Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #521822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 138 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 14:53 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-18 20:03 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:13 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 23:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 04:48 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:45 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 05:43 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 22:16 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-22 01:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:12 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 20:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:30 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 22:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 03:09 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:45 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 05:35 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 00:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 17:22 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 18:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:50 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-20 19:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:49 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:46 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 23:17 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:36 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:34 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 00:00 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 00:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 02:16 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 04:57 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 05:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 06:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 13:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 00:46 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:23 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:43 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 18:59 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 15:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:44 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 18:40 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:18 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 15:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:05 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-09-20 20:30 -0600
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-29 03:20 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 23:19 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:06 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 08:24 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:29 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 12:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 07:42 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 15:57 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:27 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:25 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-09-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:30 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 16:13 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:21 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:28 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 22:32 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-09-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-20 15:51 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:56 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 03:31 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:09 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 20:34 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 06:26 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 07:15 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-21 01:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 17:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-18 22:41 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 23:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 05:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 01:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 07:42 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 02:02 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:32 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 16:49 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2015-09-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 06:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d69f8hFo9k3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522147 |
Am 20.09.2015 05:34, schrieb The Starmaker: > FPP wrote: >> >> On 2015-09-19 20:33:56 +0000, BTR1701<atropos@mac.com> said: >> >>> In article<mtkg13$a4v$2@dont-email.me>, FPP<fredp151@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-09-19 20:07:45 +0000, BTR1701<atropos@mac.com> said: >>>> >>>>> Why is it the Left, when given the power, always wants to jail or >>>>> execute anyone who dissents or disagrees with them? >>>> >>>> Same old lie. >>> >>> Except it's not. >>> >>>> Who has been jailed? Who has been executed? >>> >>> In this case, no one yet. The Warmists have certainly expressed the >>> desire for jailings, however. Which is what I said: "...always wants >>> to..." >>> >>> In the broader sense, millions have been jailed and executed by leftists >>> on the loose. Mao, Stalin, Guevara, Castro... the list is voluminous. >> >> You left out that guy with the little mustache... why? > > > > he wasn't a leftests he was right handed. I personally think, that Hitler was a British spy. He was also left handed, that's why he never wrote anything, except his autograph. This autograph looks very much like the writing of someone left-handed writing with the right hand. It is assumed, he was trained by the British war school and MI6 front called 'Tavistock Institut', where also Stalin was trained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frf9GS0g9YM There was a real Hitler in Austria, who was a painter and gay prostitute. One of his friends was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who later became member of the so called 'Apostles' of Cambridge, together with Aldous Huxley, Bertrand Russel and other people related to the roots of socialism and Naziism. E.g. Betrand Russel stems from the Russel family, who also held the title 'Lords of Tavistock' (just coincidence?). Tavistock is also a county in Canada, where we find a little town called 'Swastika' and there a goldmine called 'Lucky Cross Mine'. There a girl named Unity Mitford was born, who later became the girlfriend of Hitler. (just coincidence?) The owner of that mine was Lord Redescale. He was friend and publisher of Houston Steward Chamberlain. He was also father of Clementine Hozier and that the wife of Winston Churchill. And he was also grandfather of Unity Mitford. The Tavistock Institut had a nickname in that time: Freud Hilton (the current nickname is 'scriptwriters of the New World Order'). Such scripts do in fact exist: the so called 'Hitler diaries', which have in golden letters the signature 'F.H.' imprinted (in a font called 'Old English Gothic'). About the true identity of the 'Fuehrer' I had speculated a lot. Somehow fitting would be the brother of Aldous Huxley: Noel Travellian Huxley. He could have been raised in the home of Chamberlain in Bavaria, where he learned (to some degree) the German language. But quite a few of his friends were in fact from England, like Winifried Wagner (born as Marjorie Williams in Hastings), Chamberlain or Unity Mitford. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 07:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6eqrfF3rtgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522424 |
