirt.
ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Don Stockbauer
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer
>
>
>
> <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 3:44 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 3:51 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
> >> > GOD GLASSES
>
> >> 12 DIFFERENT COLLECTIBLES!
>
> >> NOW AT WAL-MART!
>
> >> Only $2.99 each
>
> >> COLLECT THE WHOLE SET!
>
> >> Tom Davidson
> >> Richmond, VA
>
> >IF GOD NEEDS GLASSES, DOESN'T THAT KILL THE WHOLE OMNIPOTENCE THEORY?
>
> [Hammond]
> christ..... an actual sign of intelligent life!
Did it just for you, George.
hanson
<.@..com> wrote: ----- ahahahahahaha ---------
>>
hanson wrote:
It was funny, wasn't it. Here it is again for your entertainment:
Don Stockbauer
> Hemmie Hammond as "<SNIP HECKLER CRAP>"<.@..com> wrote: ----- ahahahahahaha ---------
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> It was funny, wasn't it. Here it is again for your entertainment:
>
> ------------------ ahahahahahaha --------------------
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
> ----- Science off-shoot from the 3rd Reich --------
> -------------------- by --------------------
> Gergi/Grodi/Georgi, the Nazi & Arch Anti-Semite, aka
> the ungodly Hemorrhoid Hammond "George Hammond"
> GOD=G_uv (an un-godly poof by G_oofy George)
> =====================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://intense-Bang.jwgh.org/hammorroid-songs
> =======================================
>
>
> Thanks for the laughs, Grodi, you Aryian Brown Shirt.
> ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
God and The Universe are identical concepts.
Don Stockbauer
> "Don, the Con, Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com>,
> from library of the Stockade where he is warehoused at, wrote:
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> Hemmie Hammond as "<SNIP HECKLER CRAP>"<.@..com> wrote: ----- ahahahahahaha ---------
>
> hanson wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the laughs, Grodi, you Aryian Brown Shirt.
> ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
> God and The Universe are identical concepts.
>
>
> Don it looks like that you are Hemmie Hammond's right
> hand man now: See here: <http://tinyurl.com/merwa2>
>
> or are you trying to suck up to me since you got that
> "Global Brain" indoctrination during your Big House
> stint? Did they let you out to peddle some of my friend
> Hemmie Hammond's "negative beatific glasses?"
> Either way, thanks for the laughs too.... ahahahanson.
Any time, bud.
hahahahahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhavala
Emerson
> "Emerson" <gon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a94d11fc-ed50-49df...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
> My name is anthem on that board. These type of people crack me up...
>
> Er... do you mean 'anathema' ?
> R.
Not as far as I know. Like 'anthem of the heart and anthem of the
mind.' Do you have some kind of beef with me I don't know about?
douglas
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:51:08 -0400, George Hammond
>
> <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
> GOD GLASSES
>
> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>
> The central goal of all of Religion is a quest for what
>
> It is not my intent to give a crash course in Religion
> for scientific heathens, but I will mention that the
> scientific basis of God and the phenomenon of Beatific
> Vision has been discovered, proven and published in the peer
> reviewed academic literature by me (Hammond 2003):
>
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
>
> and is now known to be caused by the Secular Trend in human
> growth discovered 100 years ago.
>
> Briefly, Secular Trend data shows that no human being is
> fully grown, that is, our phenotypic size has never reached
> our genotypic size and is only slowly doing so over a long
> historical time. Roughly speaking, the average human being
> today is about 20% more or less short of full theoretical
> growth.
>
> Since our brains are therefore 20% short of full growth,
> it is not surprising that we can only see 80% of full normal
> reality..... hence the term BEATIFIC VISION is used to
> describe the reality that we WOULD see is we had the other
> 20% of our brain which is missing!
>
> WHILE IT MAY BE HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF
> YOU ARE AN ATHEIST, THIS PHENOMENON IS THE SCIENTIFIC
> EXPLANATION OF "GOD", "RELIGION", "HEAVEN", "MIRACLES" AND
> INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY.
