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

Groups > sci.physics > #586476 > unrolled thread

Unbelievable

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 21:01 -0700
    Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:13 -0500
      Re: Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:02 -0700
        Re: Unbelievable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-25 23:03 +0000
        Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:23 -0500
          Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-27 16:49 -0400
            Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 16:36 -0500
              Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-27 19:39 -0400
                Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:16 -0500
                  Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-28 19:18 -0400
                    Re: Unbelievable HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:42 -0700
                      Re: Unbelievable jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-29 00:09 +0000
                        Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-28 20:22 -0400
                          Re: Unbelievable jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-29 01:20 +0000
                            Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-29 17:27 -0400
                              Re: Unbelievable jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-30 01:09 +0000
                                Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-01 17:44 -0400
                                  Re: Unbelievable jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 22:00 +0000
                        Re: Unbelievable HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 17:28 -0700
                          Re: Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:19 -0700
                            Re: Unbelievable moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 16:37 +0000
                              Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:30 -0500
                            Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-29 17:23 -0400
                              Re: Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:33 -0700
                              Re: Unbelievable HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 17:08 -0700
                                Re: Unbelievable noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:36 -0700
                                Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-01 17:38 -0400
                          Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-29 17:21 -0400
                    Re: Unbelievable noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:22 -0700
                      Re: Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:34 -0700
                        Re: Unbelievable ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-28 22:09 -0500
                          Re: Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:57 -0700
                            Re: Unbelievable ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-29 10:31 -0500
                              Re: Unbelievable HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:38 -0700
                                Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-29 17:55 -0400
                            Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:51 -0500
                        Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-29 17:35 -0400
                    Re: Unbelievable Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:28 -0500
                Re: Unbelievable HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 06:55 -0700
                  Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-28 19:37 -0400
                    Re: Unbelievable HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:46 -0700
                      b. & a. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:33 -0700
                Re: Unbelievable "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 00:04 -0700
                  pi used to be, hahaha noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:10 -0700
        Re: Unbelievable edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 10:32 -0700
          Re: Unbelievable john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 11:11 -0700
          Re: Unbelievable benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-01 17:47 -0400
    Re: Unbelievable noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:37 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#586476 — Unbelievable

BH
DM
DE
Expanding Space 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#586638

On 6/23/2016 11:01 PM, john wrote:
> BH
> DM
> DE
> Expanding Space
>

Why do you find them unbelievable, when others find them believable?

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

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

#586663

Why would you believe a bunch
of really weird stuff that's never been seen
before?

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

#586697

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Why would you believe a bunch
>of really weird stuff that's never been seen
>before?

OK, fractal universes and spinny thing benzene graphics gets tossed right 
out the window!  Thanks for clarifying that.

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

#586973

On 6/25/2016 3:02 PM, john wrote:
> Why would you believe a bunch
> of really weird stuff that's never been seen
> before?
>

John, I get the feeling that you dislike new things that have never been 
seen before. Evidence of new things unlike anything ever seen before 
makes you queasy, makes you reject it on a gut level. And moreover, 
anything that is new is automatically "weird" by your estimation.

Do you need some level of stability and comfort in your life?

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

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

#586979

On 6/27/2016 4:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/25/2016 3:02 PM, john wrote:
>> Why would you believe a bunch
>> of really weird stuff that's never been seen
>> before?
>>
>
> John, I get the feeling that you dislike new things that have never been
> seen before. Evidence of new things unlike anything ever seen before
> makes you queasy, makes you reject it on a gut level. And moreover,
> anything that is new is automatically "weird" by your estimation.
>
> Do you need some level of stability and comfort in your life?
>
WOW, boinker, are you looking in a mirror? You are by FAR the person 
here most likely to reject any new idea (unless given pre-approval by 
establishment figures so you know ahead of time not to be afraid and 
start promoting it).

This is called "projection", right?