Am 21.09.2015 06:26, schrieb Thomas Heger: > I personally think, that Hitler was a British spy. He was also left > handed, that's why he never wrote anything, except his autograph. > > This autograph looks very much like the writing of someone left-handed > writing with the right hand. > > It is assumed, he was trained by the British war school and MI6 front > called 'Tavistock Institut', where also Stalin was trained. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frf9GS0g9YM > > There was a real Hitler in Austria, who was a painter and gay prostitute. > > One of his friends was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who later became member of > the so called 'Apostles' of Cambridge, together with Aldous Huxley, > Bertrand Russel and other people related to the roots of socialism and > Naziism. > > E.g. Betrand Russel stems from the Russel family, who also held the > title 'Lords of Tavistock' (just coincidence?). > > Tavistock is also a county in Canada, where we find a little town called > 'Swastika' and there a goldmine called 'Lucky Cross Mine'. > > There a girl named Unity Mitford was born, who later became the > girlfriend of Hitler. (just coincidence?) > > The owner of that mine was Lord Redescale. He was friend and publisher > of Houston Steward Chamberlain. He was also father of Clementine Hozier > and that the wife of Winston Churchill. And he was also grandfather of > Unity Mitford. > > The Tavistock Institut had a nickname in that time: Freud Hilton (the > current nickname is 'scriptwriters of the New World Order'). > > Such scripts do in fact exist: the so called 'Hitler diaries', which > have in golden letters the signature 'F.H.' imprinted (in a font called > 'Old English Gothic'). > > About the true identity of the 'Fuehrer' I had speculated a lot. Somehow > fitting would be the brother of Aldous Huxley: Noel Travellian Huxley. > He could have been raised in the home of Chamberlain in Bavaria, where > he learned (to some degree) the German language. > > But quite a few of his friends were in fact from England, like Winifried > Wagner (born as Marjorie Williams in Hastings), Chamberlain or Unity > Mitford. > Hitler had also friendly relations to Henry Ford, who supported him bit. Ford had actually similar ideas and wrote a book called 'The International Jew'. Other relations of Hitler to the USA are also strange: E.g. the pupils of the USA had a flag salute called 'pledge of allegiance'. This resembled actually the so called 'Hitler salute'. Invented was this salute by Edward Bellamy. This was an early American socialist. But more astonishing is the physical similarity of Bellamy to Hitler. There were the so called 'Silver shirts', what have been an early form of an occult political movement in the USA. They had a flag with a large 'L' meaning 'Leader' (=Fuehrer). To some degree the Nazis are similar to this movement. Then we had the real Nazis (Kuhn party) that were quite 'successful' in the 20th in the USA. Or we had the boy scouts. They wore certain badges with a swastika. (and saluted like the Nazis). Also the 'Hitler Youth' seems to be created under the rain of equivalent thoughts like that of Baden-Powel had in England (make the youth strong for the coming wars). Baden-Powel had also questionable relations to Kitchener and Milner. Milner had created in South-Africa a system of death camps, called 'concentration camps'. Astonishingly the Nazis adopted this name, even if it does not make much sense in the German language. (to concentrate means 'sammeln' in German and the Germans call similar facilities 'Sammellager'. 'Konzentrieren' means 'think hard about a certain subject' or 'make a solution thicker'). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 01:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1mb2rrg.2jqxdg1vqi5m3N%csampson@inetworld.net> |
| In reply to | #522078 |
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: > In article <1mazuy4.y6vseo1uh8s6aN%csampson@inetworld.net>, > csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote: > > > BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > > > csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote: > > > > > If the investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, > > > > prosecution can follow. > > > > > > No, it can't. Not without repealing the 1st Amendment. > > > > As the petition says, what the Senator is proposing and what the > > scientists are supporting is similar to the way RICO was used against > > the tobacco companies when they put out tons of misinformation about the > > harmfulness of cigarettes after the harm had been established medically. > > Short form: RICO has been used this way before. > > The RICO prosecutions of the tobacco companies were based overwhelmingly > on their actions, not their speech, specifically the manipulation of the > nicotine delivery of cigarettes, deceptive marketing of regulated > products (cigarettes) as "light" or "low tar", and failing to produce > safer cigarettes, as they had promised to. > > Conversely, this new "throw the deniers in jail" movement by the > Warmists is based *solely* on their speech and nothing else. The > so-called "deniers" aren't marketing regulated products; they aren't > failing to live up to a negotiated promise with the government to > produce a product of a certain quality; and they haven't falsely > manipulated any product in commerce. > > So the comparison to the RICO case against the tobacco companies fails > on multiple levels. This is a proposed prosecution based on nothing but > pure speech and disagreement with "the consensus". Nicely analyzed. I'll have to rethink my position on this issue. > ... Charlie -- Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good. But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory. But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 17:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtkl97$pfm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521953 |
On 2015-09-19 3:46 AM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: >> >>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as >>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of >>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored >>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters >> >> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as >> actually DOING it, right? > > Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > follow. > > I have no idea how Starmaker came up with the hodge-podge of newsgroups > for this thread. Since that's where the discussion seems to be taking > place, I've left them unchanged. > Starmaker is a delusional whackjob who I killfiled months ago. Unfortunately, my message filter had an unwanted side effect that I couldn't fix otherwise he's STILL be killfiled. Listening to him/her/it and expecting any logic is like expecting sense from Charlie Manson. -- Rhino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55FC6D1A.39B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #521841 |
benj wrote:
>
> On 09/18/2015 01:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Kill those global warming deniers...
> >
> > put them in concentration camps..
> >
> > shoot them one by one.
> >
> > http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj
>
> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as
> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of
> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored
> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters.
Those global warming deniers are interfering with the ecology of the earth.
https://www.google.com/#q=define+ecology
e·col·o·gy
e'käl?je/
noun
noun: ecology; noun: Ecology
1.
the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.
2.
the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially from pollution.
In other words...any organisms that interferes with the global warming movement should be sent to the gas chambers.
It's been done before, it can be done again.
The Starmaker
Maybe some smart scientist can figure out how to build an atomic bomb that only kills globabl warming skeptics.