>
> Ok, so the Secular Trend growth deficit of the human
> brain causes the world (aka reality) to appear BIGGER AND
> FASTER than it actually is-- and it is that fact which
> brings us around to the subject of EYEGLASSES.
>
> Most people if they are over 40 develop presbyopia
> (farsightedness) and have to start wearing eyeglasses. As
> you may have noticed these glasses make things look BIGGER.
> On the other hand, 15% of people who wear eyeglasses are
> actually NEARSIGHTED (myopic), and they have to wear glasses
> with negative lenses that actually make the world look
> SMALLER.
>
> AHA.......!
>
> This tells us immediately that myopic (nearsighted)
> people must be a very special breed! For one thing, in the
> eternal quest towards finding the Beatific Vision which is
> to downsize the world to it's true size and speed, MYOPICS
> already have a leg up on the problem.... their glasses just
> happen to make the world appear SMALLER!
> By the same token, we see that the rest of us who are far
> sighted just happen to be the victims of an enormous
> historical optical accident... our glasses make the world
> appear BIGGER which is moving in exactly the WRONG
> DIRECTION vis a vis trying to move us towards the Beatific
> Vision.
> Anyway, this discovery that myopics wear negative glasses
> tells us that myopics are actually one step ahead of the
> rest of us insofar as actually being able to see the
> Beatific Vision, i.e. actually being able to "see Heaven".
> In that regard, we might actually consider myopics to be
> living examples of what religion calls "angels". As the
> scientific proof of God cited above shows, "angels" are
> actually human personality types who have above average
> growth (small growth deficits) and are generally elected to
> leadership roles, many times as public servants. Teddy
> Roosevelt was a famous myopic for instance.
> This tells us that myopics are very special people
> personality wise. And it turns out that I am not the first
> one to discover this. Turns out the psychologists have long
> been interested in the connection between myopia and
> personality and intelligence. Myopics generally score high
> on IQ tests and generally they have likeable and even
> popular personalities.
> According to my theory of course this is caused by the
> fact that they develop psychological dominance because they
> live in a Gulliver's Travels type of world where they are
> actually surrounded by people who look like midgets..
> remember their glasses make everybody look SMALLER than they
> actually are.
> A Google search of "myopia and personality" immediately
> turns up numerous studies, but the one that I think hits the
> nail on the head most accurately is one by Swanson:
>
> http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/2/149
>
> and here he finds that myopics make powerful CEO's who favor
> high salaries for top executives and tend to be very
> commanding, dominant and authoritative. All of this of
> course points towards possession of a psychologically
> dominant personality.
>
> Ok... so we have now discovered the ADVANTAGE of wearing
> NEGATIVE GLASSES.... glasses that make the world look
> SAMALLER rather than bigger. And that brings me around to
> my own particular case.
> I am farsighted, and at age 67 I currently find myself
> wearing +2.75 reading glasses nearly all day long. These
> glasses have a magnification of about +10%... meaning they
> make the world look 10% larger than it actually is. This is
> a long way from the Beatific Vision needless to say, and
> it's beginning to bother me. A 6' man strolling towards me
> appears to be 6' 7" tall... which can be quite intimidating
> in some circumstances. Generally speaking 10% magnification
> of the world can engender an inferiority complex after
> awhile.
> So, being a physicist, I got to thinking about a possible
> way to make some glasses which would correct my blurry
> vision without magnifying the world, and in fact that would
> actually MINIFY the world same as myopic glasses. Is this
> possible? It turns out it is possible, although not very
> convenient or easy.
>
> In the first place, eyeglasses are used to correct
> blurred vision. It turns out that the magnification caused
> by eyeglasses is entirely ACCIDENTAL. The magnification is
> caused by the 15 mm space between your eyes and your
> glasses. This is demonstrated by putting on contact lenses
> which rest right on the eye and noticing that they
> immediately clear up your blurred vision but they produce
> VIRTUALLY NO MAGNIFICATION!
>
> This got me to thinking. Suppose a person with 20-20
> vision put on positive contact lenses and negative
> eyeglasses at the same time. The glasses would cancel out
> the contacts so he would maintain clear vision, but since
> the glasses magnify while contacts don't.... he would end up
> with NEGATIVE MAGNIFICATION the same as myopics have.
