Posted by Mahatana Dick on 10/12/05 09:47

George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:36:25 +0545, Mahatana Dick
> <nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:28:50 +0545, Mahatana Dick
>>> <nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
>>>>> a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
>>>>> adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
>>>>> to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
>>>>> PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
>>>>> adults and TRY IT!
>>>>>
>>>>> NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
>>>>> the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
>>>>> research on the SPOG.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?
>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> I don't have to do it.
>>> As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
>>> to do is make an EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION that will
>>> prove the theory.
>>
>
>> The only reason you won't do it is because you know that it won't
>> work; or at least you suspect it.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I have every (experimental and theoretical) reason to believe that it
> WILL work.

Earlier you claimed to be a "theoritician" [sic] and disclaimed, by
implication, all erxperiments. See...?

>> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?
>
> [Hammond]
> I don't have to do it.
> As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
> to do is make an ESSILY TESTABLE PREDITION that will
> prove the theory.

So, which is it? You've done the experiments therefore your prediction isn't
a prediction, or you've not done the experiments and you're a liar?

> the PFF of an adult is 15 frames/sec.

Or less, yes?

>> people have been telling you to prove it yourself, yet you continue
>> to delude yourself into believing that your fuckwitted PREDCITON is
>> proof enough, and not just 'proof' for your fuckwitted non-theory,
>> but proof of the existence of God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> [Hammond]
> they asked for a "TESTABLE PREDICTION" and I gave it to them.
> end of argument.

Well, no. There's still the matter of your your fuckwitted non-theory being
a your fuckwitted non-theory.

> 2. NO ONE has, or can, cite any counter evidence. You're just a
> mealy mouth liar, that's all.

You mean no one can cite anything at all that you will accept unless it is
in 100% accord with your delusions, yes?

>> You snipped
>> it, in its entirety and started yelling, "EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION
>> of the SPOG! EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!
>> EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!"
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey... SORRY, but the fact that THERE IS a SIMPLE AND DRAMATIC
> experimental test of the SPOG is a pain in the ass for you!

Well, if it's so simple, hop to it. What are you waiting for?

--
Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.

[Back to original message]