Shouldn't be too hard, just kill all the stupid people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d10e7f1-272d-448c-a7e5-9de747c74ddf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521852 |
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 12:59:17 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > benj wrote: > > > > On 09/18/2015 01:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Kill those global warming deniers... > > > > > > put them in concentration camps.. > > > > > > shoot them one by one. > > > > > > http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj > > > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > > which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > > method is dropping deniers out Helicopters. > > > Those global warming deniers are interfering with the ecology of the earth. > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+ecology > > > e·col·o·gy > e'käl?je/ > noun > noun: ecology; noun: Ecology > > 1. > the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings. > 2. > the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially from pollution. > > > > In other words...any organisms that interferes with the global warming movement should be sent to the gas chambers. > > > It's been done before, it can be done again. > > > > The Starmaker > > > Maybe some smart scientist can figure out how to build an atomic bomb that only kills globabl warming skeptics. > > > Shouldn't be too hard, just kill all the stupid people. In Nazi Germany those who distributed pamphlets disagreeing with Hitler's ideas were quickly dealt with using guillotines! Some say our own government has recently purchased 30,000 guillotines! https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-did-the-u-s-government-recently-purchase-30000-guillotines/ Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <anim8rfsk-08A3A5.17143518092015@news.easynews.com> |
| In reply to | #521852 |
In article <55FC6D1A.39B@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > benj wrote: > > > > On 09/18/2015 01:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Kill those global warming deniers... > > > > > > put them in concentration camps.. > > > > > > shoot them one by one. > > > > > > http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global > > > -warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj > > > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > > which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > > method is dropping deniers out Helicopters. > > > Those global warming deniers are interfering with the ecology of the earth. > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+ecology > > > e·col·o·gy > e'käl?je/ > noun > noun: ecology; noun: Ecology > > 1. > the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one > another and to their physical surroundings. > 2. > the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially > from pollution. > > > > In other words...any organisms that interferes with the global warming > movement should be sent to the gas chambers. > > > It's been done before, it can be done again. > > > > The Starmaker > > > Maybe some smart scientist can figure out how to build an atomic bomb that > only kills globabl warming skeptics. > > > Shouldn't be too hard, just kill all the stupid people. That will guarantee the opposite of what you're hoping for; the good news is, you won't be around to see it. -- SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 22:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d63b77F96hnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #521841 |
Am 18.09.2015 20:53, schrieb benj: >> >> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj >> > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > which we have obviously become one. Never heard of dailycaller.com. Is this magazine meant as a joke? I'm a little insecure, what to think about this article. But in principle anybody is free to believe, what he wants. He may also deny whatever he wants. This comes from certain rights, that are regarded as fundamental for the human society. Science is not that free, since science is based on facts - rather than opinion/believes/usefulness or similar. 'Climate change' is certainly a possibilty, even if 'climate' is not exactly, what is expected to change with 'climate change'. Actually meant are changes of the global mean temperatures in long-term comparison. Whether or not such changes occur, that is more or less a scientific question - and nothing, that usual citizens should worry about. If such changes occur and if such developments are caused by human activities and if there is a chance to prevent future disaster by changing such habits, than it's getting into the political realm and it's time to change behaviour to less harmful habits. This would then be a political action, where certain activities are ordered or others are prohibited. The common citizen does not need to agree with such decisions neither, only need to follow such rules. He may actually deny the usefulness of such laws, but that wouldn't change their validity. So, in neither case there is actually a need for people to agree with scientific statements. It is also not harmful if some (or many) disagree, as long as scientific discoveries are based on facts and the decisions of the lawmakers are to the benefit of the people. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 23:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55FCFAC8.E33@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #521867 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 18.09.2015 20:53, schrieb benj: > > >> > >> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj > >> > > > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > > which we have obviously become one. > > Never heard of dailycaller.com. Is this magazine meant as a joke? > > I'm a little insecure, what to think about this article. I understand your insecurity... but, science media stick together and don't want that kind of information printed. So, it's left to those not doing any science hack favors: http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf http://www.examiner.com/article/scientists-ask-obama-for-rico-investigation-to-end-climate-debate http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/18/global_warming_stopped_in_1998_no_it_didnt_if_you_say_that_youre_going_to_prison/ > > But in principle anybody is free to believe, what he wants. He may also > deny whatever he wants. > > This comes from certain rights, that are regarded as fundamental for the > human society. > > Science is not that free, since science is based on facts - rather than > opinion/believes/usefulness or similar. > > 'Climate change' is certainly a possibilty, even if 'climate' is not > exactly, what is expected to change with 'climate change'. > > Actually meant are changes of the global mean temperatures in long-term > comparison. > > Whether or not such changes occur, that is more or less a scientific > question - and nothing, that usual citizens should worry about. > > If such changes occur and if such developments are caused by human > activities and if there is a chance to prevent future disaster by > changing such habits, than it's getting into the political realm and > it's time to change behaviour to less harmful habits. > > This would then be a political action, where certain activities are > ordered or others are prohibited. > > The common citizen does not need to agree with such decisions neither, > only need to follow such rules. He may actually deny the usefulness of > such laws, but that wouldn't change their validity. > > So, in neither case there is actually a need for people to agree with > scientific statements. It is also not harmful if some (or many) > disagree, as long as scientific discoveries are based on facts and the > decisions of the lawmakers are to the benefit of the people. > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 05:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d69dchFnsdoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #521950 |
Am 19.09.2015 08:03, schrieb The Starmaker: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 18.09.2015 20:53, schrieb benj: >> >>>> >>>> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj >>>> >>> >>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as >>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of >>> which we have obviously become one. >> >> Never heard of dailycaller.com. Is this magazine meant as a joke? >> >> I'm a little insecure, what to think about this article. > > > I understand your insecurity... > but, science media stick together and don't want that kind of > information printed. > So, it's left to those not doing any science hack favors: > > http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf > > http://www.examiner.com/article/scientists-ask-obama-for-rico-investigation-to-end-climate-debate > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/18/global_warming_stopped_in_1998_no_it_didnt_if_you_say_that_youre_going_to_prison/ > I personally think, that 'climate change' is a bad name for a natural phenomenon, that does in fact exist. The Earth is actually getting warmer and with it the climate in certain regions is changing. The reason I assume is 'Growing Earth'. This was a hypothesis by Ott Christoph Hilgenberger, who wrote a book 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (~about the Growing Earth). There he wrote, the Earth would become warmer with increasing mass over millions of years. The climate would also change, since certain areas would become dryer. This stems from the falling sea-levels over long periods of time. This is possible to sea in geological formations. My favourite example is the Atacama desert. This desert is the driest place on Earth and there has been no heavy rain or flooding for about 15 million years. This desert was formerly the bottom of a shallow sea. This we know from the petrified Guano, called Chile salter, that is found there in large quantities. With growth the Earth' crust breaks at certain place and into the cracks the water flows. Since the surface area gets larger, the sea-levels fall. So former sea-floor will fall dry and is found on land, together with guano, petrified mud, pebbles and sand. This is definitely a change in climate (of that sea), but also without doubt not man-made or caused by CO2. The process is visible all over the planet, like e.g. in Portus, the harbour of Rome or the former harbour of Troy. The Roman harbour is now 8m above sea-level and the one of Troy 30m above sea-level. From this we have an estimate, how fast sea-levels drop: about 4m per millennium. This effect has also impact on the local climate, since marshes dry out in this process. This is actually 'climate change', since without water formerly fruitful land will become a desert. This is, of course, unpleasant in certain cases, but not related to human activities. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 01:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hl3vva9tpd48vbrlpkjh9jovjfupe43ou8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522421 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 05:54:49 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 19.09.2015 08:03, schrieb The Starmaker:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 18.09.2015 20:53, schrieb benj:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as
>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of
>>>> which we have obviously become one.