> In fact, I could do the same thing even though I need
> positive correction to begin with. What I could do is go
> get fitted for contact lenses to give me clear vision...
> then go online and order some of the same contacts but add a
> couple of diopters additional strength to the prescription
> on the order form, and then buy some negative glasses from
> another online source... and voila... I could enjoy the
> "Beatific Vision" that the myopic angels already enjoy...
> only having suffered with a magnified world for many years,
> I could REALLY APPRECIATE IT!
>
> Let me take a second to explain the Physics of all this.
> It turns out negative eyeglasses plus positive contact
> lenses constitute a "reversed Galilean Telescope". The
> magnification of a Galilean telescope is given by F/f where
> F and f are the focal length of the positive objective lens
> and f is the focal length of the negative eyepiece.
> Substituting d=F-f where d is the distance between the
> contacts and the eyeglasses we can write the magnification
> F/f as:
>
> m=magnification = F/f = 1/(1-d/F) d in mm
>
>
> magnification = 1/(1-Dd) d in meters
>
> for our setup d=15 mm, and if we use a 6D contact lens, the
> magnification will be:
>
> m = 1/(1-.015x6) = 1.1 which is a (minus) 10% magnification
> which is about exactly what we looking for.
>
> With this miraculous setup... and bear in mind that I
> will probably be the FIRST HUMAN BEING IN HISTORY with
> farsighted eyes to actually see what the world looks like to
> a myopic, I fully expect to take one small step for me and
> one large step for mankind into the BEATIFIC VISION ITSLEF.
> Now myopics are already seeing this, but bear in mind
> that myopics are born that way and therefore, unlike a
> hyperopic like me, they don't know the difference... that's
> what an angel is, somebody who is born that way and doesn't
> know the difference. As for me, if my scientific theory is
> correct, I'm about to be "BORN AGAIN"!
>
> I'll be sure to keep you posted on developments as I go
> forward with this plan. And by the way, since I am
> volunteering to be the human guinea pig for this experiment
> (I hesitate to say Hamster) and this is a pro bono non
> profit, humane effort... if there is anyone out there who is
> interested in the outcome and could assist me in defraying
> the expenses of the contacts and eyeglass equipment...
> please contact me at:
>
> research56621...@hotmail.com
>
> For your effort you will receive a written report of the
> outcome of the experiment and credit in any publications I
> make on the subject. And God bless you too.
>
> Regards, George Hammond M.S. Physics
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> =======================================
What is this?!!!!!?
Neil Brooks
[snip]
George?
Set the pipe down.
It's alllll gonna' be just fine.....
George Hammond
>[douglas wrote:]
>What is this?!!!!!?
>
[Hammond]
CAUTION
Dear douglas,
You must be posting from either sci.med.vision, s.p.r.,
or sci.philosophy.tech. I must caution you that the
original target post has been posted on over 15 scientific,
philosophical and theological newsgroups plus a few private
moderated forums and Listservs and has attracted a great
deal of interest. Hopefully you are a professional of some
sort.
Some of these groups contain internet hecklers and kooks. I
tried to crosspost groups in equivalence classes... for
instance not many kooks would be expected to hang out on
sci.med.vision so it is grouped with Relativity and
sci.philosophy.tech, to which I have now added sci.optics.
Having said that, I can tell you what this post is NOT:
1. It is not the work of a crank.
2. It is not the work of an incompetent.
3. It is not a troll.
4. It is not a hoax or a fraud
In fact what it is, is a proposal for an entirely feasible
scientific experiment to discover if "myopic sight" will
have a significant and beneficial psychological effect on
the average farsighted person. And the suspicion is that in
some cases at least it might have a dramatic effect.
The author is an M.S. in Physics who has published several
papers of a fundamental nature in Psychometry all of which
have been widely discussed on the Internet newsgroups, the
professional literature, international symposiums and
elsewhere.
If your are a professional in either optics, medical vision,
physics or any field related to the subject matter of the
post, we would appreciate your comments.
douglas
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:46:27 -0700 (PDT), douglas
>
The only thing myopia has going for it is that it allows you to do
well in close-up work. That's it.