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

#586991

On 6/27/2016 3:49 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 4:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/25/2016 3:02 PM, john wrote:
>>> Why would you believe a bunch
>>> of really weird stuff that's never been seen
>>> before?
>>>
>>
>> John, I get the feeling that you dislike new things that have never been
>> seen before. Evidence of new things unlike anything ever seen before
>> makes you queasy, makes you reject it on a gut level. And moreover,
>> anything that is new is automatically "weird" by your estimation.
>>
>> Do you need some level of stability and comfort in your life?
>>
> WOW, boinker, are you looking in a mirror? You are by FAR the person
> here most likely to reject any new idea (unless given pre-approval by
> establishment figures so you know ahead of time not to be afraid and
> start promoting it).
>
> This is called "projection", right?

I'm all in favor of testable new ideas. Not untestable, nonscientific 
ideas. Ideas that have distinguishing predictions that can be compared 
to observational evidence.

Like:
BH
DM
DE
QM

Like things that John finds distasteful regardless of whether it matches 
observation or not.

Now, you have any ideas that meet those criteria?

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

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

#587015

On 6/27/2016 5:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 3:49 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 6/27/2016 4:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2016 3:02 PM, john wrote:
>>>> Why would you believe a bunch
>>>> of really weird stuff that's never been seen
>>>> before?
>>>>
>>>
>>> John, I get the feeling that you dislike new things that have never been
>>> seen before. Evidence of new things unlike anything ever seen before
>>> makes you queasy, makes you reject it on a gut level. And moreover,
>>> anything that is new is automatically "weird" by your estimation.
>>>
>>> Do you need some level of stability and comfort in your life?
>>>
>> WOW, boinker, are you looking in a mirror? You are by FAR the person
>> here most likely to reject any new idea (unless given pre-approval by
>> establishment figures so you know ahead of time not to be afraid and
>> start promoting it).
>>
>> This is called "projection", right?
>
> I'm all in favor of testable new ideas. Not untestable, nonscientific
> ideas. Ideas that have distinguishing predictions that can be compared
> to observational evidence.
>
> Like:
> BH
> DM
> DE
> QM
>
> Like things that John finds distasteful regardless of whether it matches
> observation or not.
>
> Now, you have any ideas that meet those criteria?

What a list of untested, nay untestable, fantasy non-scientific crap!

Who has ever been anywhere NEAR a BK. Has CERN made any yet? Didn't 
think so. Cosmology is just new age mumbo jumbo that guys like you sell 
as science! And DM and DE is also unseen and even worse base on a total 
and major error of BB. No wonder there is no evidence. And we all know 
that QM isn't science at all, just guess work and then you all have the 
nerve to proclaim that guesswork is the "best" anyone can do!
I presume the assumption is that nobody is smarter or more skilled than 
you bunch!
Sure! I'll be mailing you your "smarter than Einstein medal.

Then on the other hand after Nobel prize winners like Curies work on ESP 
and gummint spends millions on excellent science to test remote viewing, 
you just reject it because "everybody knows" gummints just waste money 
are are stupid when it comes to science and how to do it. (unlike you 
and your pals).

Got it boinker. We see where you are coming from.

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

#587096

On 6/27/2016 6:39 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 5:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/27/2016 3:49 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2016 4:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2016 3:02 PM, john wrote:
>>>>> Why would you believe a bunch
>>>>> of really weird stuff that's never been seen
>>>>> before?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John, I get the feeling that you dislike new things that have never
>>>> been
>>>> seen before. Evidence of new things unlike anything ever seen before
>>>> makes you queasy, makes you reject it on a gut level. And moreover,
>>>> anything that is new is automatically "weird" by your estimation.
>>>>
>>>> Do you need some level of stability and comfort in your life?
>>>>
>>> WOW, boinker, are you looking in a mirror? You are by FAR the person
>>> here most likely to reject any new idea (unless given pre-approval by
>>> establishment figures so you know ahead of time not to be afraid and
>>> start promoting it).
>>>
>>> This is called "projection", right?
>>
>> I'm all in favor of testable new ideas. Not untestable, nonscientific
>> ideas. Ideas that have distinguishing predictions that can be compared
>> to observational evidence.
>>
>> Like:
>> BH
>> DM
>> DE
>> QM
>>
>> Like things that John finds distasteful regardless of whether it matches
>> observation or not.
>>
>> Now, you have any ideas that meet those criteria?
>
> What a list of untested, nay untestable, fantasy non-scientific crap!