>>>
>>> Never heard of dailycaller.com. Is this magazine meant as a joke?
>>>
>>> I'm a little insecure, what to think about this article.
>>
>>
>> I understand your insecurity...
>> but, science media stick together and don't want that kind of
>> information printed.
>> So, it's left to those not doing any science hack favors:
>>
>> http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/article/scientists-ask-obama-for-rico-investigation-to-end-climate-debate
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/18/global_warming_stopped_in_1998_no_it_didnt_if_you_say_that_youre_going_to_prison/
>>
>
>
>I personally think, that 'climate change' is a bad name for a natural
>phenomenon, that does in fact exist.
>
>The Earth is actually getting warmer and with it the climate in certain
>regions is changing.
>
>The reason I assume is 'Growing Earth'. This was a hypothesis by Ott
>Christoph Hilgenberger, who wrote a book 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'
>(~about the Growing Earth).
>
>There he wrote, the Earth would become warmer with increasing mass over
>millions of years.
>
>The climate would also change, since certain areas would become dryer.
>This stems from the falling sea-levels over long periods of time.
>
>This is possible to sea in geological formations. My favourite example
>is the Atacama desert. This desert is the driest place on Earth and
>there has been no heavy rain or flooding for about 15 million years.
>
>This desert was formerly the bottom of a shallow sea. This we know from
>the petrified Guano, called Chile salter, that is found there in large
>quantities.
>
>With growth the Earth' crust breaks at certain place and into the cracks
>the water flows. Since the surface area gets larger, the sea-levels fall.
>
>So former sea-floor will fall dry and is found on land, together with
>guano, petrified mud, pebbles and sand.
>
>This is definitely a change in climate (of that sea), but also without
>doubt not man-made or caused by CO2.
>
>The process is visible all over the planet, like e.g. in Portus, the
>harbour of Rome or the former harbour of Troy. The Roman harbour is now
>8m above sea-level and the one of Troy 30m above sea-level.
>
> From this we have an estimate, how fast sea-levels drop: about 4m per
>millennium.
>
>This effect has also impact on the local climate, since marshes dry out
>in this process.
>
>This is actually 'climate change', since without water formerly fruitful
>land will become a desert.
>
>This is, of course, unpleasant in certain cases, but not related to
>human activities.
>
>TH
You really have some weird ideas, seal level
will rise from erosion, look at any big river delta.
If a crack develops in mid ocean, just where
do you think the water will go?
Rain happens at random places, chances
are global precip is fairly constant annually,
but some place suffer drought, and others, floods.
The Earth is still between glacial events,
so more ice melting is likely, even if the temperature
data is skewed by moving so many weather stations
to airports, and building cities with lots of paving
and roofs around others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 07:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d69jnbFp8i7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522430 |
Am 21.09.2015 07:06, schrieb kefischer: >> >> I personally think, that 'climate change' is a bad name for a natural >> phenomenon, that does in fact exist. >> >> The Earth is actually getting warmer and with it the climate in certain >> regions is changing. >> >> The reason I assume is 'Growing Earth'. This was a hypothesis by Ott >> Christoph Hilgenberger, who wrote a book 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' >> (~about the Growing Earth). >> >> There he wrote, the Earth would become warmer with increasing mass over >> millions of years. >> >> The climate would also change, since certain areas would become dryer. >> This stems from the falling sea-levels over long periods of time. >> >> This is possible to sea in geological formations. My favourite example >> is the Atacama desert. This desert is the driest place on Earth and >> there has been no heavy rain or flooding for about 15 million years. >> >> This desert was formerly the bottom of a shallow sea. This we know from >> the petrified Guano, called Chile salter, that is found there in large >> quantities. >> >> With growth the Earth' crust breaks at certain place and into the cracks >> the water flows. Since the surface area gets larger, the sea-levels fall. >> >> So former sea-floor will fall dry and is found on land, together with >> guano, petrified mud, pebbles and sand. >> >> This is definitely a change in climate (of that sea), but also without >> doubt not man-made or caused by CO2. >> >> The process is visible all over the planet, like e.g. in Portus, the >> harbour of Rome or the former harbour of Troy. The Roman harbour is now >> 8m above sea-level and the one of Troy 30m above sea-level. >> >> From this we have an estimate, how fast sea-levels drop: about 4m per >> millennium. >> >> This effect has also impact on the local climate, since marshes dry out >> in this process. >> >> This is actually 'climate change', since without water formerly fruitful >> land will become a desert. >> >> This is, of course, unpleasant in certain cases, but not related to >> human activities. >> >> TH > > You really have some weird ideas, seal level > will rise from erosion, look at any big river delta. > > If a crack develops in mid ocean, just where > do you think the water will go? There are rifts, that are building continuously. Famous rift is called 'Miraina trench'. This is a VERY deep crack in the crust and it is - of course- filled with