George Hammond
<protom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The only thing myopia has going for it is that it allows you to do
>well in close-up work. That's it.
>
>
[Hammond]
We are talking about eyeglasses.
Are you aware that magnification is an optical accident
caused by eyeglass geometry and has NOTHING to do with
correcting either myopia or hyperopia?
This is proven by the fact that contact lenses will correct
myopia WITHOUT any magnification whatsoever.
Obviously then, whatever psychological effect magnification
has on people it must be the OPPOSITE EFFECT for nearsighted
vs. farsighted.
Do you have anything to say about that issue
which is the entire point of the article posted?
douglas
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:50:52 -0700 (PDT), douglas
>
>
> >The only thing myopia has going for it is that it allows you to do
> >well in close-up work. That's it.
>
> [Hammond]
> We are talking about eyeglasses.
>
> Are you aware that magnification is an optical accident
> caused by eyeglass geometry and has NOTHING to do with
> correcting either myopia or hyperopia?
>
> This is proven by the fact that contact lenses will correct
> myopia WITHOUT any magnification whatsoever.
>
> Obviously then, whatever psychological effect magnification
> has on people it must be the OPPOSITE EFFECT for nearsighted
> vs. farsighted.
>
> Do you have anything to say about that issue
> which is the entire point of the article posted?
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
Um, I'm very aware of that. I am not aware of any psychological effect
of magnification or minification
George Hammond
<protom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 9:00�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:50:52 -0700 (PDT), douglas
>>
>> <protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The only thing myopia has going for it is that it allows you to do
>> >well in close-up work. That's it.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> We are talking about eyeglasses.
>>
>> Are you aware that magnification is an optical accident
>> caused by eyeglass geometry and has NOTHING to do with
>> correcting either myopia or hyperopia?
>>
>> This is proven by the fact that contact lenses will correct
>> myopia WITHOUT any magnification whatsoever.
>>
>> Obviously then, whatever psychological effect magnification
>> has on people it must be the OPPOSITE EFFECT for nearsighted
>> vs. farsighted.
>>
>> Do you have anything to say about that issue
>> which is the entire point of the article posted?
>
>[douglas]
>Um, I'm very aware of that. I am not aware of any psychological effect
>of magnification or minification
>
>
[Hammond]
Have you ever read Gulliver's Travels? It's the
autobiography of the man who invented eyeglasses.
While wearing myopic (negative) eyeglasses people looked to
him like "Lilliputians" who were exceeingly small.
While wearing positive glasses all people looked like
"Brobdingnagians" who were exceedingly large looking.
Here is a picture of Gulliver wearing negative lenses being
amazed by how small people look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gulliver.jpg
Gulliver later became a psychologist specializing in
inferiority and superiority complexes caused by wearing
eyeglasses.
Neil Brooks
Gulliver's Travels?
This is how you "prove" something?
Hmmmm.
Neil Brooks
It should also be noted.....
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/midweek-cuckoo-george-hammond/
Yup. We have us a new Otis S. Brown.
Lovely.
hanson
"Don, the Con, Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> "Don, the Con, Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com>,
>> from library of the Stockade where he is warehoused at, wrote:
>
>
Hemmie Hammond as "<SNIP HECKLER CRAP>"
<.@..com> wrote: ----- ahahahahahaha ---------
>>
hanson wrote:
It was funny, wasn't it. Here it is again for your benefit:
>
>
------------------ ahahahahahaha --------------------
-------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
----- Science off-shoot from the 3rd Reich --------
-------------------- by --------------------
Gergi/Grodi/Georgi, the Nazi & Arch Anti-Semite, aka
the ungodly Hemorrhoid Hammond "George Hammond"
------------ Don, the Con, wrote-----------
God and The Universe are identical concepts.
>
hanson wrote:
Don it looks like that you are Hemmie Hammond's right
hand man now: See here: <http://tinyurl.com/merwa2>
>
or are you trying to suck up to me since you got that
"Global Brain" indoctrination during your Big House
stint? Did they let you out to peddle some of my friend
Hemmie Hammond's "negative beatific glasses?"
