List members:
New articles by Dean deLucia and myself are up at this URL:
http://www.davidicke.net/emagazine/vol23/menuvol23.html
.....along with many other articles and valuable research.
Just FYI,
--Mike
Re: [allplanets-hollow] New articles
online
List members:
New articles by Dean deLucia and myself are up at this URL:
http://www.davidicke.net/emagazine/vol23/menuvol23.html.....along with many other articles and valuable research.
Just FYI,
--Mike
Thanks Mike.
Read your article, Dean's and several
others on Icke's interesting website.
David Icke has been to Tucson 3 times lecturing (interviewed
twice on Ted Loman's cable TV show "UFO AZ." which is widely
distributed) Impressive speaker.
Curious. Do you guys know Icke on
a personal basis? I met and talked with him (mostly with a group)
during his latter two visits to Tucson. No closer contact.
Some time back I read his
second and best known book, "And the truth will set you
free" which generally confirmed matters I learned of in
the early 1950s, during the Korean War near Detroit (stationed at a
radar headquarters).
Brief history: a mutually
interested air force buddy and I were befriended by a Detroit
Lutheran minister who ran one of the then few respectable national
organizations exposing Communist tactics in America AND especially
exposing the behind the scene CONTROLLING international super rich
clique that soon became known as the "Bilderbergers." I'm
sure many of you are fully conversant about them. We learned a great
deal about the world-enslaving machinations of the various global
personalities directing Bilderberg and their many dupe groups.
Icke's later perceptive
investigations resulting in "And the truth..." supported
everything I'd learned about during the 1950s and covered much
beyond. I personally recommend that new seekers of truth (about
ALL matters, not just HE) buy and read the above mentioned Icke book.
First rate accurate research.
But at his last visit here in
Tucson I was completely surprised that Icke had discovered and
apparently thoroughly embraced SITCHIN'S Anunaki-Niburu tale!
He appeared to be devoting most of his attention to it (except for
his concentration on another subject, "The greatest secret"
attacking basic beliefs of
Christianity.). Any of you better acquainted with Icke's present
research, is he still gung ho about Sitchin? At first look, didn't
note any particular Sitchin stuff on the above website. Curious,
- Dick Fojut in Tucson
--- In allplanets-hollow@y..., Dick Fojut <dfgraphics@g...> wrote:
>
Curious. Do you guys know Icke on a personal basis? I
met and
talked with him (mostly with a group) during his latter two visits
to
Tucson. No closer contact.
Dick,
I've only corresponded with David briefly, via e-mail. He seems
to be a good fellow. Much of his research seems very accurate
to me, including some of his reptilian information, but we don't
agree on everything, one of those things being Christianity, as
he tends to see all religious systems as mind-control tools, and
I believe that, among other things, the major world religions have
preserved valuable knowledge as much as they have at times
been responsible for its destruction or suppression. People are
the problem, human failings, or perhaps infiltrations into
religious systems by those who are actually the "enemy."
I understand that he's using my book as one of his quoted
sources in the new one he has coming out, but I haven't seen it
yet.
--Mike
Dick,
I've only corresponded with David briefly, via e-mail. He seems
to be a good fellow. Much of his research seems very accurate
to me, including some of his reptilian information, but we don't
agree on everything, one of those things being Christianity, as
he tends to see all religious systems as mind-control tools, and
I believe that, among other things, the major world religions have
preserved valuable knowledge as much as they have at times
been responsible for its destruction or suppression. People are
the problem, human failings, or perhaps infiltrations into
religious systems by those who are actually the "enemy."I understand that he's using my book as one of his quoted
sources in the new one he has coming out, but I haven't seen it
yet.--Mike
Mike... Thanks. About Icke's current "stomping" on Chistianity. Agree with all you wrote above. Why does Icke bother? There are so many REAL threats to freedom he could better focus on.
- Dick Fojut
Dick,
I've only corresponded with David briefly, via e-mail. He seems
to be a good fellow. Much of his research seems very accurate
to me, including some of his reptilian information, but we don't
agree on everything, one of those things being Christianity, as
he tends to see all religious systems as mind-control tools, and
I believe that, among other things, the major world religions have
preserved valuable knowledge as much as they have at times
been responsible for its destruction or suppression.
PN Oaks is a writer on Indology. He opines the there is a storehouse of
information on the religions and lifestyles of ancient Rome in the Vatican,
which only a few cardinals have access to, as well as in the Kaba in Mecca.
We will probably never know.
Dharma/Den
Dean,
Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?
Here she question the current accepted Earth Model (page 119):
" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer layer of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the earth's interior?"
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept
Dean,
Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?