water. Another crack is visible in East Africa. It starts at the Red Sea and has an 'arm' reaching to the east: the Golf of Aden. The second 'arm' of this formation called 'triple junction' is the Read Sea and the third is pointing South to the East African Rift Valley. Cracks and rifts are visible all over the place. Like e.g. the Baya California. If the surface of the Earth would grow, the sea-levels should fall. So falling sea-levels would prove 'Growing Earth'. > Rain happens at random places, chances > are global precip is fairly constant annually, > but some place suffer drought, and others, floods. > Well, actually yes, but what do you try to say? > The Earth is still between glacial events, > so more ice melting is likely, even if the temperature > data is skewed by moving so many weather stations > to airports, and building cities with lots of paving > and roofs around others. Actually I do NOT deny 'Climate Change', but provide another (alternative) reason: Growing Earth. Why I think GE is in fact true, that stems from a certain 'theory' (actually I call that 'concept'), that I tried to prove. This was more or less a hobby and was my attempt to connect GR and QM. The concept is called 'Structured Spacetime' and is meant as a different approach to the origin and nature of matter. In this concept matter is created continuously within the Earth, hence would make the Earth grow (from within!). https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 02:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj6vva93fd0stl4a9fplqlnr43v065gnn4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522433 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:42:59 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 21.09.2015 07:06, schrieb kefischer:
>
>>>
>>> I personally think, that 'climate change' is a bad name for a natural
>>> phenomenon, that does in fact exist.
>>>
>>> The Earth is actually getting warmer and with it the climate in certain
>>> regions is changing.
>>>
>>> The reason I assume is 'Growing Earth'. This was a hypothesis by Ott
>>> Christoph Hilgenberger, who wrote a book 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'
>>> (~about the Growing Earth).
>>>
>>> There he wrote, the Earth would become warmer with increasing mass over
>>> millions of years.
>>>
>>> The climate would also change, since certain areas would become dryer.
>>> This stems from the falling sea-levels over long periods of time.
>>>
>>> This is possible to sea in geological formations. My favourite example
>>> is the Atacama desert. This desert is the driest place on Earth and
>>> there has been no heavy rain or flooding for about 15 million years.
>>>
>>> This desert was formerly the bottom of a shallow sea. This we know from
>>> the petrified Guano, called Chile salter, that is found there in large
>>> quantities.
>>>
>>> With growth the Earth' crust breaks at certain place and into the cracks
>>> the water flows. Since the surface area gets larger, the sea-levels fall.
>>>
>>> So former sea-floor will fall dry and is found on land, together with
>>> guano, petrified mud, pebbles and sand.
>>>
>>> This is definitely a change in climate (of that sea), but also without
>>> doubt not man-made or caused by CO2.
>>>
>>> The process is visible all over the planet, like e.g. in Portus, the
>>> harbour of Rome or the former harbour of Troy. The Roman harbour is now
>>> 8m above sea-level and the one of Troy 30m above sea-level.
>>>
>>> From this we have an estimate, how fast sea-levels drop: about 4m per
>>> millennium.
>>>
>>> This effect has also impact on the local climate, since marshes dry out
>>> in this process.
>>>
>>> This is actually 'climate change', since without water formerly fruitful
>>> land will become a desert.
>>>
>>> This is, of course, unpleasant in certain cases, but not related to
>>> human activities.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> You really have some weird ideas, seal level
>> will rise from erosion, look at any big river delta.
>>
>> If a crack develops in mid ocean, just where
>> do you think the water will go?
>
>There are rifts, that are building continuously. Famous rift is called
>'Miraina trench'. This is a VERY deep crack in the crust and it is - of
>course- filled with water.
No it isn't "filled with water", it is just a valley
on the sea floor, and probably has at least one
crack oozing magma under high pressure.
>Another crack is visible in East Africa. It starts at the Red Sea and
>has an 'arm' reaching to the east: the Golf of Aden. The second 'arm' of
>this formation called 'triple junction' is the Read Sea and the third is
>pointing South to the East African Rift Valley.
>
>Cracks and rifts are visible all over the place. Like e.g. the Baya
>California.
>
>If the surface of the Earth would grow, the sea-levels should fall. So
>falling sea-levels would prove 'Growing Earth'.
The only recognized cause of sea level
changes is the ice ages, there is no place
for water to go as long as the hydrogen
stays bound to the oxygen.
Sea level rise over long periods of time
has to occur because of erosion, that is clear
in geology.
>> Rain happens at random places, chances
>> are global precip is fairly constant annually,
>> but some place suffer drought, and others, floods.
>>
>Well, actually yes, but what do you try to say?
Your idea of water draining through cracks
is funny.
>> The Earth is still between glacial events,
>> so more ice melting is likely, even if the temperature
>> data is skewed by moving so many weather stations
>> to airports, and building cities with lots of paving
>> and roofs around others.
>
>Actually I do NOT deny 'Climate Change', but provide another
>(alternative) reason: Growing Earth.