Either way, thanks for the laughs too.... ahahahanson.
>
Don, the Con, wrote:
Any time, bud.
hahahahahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhavala
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.. So, Don you con, now you have attracted the
attention of DHS because of your surreptitious activities
with/in "havala"... Back to the Big house with you, Don!
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Don Stockbauer
> "Don, the Con, Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:> hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> "Don, the Con, Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com>,
> >> from library of the Stockade where he is warehoused at, wrote:
>
> Hemmie Hammond as "<SNIP HECKLER CRAP>"<.@..com> wrote: ----- ahahahahahaha ---------
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> It was funny, wasn't it. Here it is again for your benefit:
>
> ------------------ ahahahahahaha --------------------
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -----------
> ----- Science off-shoot from the 3rd Reich --------
> -------------------- by --------------------
> Gergi/Grodi/Georgi, the Nazi & Arch Anti-Semite, aka
> the ungodly Hemorrhoid Hammond "George Hammond"
Don Stockbauer
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahailoveyouhansonareyouinarelationship???
hahahahahahahahaa
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
douglas
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>
> - Show quoted text -
What?!!!?
hanson
< http://tinyurl.com/mxz6uv> for which
"Don, the con Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com>
plagiarized 66 lines x 80 coll of "ahahaha", hiding this in it:
"hahahahahahailoveyouhansonareyouinarelationship???"
which Don, the con sent a scant 3 minuses after Don, the
con dispatched his 1st premature C&P-only post... ahahaha.
>
hanson wrote:
What is that "hail - ovey" supposed to mean, Don?... ahaha..
Are you a closet Zio?. To boot why I should I tell you whether
I am in a "relationship" or not? What's the con, Don? I take
care of my affairs on the outside & you should to the same
inside your Big House residence, wherein you apparently
do suffer from inmate abuse. Sorry to hear that. Go ACLU!
Till then, thanks for the laughs, Don, you con.... ahahahanson....
I
hanson
>
hanson wrote:
Don, did you get so exited over my post that you
hit the "send"-button too soon?... AHAHAHAHA
>
---- The pen-strokes which so excited Don, the con -----
>
"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
Don Stockbauer
De only Big House I be in, Hanson Boy Band, be de ranch house heah.
You jes run along , little feller. You is bothering me, Go try to
defuse a fusion bomb and have a little "accident". Genral Chilton
will be observing, chuckling to himself.
Blarp.
Eat more pecans.
This post contributes to the formation of the Global Brain; no animals
were harmed during its testing.
hanson
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.optics/msg/1d66232507efe9a0>
>
"Don, the con, Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> in
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.optics/msg/2dd5ae9ecf3440b8>
with homocide on his mind wrote: "have a little "accident" &.
======= :"You is bothering me"=========
>
hanson wrote:
.... "bothering"...ahahAHAHA... But Don, you con, THAT
is self-inflicted grief you caused for yourself... ahahahaha...
for you running after me, lamenting and trying, as you say, to
"contribute to the formation of the Global Brain" which seems
to include for you to have the last word... ahahahaha..
So, will you still continue to dangle and zappel on my hook?
Thanks for the laughs, Don, you con... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Don Stockbauer
> hanson wrote:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.optics/msg/1d66232507efe9a0>
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.optics/msg/2dd5ae9ecf3440b8>
> with homocide on his mind wrote: "have a little "accident" &.
> ======= :"You is bothering me"=========
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> .... "bothering"...ahahAHAHA... But Don, you con, THAT
> is self-inflicted grief you caused for yourself... ahahahaha...
> for you running after me, lamenting and trying, as you say, to
> "contribute to the formation of the Global Brain" which seems
> to include for you to have the last word... ahahahaha..
> So, will you still continue to dangle and zappel on my hook?
> Thanks for the laughs, Don, you con... ahahaha... ahahahanson
I always have the last word.
purple
BURPPPPPPPP!
hanson
>
"purple" <pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
I always have the last word.
>
BURPPPPPPPP! [that's the sound of the global brain]
>
hanson wrote:
AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... Thanks for playing, guys.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Dr Judy
> Have you ever read Gulliver's Travels? It's the
> autobiography of the man who invented eyeglasses.