What do you mean, untestable?

>
> Who has ever been anywhere NEAR a BK. Has CERN made any yet? Didn't
> think so.

Why does one have to be near one? Do we have to go to another galaxy to 
verify that the other galaxy exists? Do we have to make one in the lab?

> Cosmology is just new age mumbo jumbo that guys like you sell
> as science! And DM and DE is also unseen and even worse base on a total
> and major error of BB. No wonder there is no evidence.

Woah, dude. Evidence is being sought. This means it IS testable. If it 
were not testable, then there would be no experiments looking for it.

> And we all know
> that QM isn't science at all, just guess work and then you all have the
> nerve to proclaim that guesswork is the "best" anyone can do!

Bullshit.

> I presume the assumption is that nobody is smarter or more skilled than
> you bunch!
> Sure! I'll be mailing you your "smarter than Einstein medal.
>
> Then on the other hand after Nobel prize winners like Curies work on ESP
> and gummint spends millions on excellent science to test remote viewing,

Yes, they did. And when they failed to produce after many decades, they 
got defunded. (Can you say project Star Gate?)

> you just reject it because "everybody knows" gummints just waste money
> are are stupid when it comes to science and how to do it. (unlike you
> and your pals).
>
> Got it boinker. We see where you are coming from.
>
>


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

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

#587162

On 6/28/2016 9:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 6:39 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 6/27/2016 5:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2016 3:49 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2016 4:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2016 3:02 PM, john wrote:
>>>>>> Why would you believe a bunch
>>>>>> of really weird stuff that's never been seen
>>>>>> before?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John, I get the feeling that you dislike new things that have never
>>>>> been
>>>>> seen before. Evidence of new things unlike anything ever seen before
>>>>> makes you queasy, makes you reject it on a gut level. And moreover,
>>>>> anything that is new is automatically "weird" by your estimation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you need some level of stability and comfort in your life?
>>>>>
>>>> WOW, boinker, are you looking in a mirror? You are by FAR the person
>>>> here most likely to reject any new idea (unless given pre-approval by
>>>> establishment figures so you know ahead of time not to be afraid and
>>>> start promoting it).
>>>>
>>>> This is called "projection", right?
>>>
>>> I'm all in favor of testable new ideas. Not untestable, nonscientific
>>> ideas. Ideas that have distinguishing predictions that can be compared
>>> to observational evidence.
>>>
>>> Like:
>>> BH
>>> DM
>>> DE
>>> QM
>>>
>>> Like things that John finds distasteful regardless of whether it matches
>>> observation or not.
>>>
>>> Now, you have any ideas that meet those criteria?
>>
>> What a list of untested, nay untestable, fantasy non-scientific crap!
>
> What do you mean, untestable?
>
>>
>> Who has ever been anywhere NEAR a BK. Has CERN made any yet? Didn't
>> think so.
>
> Why does one have to be near one? Do we have to go to another galaxy to
> verify that the other galaxy exists? Do we have to make one in the lab?

And the way we know the comology of Venus is true that there are warm 
oceans and that it's the planet most likely to human life like earth is? 
Oh that's right. Nobody needs a closer look. Just make it all up and 
tell all the kids it's "fact". That's how you see science, right?

>> Cosmology is just new age mumbo jumbo that guys like you sell
>> as science! And DM and DE is also unseen and even worse base on a total
>> and major error of BB. No wonder there is no evidence.
>
> Woah, dude. Evidence is being sought. This means it IS testable. If it
> were not testable, then there would be no experiments looking for it.

Sure it's testable, but at that distance, it's going to be a while 
before someone gets a close look. In the meanwhile fantasy will do just 
fine as a substitute for science.