Which is absurd, there is widening cracks
in the sea floor because of cooling and gas bubbles
forming in the cooling magma when it is no longer
under pressure.
But that accounts for less than the gain
from dust falling from space, a very small amount.
>Why I think GE is in fact true, that stems from a certain 'theory'
>(actually I call that 'concept'), that I tried to prove.
>
>This was more or less a hobby and was my attempt to connect GR and QM.
>The concept is called 'Structured Spacetime' and is meant as a different
>approach to the origin and nature of matter.
>In this concept matter is created continuously within the Earth, hence
>would make the Earth grow (from within!).
>
>https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
>
>TH
As close as that seems to Divergent Matter,
I still think it is absurd, there is NO matter created
out of nothing, and space-time is just geometry,
it is not a physical entity.
But don't let me discourage you. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 20:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6b0qfF5v86U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522436 |
Am 21.09.2015 08:02, schrieb kefischer: >>> >>> You really have some weird ideas, seal level >>> will rise from erosion, look at any big river delta. The sea-level is kind of 'grand total': you have a lot coming in and a lot going out. At the final result you have a certain sum and that is the surface of the ocean in respect to the land. Since there are several 'ins' and 'outs', you cannot easily say, which direction the surface level takes. You are certainly right: erosion adds material to the ocean, hence belongs to the 'ins'. The size of the Earth is what 'Growing earth' assumes to grow (hence the name). With growth the sea-level would fall. Reason: more surface to cover, hence less water per surface area. If now sea-levels fall (over long periods of time) this could be regarded as proof of 'Growing Earth'. So I try to prove falling sea-levels. >>> If a crack develops in mid ocean, just where >>> do you think the water will go? >> >> There are rifts, that are building continuously. Famous rift is called >> 'Miraina trench'. This is a VERY deep crack in the crust and it is - of >> course- filled with water. > > No it isn't "filled with water", it is just a valley > on the sea floor, and probably has at least one > crack oozing magma under high pressure. I'm insecure, what you try to say. But certainly the Mariana Trench is full of water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench > >> Another crack is visible in East Africa. It starts at the Red Sea and >> has an 'arm' reaching to the east: the Golf of Aden. The second 'arm' of >> this formation called 'triple junction' is the Read Sea and the third is >> pointing South to the East African Rift Valley. >> >> Cracks and rifts are visible all over the place. Like e.g. the Baya >> California. >> >> If the surface of the Earth would grow, the sea-levels should fall. So >> falling sea-levels would prove 'Growing Earth'. > > The only recognized cause of sea level > changes is the ice ages, there is no place > for water to go as long as the hydrogen > stays bound to the oxygen. Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation for the (alleged) remains of the ice age. Berlin (where I live) is a good example: the state 'Brandenburg' is covered primarily with sand (below the surface). This sand is assumed to be delivered there during the ice age. Growing Earth assumes, this sand was former sea-bottom of a former shallow sea, that existed in northern Germany several thousand years ago. With dropping sea-levels and spreading of the crust, the current Baltic Sea has formed, into which the water has flown. The sea-level is now much lower and the former sea-floor has turned into marshes. Later the land went dryer, but the receding water left behind a lot of lakes. This is somehow like the current landscape looks like. Then (much later) marshes turn into deserts. This can be seen in Northern Africa, what was formerly a very fruitful region and is now a desert. Far in the future Brandenburg will also be a desert. The sand is already there, but below vegetation. but once the water is gone, the forest will also go and this area will look like the Sahara. (Other observations of similar kind are Atolls and areas like northern Australia. ) > Sea level rise over long periods of time > has to occur because of erosion, that is clear > in geology. > > >>> Rain happens at random places, chances >>> are global precip is fairly constant annually, >>> but some place suffer drought, and others, floods. >>> >> Well, actually yes, but what do you try to say? > > Your idea of water draining through cracks > is funny. I mean: if there is spreading between the continents, there will be oceans later in these cracks, since water always flows into the deeper regions and cracks are usually deep. Sea-floor is (according to 'Growing Earth') much younger than the continents. The oceans form from the spreading zones (rifts or cracks), that have build, where is dry land now. They have formed usually under water at a time, when Earth was much smaller and current dry land was below the oceans. With spreading the continents moved apart and the water has flown into the regions, that created between these parts. That's why the ocean floor is younger than the surface of the continents. > >>> The Earth is still between glacial events, >>> so more ice melting is likely, even if the temperature >>> data is skewed by moving so many weather stations >>> to airports, and building cities with lots of paving >>> and roofs around others. >> >> Actually I do NOT deny 'Climate Change', but provide another >> (alternative) reason: Growing Earth. > > Which is absurd, there is widening cracks > in the sea floor because of cooling and gas bubbles > forming in the cooling magma when it is no longer > under pressure. This is neither true nor particularly logic. The astonishing fact (according to 'Growing Earth) is, that the Earth would grow. And growth requires cracks, since the Earth crust is much harder and more brittle that the interior. If the interior pushes up, the continents had to mace apart. > But that accounts for less than the gain > from dust falling from space, a very small amount. Well, yes. But 'Growing Earth' assumes gain of mass from the inside. This is actually the point and why I'm interested in Geology in the first place, since I tried to prove my idea called 'structured space-time'. There are other ways to prove it. E.g. I assume, that it should be possible to create dust inside a sealed cube of clear acrylic, if that is put into a chamber filled with pulsed microwaves. The exact parameters I don't know (since I don't own an appropriate lab), but it is a prediction from my idea (like Growing Earth) > >> Why I think GE is in fact true, that stems from a certain 'theory' >> (actually I call that 'concept'), that I tried to prove. >> >> This was more or less a hobby and was my attempt to connect GR and QM. >> The concept is called 'Structured Spacetime' and is meant as a different >> approach to the origin and nature of matter. >> In this concept matter is created continuously within the Earth, hence >> would make the Earth grow (from within!). >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> >> TH > > As close as that seems to Divergent Matter, > I still think it is absurd, there is NO matter created > out of nothing, and space-time is just geometry, > it is not a physical entity. > > But don't let me discourage you. :-) > This is the question. I personally would bet on the validity of my idea (even if I don't bet). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 16:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d1r00bp4ica6pkfmgufrmgjv6epvpa9v2c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522520 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:32:38 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 21.09.2015 08:02, schrieb kefischer:
>
>>>>
>>>> You really have some weird ideas, seal level
>>>> will rise from erosion, look at any big river delta.
