Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #597688 > unrolled thread

Telepathy drug

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:25 -0700
    Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:33 -0500
      Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 09:39 -0700
        Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 19:31 +0000
          Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 16:51 -0700
            Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-21 00:35 +0000
              Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 17:44 -0700
                Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 21:36 -0500
                Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-21 05:48 +0000
                  Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 08:32 -0700
                    Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:29 -0500
                      Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:45 -0700
                        Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 10:35 -0500
                        Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 15:35 +0000
                          Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 11:02 -0700
                            Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:23 -0500
                            Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:25 -0500
                            Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 19:27 +0000
                              Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:13 -0700
                                Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:48 -0500
                                Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 20:48 +0000
                                  Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 16:57 -0700
                                    Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 18:48 -0700
                                      Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 19:09 -0700
                                        Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-23 03:13 +0000
                                          Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:56 -0700
                                            Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-23 13:15 +0000
                                          Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 08:42 -0500
                                            Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 06:54 -0700
                                              Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:19 -0700
                                                Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:57 -0700
                                                  Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 10:22 -0500
                                                  Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-23 17:12 +0000
                                                    Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 10:57 -0700
                                                      Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 13:18 -0500
                                                Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:57 -0500
                                            Re: Telepathy drug pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 20:37 -0700
                                              Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 14:43 +0000
                                                Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 08:16 -0700
                                                  Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-24 12:16 -0500
                                                  Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 19:13 +0000
                                                    Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:39 -0700
                                        Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:10 -0500
                                      Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:08 -0500
                                    Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-23 03:05 +0000
                                    Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:06 -0500
                    Re: Telepathy drug moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 15:32 +0000
    Re: Telepathy drug "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 12:26 -0700
      Re: Telepathy drug "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-20 12:33 -0700
    Re: Telepathy drug Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 22:14 +1000
      Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 06:16 -0700
        Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:20 -0500
          Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 06:34 -0700
            Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 06:39 -0700
              Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:51 -0500
                Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:02 -0700
                  Re: Telepathy drug john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:26 -0700
                    Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 11:05 -0500
                  Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 11:04 -0500
                    Re: Telepathy drug Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 13:22 -0500
            Re: Telepathy drug Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:39 -0500

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#598159

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael said
>"Did you hear about the really dumb guy who ordered a pizza? "

>And then there were the guys
>that said the pizza couldn't be
>pictured, because it had no dimensions.
>A "quantum-point" pizza.
>Wow- dumber than dumb.

Or how about the really, really dumb guy who said "I don't want that
pizza! It's no good!! It first needs to be spinning and then you have to
make it precess in a 2:1 ratio!!"

Now, that's really dumb.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598167

Or that really, really dumb guy who
said the pizza is universally
expanding, so we can
cut pieces off it forever?!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598011

On 9/22/2016 9:09 PM, john wrote:
> Also
> Odd and Michael
> You also seem to have the simplistic
> notion that smaller means less
> complex to the point where the
> smallest things have no features
> at all, or at least are indistinguishable
> by their fundamental-ness.

I really don't think that's true, John. I really don't understand where 
you got that notion, either. Quarks are MUCH different than electrons, 
and there is no implication in physics that they would be or should be 
indistinguishable. The difference is in a list of properties and 
interactions. Not internal structure, because there's no evidence of 
internal structure.

Now, I know that your mind leaps from properties to structure. But 
that's just you.

> Why do you think that?

I don't. Can you explain why you think I do think that?

> Can you explain how smaller
> equals less detail?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598010

On 9/22/2016 8:48 PM, john wrote:
> I'll say this more clearly-
> The phrase, "you can't picture it",
> means you can't see it being real.

No, that means YOU can't see it being real, because to YOU (and you 
only), the picture is the only kind of model you understand and accept.

But John, physics isn't here to cater to your desires.

>
> That's where you are- with no
> clear vision- or even ANY vision.
>
> Sorry
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597988

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>You have released hold of
>a 3D world- both of you.
>Unfortunately, you've been
>talked into bullshit, because a
>3D universe is what we got and
>yes it changes gradually with
>Time- YOU STILL HAVE TO BE
>ABLE TO CONNECT POINT A TO
>POINT B at every juncture.
>You gotta present a representative
>picture for your model or you
>don't got one. Sorry. 

No, John.  You still don't understand what a physics model is at all, do
you.  You think you can create an animated gif of a whole bunch of
precessing spinny things, label it "benzene" and call that a physics
model.  No, that is artwork and "benzene" is the name of that piece of
artwork.  Artists frequently give names to their art, usually to show what
the art is supposed to represent, but it's often cryptic to people.