>> And we all know
>> that QM isn't science at all, just guess work and then you all have the
>> nerve to proclaim that guesswork is the "best" anyone can do!
>
> Bullshit.

So you don't believe in the uncertainty principle? Good. Neither do I or 
Herb.

>> I presume the assumption is that nobody is smarter or more skilled than
>> you bunch!
>> Sure! I'll be mailing you your "smarter than Einstein medal.
>>
>> Then on the other hand after Nobel prize winners like Curies work on ESP
>> and gummint spends millions on excellent science to test remote viewing,
>
> Yes, they did. And when they failed to produce after many decades, they
> got defunded. (Can you say project Star Gate?)

You mean you were TOLD they got defunded and by the HVAC rule 
(governments never lie) you were FORCED to accept it just as you are 
FORCED to conclude that all the authors (who were the original 
experimenters) are obviously all lying because "everybody knows" that 
these results can't be true. Well, if it's such a failure, how come so 
much of what they did is still classified? I'm sure you've got a good 
tap dance ready for that one.

>> you just reject it because "everybody knows" gummints just waste money
>> are are stupid when it comes to science and how to do it. (unlike you
>> and your pals).
>>
>> Got it boinker. We see where you are coming from.

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

#587166

BJ quacked
You mean you were TOLD they got defunded and by the HVAC rule 
(governments never lie) you were FORCED to accept it just as you are 
FORCED to conclude that all the authors (who were the original 
experimenters) are obviously all lying because "everybody knows" that 
these results can't be true. Well, if it's such a failure, how come so 
much of what they did is still classified? I'm sure you've got a good 
tap dance ready for that one.
-----------

In BJ's kook mind, the fact that there is zero evidence for ghosts, esp and magic is proof of a government conspiracy to suppress such evidence. It's known as a self supporting delusion. Or circular logic. I just say BJ's a kook and call it a day.

You mad BJ?

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

#587174

HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote:
> BJ quacked
> You mean you were TOLD they got defunded and by the HVAC rule 
> (governments never lie) you were FORCED to accept it just as you are 
> FORCED to conclude that all the authors (who were the original 
> experimenters) are obviously all lying because "everybody knows" that 
> these results can't be true. Well, if it's such a failure, how come so 
> much of what they did is still classified? I'm sure you've got a good 
> tap dance ready for that one.
> -----------
> 
> In BJ's kook mind, the fact that there is zero evidence for ghosts, esp
> and magic is proof of a government conspiracy to suppress such evidence.
> It's known as a self supporting delusion. Or circular logic. I just say
> BJ's a kook and call it a day.

Don't forget HAARP and the search for the Oregon Trail as well as many
other government programs no longer being funded either for lack of
results or being completed.

> You mad BJ?

As a hatter.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#587176

On 6/28/2016 8:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> BJ quacked
>> You mean you were TOLD they got defunded and by the HVAC rule
>> (governments never lie) you were FORCED to accept it just as you are
>> FORCED to conclude that all the authors (who were the original
>> experimenters) are obviously all lying because "everybody knows" that
>> these results can't be true. Well, if it's such a failure, how come so
>> much of what they did is still classified? I'm sure you've got a good
>> tap dance ready for that one.
>> -----------
>>
>> In BJ's kook mind, the fact that there is zero evidence for ghosts, esp
>> and magic is proof of a government conspiracy to suppress such evidence.
>> It's known as a self supporting delusion. Or circular logic. I just say
>> BJ's a kook and call it a day.
>
> Don't forget HAARP and the search for the Oregon Trail as well as many
> other government programs no longer being funded either for lack of
> results or being completed.

So you are saying HAARP was a total flop? And the way you know this is 
by way of your high level clearance? Oh wait. You have no 'need to know" 
which makes you even MORE ignorant than HVAC. (Sometimes debunkers 
actually DO "need to know" the truth so they can lie better.)

>> You mad BJ?
>
> As a hatter.