>
>
>The sea-level is kind of 'grand total': you have a lot coming in and a
>lot going out. At the final result you have a certain sum and that is
>the surface of the ocean in respect to the land.
>
>Since there are several 'ins' and 'outs', you cannot easily say, which
>direction the surface level takes.
>
>You are certainly right: erosion adds material to the ocean, hence
>belongs to the 'ins'.
>
>The size of the Earth is what 'Growing earth' assumes to grow (hence the
>name).
>
>With growth the sea-level would fall. Reason: more surface to cover,
>hence less water per surface area.
>
>If now sea-levels fall (over long periods of time) this could be
>regarded as proof of 'Growing Earth'.
>
>So I try to prove falling sea-levels.
>
>
>
>>>> If a crack develops in mid ocean, just where
>>>> do you think the water will go?
>>>
>>> There are rifts, that are building continuously. Famous rift is called
>>> 'Miraina trench'. This is a VERY deep crack in the crust and it is - of
>>> course- filled with water.
>>
>> No it isn't "filled with water", it is just a valley
>> on the sea floor, and probably has at least one
>> crack oozing magma under high pressure.
>
>
>I'm insecure, what you try to say. But certainly the Mariana Trench is
>full of water.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench
>>
>>> Another crack is visible in East Africa. It starts at the Red Sea and
>>> has an 'arm' reaching to the east: the Golf of Aden. The second 'arm' of
>>> this formation called 'triple junction' is the Read Sea and the third is
>>> pointing South to the East African Rift Valley.
>>>
>>> Cracks and rifts are visible all over the place. Like e.g. the Baya
>>> California.
>>>
>>> If the surface of the Earth would grow, the sea-levels should fall. So
>>> falling sea-levels would prove 'Growing Earth'.
>>
>> The only recognized cause of sea level
>> changes is the ice ages, there is no place
>> for water to go as long as the hydrogen
>> stays bound to the oxygen.
>
>Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation for the (alleged)
>remains of the ice age.
>
>Berlin (where I live) is a good example: the state 'Brandenburg' is
>covered primarily with sand (below the surface). This sand is assumed to
>be delivered there during the ice age.
>
>Growing Earth assumes, this sand was former sea-bottom of a former
>shallow sea, that existed in northern Germany several thousand years ago.
>
>With dropping sea-levels and spreading of the crust, the current Baltic
>Sea has formed, into which the water has flown. The sea-level is now
>much lower and the former sea-floor has turned into marshes. Later the
>land went dryer, but the receding water left behind a lot of lakes.
>
>This is somehow like the current landscape looks like.
>
>Then (much later) marshes turn into deserts. This can be seen in
>Northern Africa, what was formerly a very fruitful region and is now a
>desert.
>
>Far in the future Brandenburg will also be a desert. The sand is already
>there, but below vegetation. but once the water is gone, the forest will
>also go and this area will look like the Sahara.
>
>
>(Other observations of similar kind are Atolls and areas like northern
>Australia. )
>
>
>> Sea level rise over long periods of time
>> has to occur because of erosion, that is clear
>> in geology.
>>
>>
>>>> Rain happens at random places, chances
>>>> are global precip is fairly constant annually,
>>>> but some place suffer drought, and others, floods.
>>>>
>>> Well, actually yes, but what do you try to say?
>>
>> Your idea of water draining through cracks
>> is funny.
>
>
>I mean: if there is spreading between the continents, there will be
>oceans later in these cracks, since water always flows into the deeper
>regions and cracks are usually deep.
>
>Sea-floor is (according to 'Growing Earth') much younger than the
>continents. The oceans form from the spreading zones (rifts or cracks),
>that have build, where is dry land now.
>
>They have formed usually under water at a time, when Earth was much
>smaller and current dry land was below the oceans. With spreading the
>continents moved apart and the water has flown into the regions, that
>created between these parts.
>
>That's why the ocean floor is younger than the surface of the continents.
>
>>
>>>> The Earth is still between glacial events,
>>>> so more ice melting is likely, even if the temperature
>>>> data is skewed by moving so many weather stations
>>>> to airports, and building cities with lots of paving
>>>> and roofs around others.
>>>
>>> Actually I do NOT deny 'Climate Change', but provide another
>>> (alternative) reason: Growing Earth.
>>
>> Which is absurd, there is widening cracks
>> in the sea floor because of cooling and gas bubbles
>> forming in the cooling magma when it is no longer
>> under pressure.
>
>
>This is neither true nor particularly logic.
>
>The astonishing fact (according to 'Growing Earth) is, that the Earth
>would grow. And growth requires cracks, since the Earth crust is much
>harder and more brittle that the interior.
>
>If the interior pushes up, the continents had to mace apart.