A physics model is a description of what will happen, usually with lots of
math.  For example, a physics model of earth's gravity and an object's
momentum can be described by a mathematical formula that generates a
parabola. Given an initial velocity, angle with the ground and initial
height, you can plug those numbers into a mathematical formula and
describe a baseball's path, how high it goes, how far it goes before it
reaches the ground, flight time and so forth.  No picture necessary though
pictures can help in understanding. Now if you want, you can draw Big Papi
smacking a homer over the Green Monster, but that is not necessary and it
doesn't help with the math at all.  It's the math that gets you the
numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598009

On 9/22/2016 6:57 PM, john wrote:
> You have released hold of
> a 3D world- both of you.

Have released that sensory perception, yes.
Common day experience is deceptive, John.

> Unfortunately, you've been
> talked into bullshit, because a
> 3D universe is what we got

Another example of a "law" you have invented, which you firmly believe, 
but which you cannot actually lay hands on evidence for -- other than 
your common day experience.

> and
> yes it changes gradually with
> Time- YOU STILL HAVE TO BE
> ABLE TO CONNECT POINT A TO
> POINT B at every juncture.
> You gotta present a representative
> picture for your model or you
> don't got one. Sorry.
>

Sorry, John, but this just isn't so. A physical model is not a picture, 
no matter how much you want it to be so.

Let me repeat this for you: Science is not what you want it to be. 
Physics is not what you want it to be. The world is not what you want it 
to be. So how are you going to deal with that?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597926

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Poor Michelle
>Trying on his high-heeled shoes,

Why the effeminate insults?  Looking for a gay date? No, I am not 
interested.

>he seeks refuge in Logic.
>Point particles are LOGICAL,
>he says.

More logical than precessing spinny things, of course.

>That way you can have an
>infinite number on your
>point like thingy.
>Wow!!

Electrons are fermions. You can't have more than one fermion in a single
quantum state.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597724

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:25:55 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> A new drug will come out enabling
> people to
> recover their capacity for telepathy.
> Oh oh.
> Then you find out who
> gives a shit, and who's in it for #1.
> 
> Why do I think this?
> 90% of our brain is never used.
> We're like a cell phone in an
> old person's hands
Creates chemical to activate the id. Hmmmm  Trebert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597727

herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Hitler lover Glazier 
is smwearing his Gutter Physics & his Glazier into
 every post again... ,snip> ..... AHAHAHAHA... 
>
So, Hitler lover Glazier go read the post:
"How come Bert works so hard to fulfill Hitler's Curse"
Read it and then do the right thing Bert. Be a Mensch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598012

On 21/09/2016 12:25 AM, john wrote:

> Why do I think this?
> 90% of our brain is never used.

This is an enduring myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598014

Sylvie
from ur link
"Though mysteries regarding brain function remain—e.g. memory, consciousness—the physiology of brain mapping suggests that all areas of the brain have a function"

Okay. Gotcha.
'Though vast tracts of Canada are
tundra and forest,
ALL provinces have people.
So Canada is 100% populated.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598016

On 9/23/2016 8:16 AM, john wrote:
> Sylvie
> from ur link
> "Though mysteries regarding brain function remain—e.g. memory,
> consciousness—the physiology of brain mapping suggests that all
> areas of the brain have a function"
>
> Okay. Gotcha.
> 'Though vast tracts of Canada are
> tundra and forest,
> ALL provinces have people.
> So Canada is 100% populated.'
>

So let's recap, John.
You make a statement that we only use 10% of our brains. Where you 
picked up this little tidbit, who knows, but it's possibly from a 
supermarket tabloid.
It's pointed out to you that this is a myth, so wrong as to be laughable.
Instead of dropping or retracting the statement, you insist that it's 
true, and you use Canadian forests as proof?

So, John, please explain how it is that you are apparently using 1% of 
your brain and still you manage to feed yourself.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598018

Odd
I love how with you, 10% becomes 1%.
You have no real grasp of numbers
or PROPORTION.
It must be lovely living in a Math
world where Reality doesn't intrude
on your 2D, 4D fantasies.