I presume this means that you are still living off all those wasted tax 
dollars as well. They've given HVAc THE GOOD LIFE (FOR NOW).

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

#587183

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/2016 8:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>> Don't forget HAARP and the search for the Oregon Trail as well as many
>> other government programs no longer being funded either for lack of
>> results or being completed.
> 
> So you are saying HAARP was a total flop?

What part of "being completed" would you like explained to you?

<snip remaining babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#587280

On 6/28/2016 9:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
.>> So you are saying HAARP was a total flop?
>
> What part of "being completed" would you like explained to you?
>
> <snip remaining babble>

<snip unthinking jimp drool>

So was it a "success" or not? It's a simple question.

Is is continuing or not? Do you have the clearance and "need to know' to 
even have access to the answer? And even if you did do you have 
permission to tell?

Not very likely chimp. But we are supposed to take your word for 
everything just like HVAC wants everyone to do with his drool too.

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

#587305

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/2016 9:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> .>> So you are saying HAARP was a total flop?
>>
>> What part of "being completed" would you like explained to you?
>>
>> <snip remaining babble>
> 
> <snip unthinking jimp drool>
> 
> So was it a "success" or not? It's a simple question.

If you are talking about HAARP, the original USAF study is complete and
the facility was turned over to the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The University plans to make the facilities available for researchers
on a pay-per-use basis.

https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/abstract/future-operations-of-haarp-with-the-uafs-geophysical-institute/

<snip parnoid kook froth>

You have been told this several times now.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#587548

On 6/29/2016 9:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2016 9:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> .>> So you are saying HAARP was a total flop?
>>>
>>> What part of "being completed" would you like explained to you?
>>>
>>> <snip remaining babble>
>>
>> <snip unthinking jimp drool>
>>
>> So was it a "success" or not? It's a simple question.
>
> If you are talking about HAARP, the original USAF study is complete and
> the facility was turned over to the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
>
> The University plans to make the facilities available for researchers
> on a pay-per-use basis.
>
> https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/abstract/future-operations-of-haarp-with-the-uafs-geophysical-institute/
>
> <snip parnoid kook froth>
>
> You have been told this several times now.
>
WE've heard this brainless babble before chimp and we know all about it. 
Obviously you can't figure out how to answer the question so you answer 
one that you know the answer to and pretend it was the question.

Who are you trying to fool. Even HVAC isn't dumb enough to fall far that 
one.

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

#587553

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 9:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/2016 9:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> .>> So you are saying HAARP was a total flop?
>>>>
>>>> What part of "being completed" would you like explained to you?
>>>>
>>>> <snip remaining babble>
>>>
>>> <snip unthinking jimp drool>
>>>
>>> So was it a "success" or not? It's a simple question.
>>
>> If you are talking about HAARP, the original USAF study is complete and
>> the facility was turned over to the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
>>
>> The University plans to make the facilities available for researchers
>> on a pay-per-use basis.
>>
>> https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/abstract/future-operations-of-haarp-with-the-uafs-geophysical-institute/
>>
>> <snip parnoid kook froth>
>>
>> You have been told this several times now.
>>
> WE've heard this brainless babble before chimp and we know all about it. 

Paranoid, conspiracy kook.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#587178

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
- show quoted text -
Don't forget HAARP and the search for the Oregon Trail as well as many 
other government programs no longer being funded either for lack of 
results or being completed. 

> You mad BJ? 

As a hatter. 
-------------

And the WTC government conspiracy and hundreds of other kook beliefs. BJ also believes the government faked the moon landings.

The best part is that he is ashamed of his own beliefs. Obviously this dichotomy and this inner struggle with himself has left him in this bitter state that we see.

What bj really needs is tender, loving.... Medication. Heavy doses of medication

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

#587180

They wanted to chemically cool
out Susan Lindauer, too.
She's lucky that she had people.
The pilot who shot down the jet that
was supposed to hit building 7
is still in jail- held for NOT standing down

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web