Really. I thought it was a piece of satire written by Jonathon Swift
to poke fun at seventeenth and eighteenth century governments and
religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels#Plot_summary
Judy
douglas
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shall we call him Otis II, or Otis: The Next Generation?
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Intelligent pople are not interested in what people know,
they're interested in what people don't know and
inadvertantly blurt out when they act viciously...our case
in point here being our dear Jonathon.
Of course he thought he was being smart parodying George V
and the Whigs... but the interesting thing is in his blind
overconfidence he divulges his sureptions intuitions about
the visual manifestions of the physical size of people which
is of fundamentl relevance to the (scientific) study of God.
The invention of "Lilliputians" has had a far more lasting
impact on Western psychology and history than any saterical
impact Gulliver's Travels may have had on the 17th century
political scene which is of trivial interst compared to the
historic impact of scientific investigations into the theory
of God.
People are most revealing when they think they are being
smart and act as the dupe of their own desires, doncha know.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror sites
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
Don Stockbauer
God, were you raised in a barn?
Don Stockbauer
Now run along home, Junior.
Don Stockbauer
douglas
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:55:51 -0700 (PDT), Dr Judy
>
> Mirror sites
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
Dr Judy,
Well, at least he's not actively harming people, unlike Otis...I hope.
Doug
BD
> http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/midweek-cuckoo-george-hammond/
>
> Yup. We have us a new Otis S. Brown.
>
> Lovely.
Well...
Otis, delusional though he may consistently appear, has - to his
credit - generally used good manners in his discourse. This other
fellow, evidenced by the cited web page, has both a definite agenda,
and a really short temper.
Crikey.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You got that one right Alfie.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror sites
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
Zurab57
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Zurab57<zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip original target post>
>
> >I'm sorry, you must realize difference between presbyopia and
> >hypermetropia (with the use of ABBY Lingvo 12).
>
> [Hammond]
> Sorry... actually I didn't know before you pointed out
> the difference between the two terms.
> I'm not an opthamologist, I'm a physicist, and in common
> parlance the words presbyopia and hyperopia are often used
> interchangably since they both refer to FARSIGHTEDNESS. I
> didn't realize that presbyopia is stricly the common
> everyday "old age farsightedness" while hyperopia refers to
> a genetic condition of the same type.
> Either way however nomenclature difference is irrelevant
> to the scientific proposal I have put forward and doesn't
> change anything. The proposal would be valid for ANY kind
> of farsightedness and obviously it is aimed at common garden
> variety presbyopia.
>
> > What about very very
> >special people for abour 50-100 genetic disorders (without use of
> >Margalini, Sergio I. And Euclide Scrascia. Dictionary of Medical
> >Syndromes, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1981.) and every
> >disease gives most often about 1% in homozygous and about 4% in
> >homozygous state, (without works of K. Matherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Mather)you
> >can easily sea, that almost every one of us is very special person.
> >(with the help of the google speller).
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure there are a myriad eye diseases..... but PRESBYOPIA
> is by far the most common reason for wearing glasses in
> America today... so again.... the existence of 50 different
> genetic diseases is still irrelevant to the scientific
> thesis I have put forward.
>
> Thanks for your on topic post.
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> 1st mirror site
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> 2nd mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> =======================================
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
I think you may have more attention to linguistic:Men (engl.)=Menschen
(germ.)alike меньше(russian.)=smaller(eng.)
Don Stockbauer
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:56:06 -0700 (PDT), BD
>
>
>
> <robert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/midweek-cuckoo-george-hammond/
>
> >> Yup. We have us a new Otis S. Brown.
>
> >> Lovely.
>
> >Well...
>
> >Otis, delusional though he may consistently appear, has - to his
> >credit - generally used good manners in his discourse. This other
> >fellow, evidenced by the cited web page, has both a definite agenda,
> >and a really short temper.
>
> >Crikey.
>
> [Hammond]
> You got that one right Alfie.
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>
Pantheism is correct.
From it, SCIENCE = RELIGION