If you can't picture it, Odd, you
don't understand it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598020

Odd



Dr http://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarkable-story-of-maths-genius-who-had-almost-no-brain-1.1026845

"Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598030

On 9/23/2016 8:39 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
>
>
>
> Dr http://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarkable-story-of-maths-genius-who-had-almost-no-brain-1.1026845
>
> "Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this
> condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50
> per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of
> the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter
> group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly
> mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100."
>

Yes, so?
This article speaks to the dependence of cognition on the structure and 
complexity of the brain, not the volume. It is not true, however, that 
in full sized brains or compressed brains, that only 10% of the brain is 
used. That's a myth, as has been pointed out to you a few times now.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598034

Odd said
"
Yes, so? 
This article speaks to the dependence of cognition on the structure and 
complexity of the brain, not the volume. It is not true, however, that 
in full sized brains or compressed brains, that only 10% of the brain is ...."

What?
There is less brain TISSUE, you noodlebrain!

FEWER BRAIN CELLS!!!!

Less than 10%, and normal function.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598037

   Anyway. 
    I experienced telepathy. 

     There is literally a "thought bubble" 
     that you go into and participate 
     as a player until the end. 
     From outside, you can see what's going on 
     inside it against a black background 
    as from afar, but then you go into 
   it and ride it through. There is a 
  specific "dimple" in the bubble, 
 where you go in- you can go in anywhere, 
 but if you do, you only experience from 
  there to the end, and usually don't get 
   enough information. 

    I'm sure there are other forms of 
     telepathy, but this one is like 
     audio video immersion- total detail 
    and sensory experience. 

   We are riding others' thoughts all 
  the time, and don't know it. It only 
 takes your brain a split second 
 to detour through one in a mental 
  flash, so others' thoughts are heavily 
   thicketed through our mental 
    forest. 
     Know yourself, and you will know which 
     thoughts aren't yours. 

However, jumping into another's thought
bubble can be confusing, because
everything is being referenced 
according to them being the protagonist,
especially if the thought is about you,
when them/you get totally switched,
and you see yourself doing things for
them that you know you cannot do.

Know yourself, and you will know
which thoughts are yours.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598042

On 9/23/2016 10:26 AM, john wrote:
> However, jumping into another's thought
> bubble can be confusing, because
> everything is being referenced
> according to them being the protagonist,
> especially if the thought is about you,
> when them/you get totally switched,
> and you see yourself doing things for
> them that you know you cannot do.
>
> Know yourself, and you will know
> which thoughts are yours.

So said Sybil.

I've heard, John, that sitting with a crystal for six or seven hours on 
the weekend will help you discern which thoughts are yours.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598041

On 9/23/2016 10:02 AM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "
> Yes, so?
> This article speaks to the dependence of cognition on the structure and
> complexity of the brain, not the volume. It is not true, however, that
> in full sized brains or compressed brains, that only 10% of the brain is ...."
>
> What?
> There is less brain TISSUE, you noodlebrain!
>
> FEWER BRAIN CELLS!!!!
>
> Less than 10%, and normal function.
>

Idiot. Intelligence is not based on the number of brain cells, and it 
isn't based on volume. Nor is it based on the number of cells that are 
participating.

The elephant's brain is 4 times the size of a human brain, and the sperm 
whale's brain is 6 times the size of a human brain.

If we were to take your statement that it's the volume of the brain that 
counts, and if we were to buy into the WELL-KNOWN MYTH that we use 10% 
of our brains, then elephants would be using much less than 2.5% of 
their brains, because they have four times the volume and they are a lot 
less intelligent than humans!

What amazes me, John, is not only that you buy into the stuff you pick 
up in comic books and supermarket tabloids, but when a bunch of people 
point out to you that the stuff is utter bullshit, you try to make cases 
that it's TRUE NEVERTHELESS. In so doing, all you do is prove that you 
don't know what you're talking about and that you're trying to piece 
things together yourself to arrive at conclusions you like. What kind of 
person does that?

I mean, seriously, if you read in a tabloid that a government insider 
claims that Donald Trump is a former and now outcast member of the 
Illuminati, you would seriously try to form arguments that it must be 
true!!!
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/05/jean-claude-van-damme-donald-trump-illuminati