>
>> But that accounts for less than the gain
>> from dust falling from space, a very small amount.
>
>
>Well, yes. But 'Growing Earth' assumes gain of mass from the inside.
>
>This is actually the point and why I'm interested in Geology in the
>first place, since I tried to prove my idea called 'structured space-time'.
>
>There are other ways to prove it. E.g. I assume, that it should be
>possible to create dust inside a sealed cube of clear acrylic, if that
>is put into a chamber filled with pulsed microwaves.
>
>The exact parameters I don't know (since I don't own an appropriate
>lab), but it is a prediction from my idea (like Growing Earth)
>>
>>> Why I think GE is in fact true, that stems from a certain 'theory'
>>> (actually I call that 'concept'), that I tried to prove.
>>>
>>> This was more or less a hobby and was my attempt to connect GR and QM.
>>> The concept is called 'Structured Spacetime' and is meant as a different
>>> approach to the origin and nature of matter.
>>> In this concept matter is created continuously within the Earth, hence
>>> would make the Earth grow (from within!).
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> As close as that seems to Divergent Matter,
>> I still think it is absurd, there is NO matter created
>> out of nothing, and space-time is just geometry,
>> it is not a physical entity.
>>
>> But don't let me discourage you. :-)
>>
>This is the question. I personally would bet on the validity of my idea
>(even if I don't bet).
>
>TH
I'm sorry to say your ideas are backward
and irrational. All magna coming to the surface
is full of gas cavities, haven't you seen lava rock,
it is sold here for landscaping.
And all of the lava and erosion is doing
the opposite of what you think, the depth of
the ocean may not increase, but in the long term,
sea level will cover more area, not less, with
the end result of _ALL_ ocean, and little or
no land.
That is the opposite of what you said,
isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 06:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6c26rFdge1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522561 |
Am 21.09.2015 22:49, schrieb kefischer: >>>> Why I think GE is in fact true, that stems from a certain 'theory' >>>> (actually I call that 'concept'), that I tried to prove. >>>> >>>> This was more or less a hobby and was my attempt to connect GR and QM. >>>> The concept is called 'Structured Spacetime' and is meant as a different >>>> approach to the origin and nature of matter. >>>> In this concept matter is created continuously within the Earth, hence >>>> would make the Earth grow (from within!). >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> As close as that seems to Divergent Matter, >>> I still think it is absurd, there is NO matter created >>> out of nothing, and space-time is just geometry, >>> it is not a physical entity. >>> >>> But don't let me discourage you. :-) >>> >> This is the question. I personally would bet on the validity of my idea >> (even if I don't bet). >> >> TH > > I'm sorry to say your ideas are backward > and irrational. All magna coming to the surface > is full of gas cavities, haven't you seen lava rock, > it is sold here for landscaping. > > And all of the lava and erosion is doing > the opposite of what you think, the depth of > the ocean may not increase, but in the long term, > sea level will cover more area, not less, with > the end result of _ALL_ ocean, and little or > no land. > > That is the opposite of what you said, > isn't it? > No, it's not opposite. Of course I know that there is a lot of gas coming out of the lava in a volcano eruption (mainly CO2). There are also diamonds in old volcano shafts. This shows us, that carbon is coming from deep inside the inner Earth. This is so, because diamonds need a certain pressure and a very specific velocity of cooling and that a very fast rising magma from great depth. But how did the gas get there?? Or the diamonds?? This is a very difficult question and hardly impossible to explain with something else than what I had suggested. I assume, that the planets grow from within and the results 'boil upwards', but in different fractions, since the parts have different characteristics and ability to move within the Earth. CO2 and other gases (like water vapour) are in fact in solution, hence bubble out in such eruptions. But you could try to find another solution for the riddle, how light gases manage to get very deep down into very dense and very hot magma, that is under VERY high pressure. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 19:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics |
| Message-ID | <m00rp5$bf9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521822 |
In article <55FC4ECF.5C5E@ix.netcom.com>, starmaker@ix.netcom.com wrote: >Kill those global warming deniers... > >put them in concentration camps.. > >shoot them one by one. > >http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj I fixed the subject for you. HTH! -- Conservatives don't believe in global warming because of the scientific data. Liberals believe in global warming because it felt a little warm this morning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6ellnF2olkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522755 |
Am 23.09.2015 01:48, schrieb Ubiquitous: >> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj > > I fixed the subject for you. HTH! > There are three branches in the government and all of its institutions: Exceutive, Judicative, legislative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers The President belongs to the Executive branch of the US-government. (He is actually the head of the executive branch.) The prosecution of (alleged) criminals does not belong to his duties, but to something like the police. The courts and juries belong to the branch of institution, that deal with application of the laws. The laws themselves are released by the legislative branch (usually some sort of parliament). A law is a formal set of rules, that are universally valid (in space, time and people). The president is now able to initiate a new law, that would make scepticism illegal, but is not able to prosecute certain individuals (belongs to the judicative) or release such laws (belongs to the legislative). Also ALL scepticism must be punished, once a law against scepticism is released, since laws are by their nature universal. So you cannot create a law, that forbids one kind of scepticism and allows another type. In case of global warming, the critique of such a 'scientific' result is punishable by law, you also must prosecute other types of disbelieve, like in big-bang theory or evolution. E.g. (since forum this is about relativity) the critique about Einstein as person and/or his discoveries is then a criminal offence. What about religion? Could you allow that? I mean heresy is a crime and we should re-establish the Spanish inquisition. Also the punishment could be more traditional (medieval)... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web