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598057

On 9/23/2016 11:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/23/2016 10:02 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd said
>> "
>> Yes, so?
>> This article speaks to the dependence of cognition on the structure and
>> complexity of the brain, not the volume. It is not true, however, that
>> in full sized brains or compressed brains, that only 10% of the brain
>> is ...."
>>
>> What?
>> There is less brain TISSUE, you noodlebrain!
>>
>> FEWER BRAIN CELLS!!!!
>>
>> Less than 10%, and normal function.
>>
>
> Idiot. Intelligence is not based on the number of brain cells, and it
> isn't based on volume. Nor is it based on the number of cells that are
> participating.
>
> The elephant's brain is 4 times the size of a human brain, and the sperm
> whale's brain is 6 times the size of a human brain.
>
> If we were to take your statement that it's the volume of the brain that
> counts, and if we were to buy into the WELL-KNOWN MYTH that we use 10%
> of our brains, then elephants would be using much less than 2.5% of
> their brains, because they have four times the volume and they are a lot
> less intelligent than humans!
>
> What amazes me, John, is not only that you buy into the stuff you pick
> up in comic books and supermarket tabloids, but when a bunch of people
> point out to you that the stuff is utter bullshit, you try to make cases
> that it's TRUE NEVERTHELESS. In so doing, all you do is prove that you
> don't know what you're talking about and that you're trying to piece
> things together yourself to arrive at conclusions you like. What kind of
> person does that?
>
> I mean, seriously, if you read in a tabloid that a government insider
> claims that Donald Trump is a former and now outcast member of the
> Illuminati, you would seriously try to form arguments that it must be
> true!!!
> http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/05/jean-claude-van-damme-donald-trump-illuminati
>
>
>

get it first hand from the ILLUMINATI NEWS;
http://www.illuminati-news.com/bill-clinton's-criminal-background.htm

STRANGE DEATHS CONNECTED TO CLINTON

So what did Bill Clinton do, when he came to power in the White House? 
Just like the drug trading president before him, the Illuminist George 
H.W. Bush, he started a war against drugs(!)

The interesting part is, though, that when different people have started 
talking about Clinton's affairs, they have suddenly and mysteriously 
died. One of them was Barry Seale, the drug smuggler. He was killed in 
February 1987.

By that time, several murders were committed in Arkansas.

     Two young boys were out walking late one night in the surroundings 
of Mena Airport. They were found dead on a railroad track. The examining 
doctor, sent by Clinton, said it was an accident. But their parents 
didn't agree. Later it was found that the boys had been stabbed and got 
their heads crushed.

     Six other persons, who had talked to the police regarding the 
murder of the boys, were killed themselves! Some of them had said to 
their families they had to leave town urgently, as they knew too much 
about the murders, but they were all traced and shot to death. All this 
happened while Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and used Mena 
Airport for drug smuggling. Coincidences, folks? Right.

To make research on, or accuse Clinton has too often showed to be a 
lethal business.

     Danny Casoloro, who investigated Clinton's involvement in stock 
frauds, was found dead in West Virginia.

     A lawyer from Washington, Paul Wilcher, who had made an appointment 
with Casoloro's former attorney, was found dead in his apartment.

     Prosecutor Charles Black wanted more money from governor Clinton to 
be able to continue the investigations regarding drug smuggling on Mena 
Airport. He got no money, but Black's mother was killed.

     The director for Clinton's Finance-campaign Committee, Ed Willke, 
was shot with a hail-gun.

     John Wilson, politician in Washington, threatened to reveal 
Clinton's dirty business. He was found swinging from a rope in 1993.

     Kathy Furguson, police in Arkansas and Clinton's bodyguard, said 
that Clinton was promiscuous. She was found dead with a gun in her hand. 
Her husband Danny denies all sex-scandals related to Clinton. He is 
still alive.

     Jon Parnel Walker, one of the investigators in the Whitewater 
affair, "fell" from a balcony in Virginia.

     C. Victor Raider II had an argument with Clinton. Raider and his 
son Montgomery died when their sport plane crashed.

     Mr. Friday, member of Raider's committee, and a known skilled 
pilot, died when his plane exploded.

     Dentist Ronald Rogers was about to meet a journalist and give 
information regarding Clinton when his plane crashed in clear weather.

     Luther Parks had gathered information regarding Clinton's sex 
habits. Clinton owed him $81,000 for security during his election 
campaign. He threatened Clinton to go public if he didn't get the money 
back. He was shot September 26th 1993.His son Gary said he had all the 
evidence at home and proof of Bill and Roger Clinton's drug abuse. The 
information was stolen shortly thereafter.

     Vincent Foster was a good friend of Clinton since childhood. His 
"suicide" occurred during the Whitewater investigation.The "suicide" 
couldn't have been such. He still had the gun in his hand when found, 
which is impossible after the reaction from the bullet. Also, he held 
the gun in his right hand, though he was left-handed! At the same time 
employees at "Rose Law Firm" started to destroy documents.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web