Here she question the current
accepted Earth Model (page 119):
" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the
law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for
some
4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest
density
of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer
layer
of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much
of
materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in
the
earth's interior?"
Frode... From (non-"scientist") Dick Fojut. I don't know
what Dean is going to reply, but I must! That typical
"scientific" gibberish needs commenting on. Here's another
dissertation. Quit now if you can't go on...
In my eyes the above "Earth Model" is "junk
science"
The "currently accepted Earth model" the author mentions may
be an "accepted" THEORY but it is still just a THEORY...
unproven conjecture, an imaginary concept.... not a proven
fact. I don't give a hoot how many "I like to be
orthodox" university professors embrace that gibberish. In my
opinion, it is just ridiculous mumble-jumble by kindergarten
thinkers. Unfortunately the above doesn't give us Spoiler's
version. Too bad for the moment.
But some of these terms really turn me off.... "law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge"? And how do they know the
earth was in a molten state and rotating faster than it is
today? Because they IMAGINE it was rotating faster? "rotating
for 4.5 billion years"? How did they time it? Just conjecture.
Typical "scientists," they throw out words like BILLIONS (even
TRILLIONS) because it impresses the public.
"the inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a
nuclear reaction" Bunk!
Recall the PBS astronomy series I mentioned watching 30 years
back. If there was an imagined nuclear reaction going on in the
center of our Sun, huge quantities of NEUTRINOS, theoretically,
should have been produced and radiated outward toward Earth. But
the equipment in a deep mine Scientists had set up, recorded very few
neutrinos over many years. Because of this, the commenting
university scientist expressed doubt that nuclear reactions were HOW
the Sun is generating its "energy." We just don't know, he
said. Further, he commented - as I recall - (presumably speaking
for all scientists in general) "We have to re-think our ideas
about what is happening in the Sun." How quickly that was
forgotten by "Science!" Except by listeners like me.
And HOW does such a "nuclear reaction" keep our planet
rotating? Just how? I get the impression some of these
"scientists" just burble out words that SOUND scientific, but are
so UNimaginative they can't even PICTURE what is supposed to happen
with their words.
Compare the above with James Churchward about HOW Earth is
rotated. (Yes, again)... He described the Sun's magnetic
Forces as attracting (pulling) out affinitive Forces held in
Earth's crust, its (battery) "storage house." At dawn,
the Sun's more powerful magnetic Forces carried by its rays, pulled
Earth's forces saturating the dawn quadrant of the crust, out into
Earth's atmosphere.
The Earth's "central" magnet (an area many miles down
in the crust) unsuccessfully resisted, trying to HOLD ON to its
Forces, and holding on found its dawn surface pulled along,
DRAGGED ALONG BY SLIPPAGE, trying to hold on... ROTATING
forward. According to Churchward our Sun has NO direct
magnetic control over Earth's ELEMENTS (and surface) only a
special magnetic PULLING affinity for similar magnetic Forces stored
in the crust. One special set of the Sun's magnetic forces have
only one function, to DRAW out Earth's forces that are
saturating the crust, out into the atmosphere.
Once Earth's many Forces are pulled free from the crust and have
saturated the atmospheric elements' HOLDING capacity for Forces,
those specialized magnetic drawing forces from the Sun lose any
sustained grip.... and other of the Sun's magnetic forces take
charge. Certain affinitive forces agitate Earth's LIGHT forces into
activity and we have light. Other of the Sun's affinitive
forces agitate Earth's HEAT forces into activity and we have
heat. And multitudes of Nature's other specialized forces go into
movement, the Sun's forces "marrying" and agitating them.
(Yes, if you agree with Churchward, the "Great Designer" has
assigned special duties to every vibrating, unseen force
emanating from Himself, the Creator... the one great Primary
"force" in the universe.)
The pulled along, rotation of Earth's first quadrant exposes
the next surface quadrant to the Sun's drawing rays...
repeating what happened to the first quadrant. Each appearing dawn
quadrant is pulled along, rotated. And so it has been and will
ever more continue as long as we have the Sun. Each dawn quadrant
of the surface is drawn along, trying to hold on to its forces, and
ROTATED.
Now whether you accept the above scenario (and hopefully picture
it) or not, it is at least logical and it functions. One can picture
each dawn surface quadrant being magnetically "pulled" along (as
if on a string) and rotated. But what picture does "nuclear
reaction keeps our planet rotating." show your mind? A bit
incomplete, isn't it?
Just a few comments I felt were proper to make. Thanks for
reading.
- Dick Fojut in Tucson
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept
Dean,
Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?
Here she question the current accepted
Earth Model (page 119):
" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the
law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for
some
4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest
density
of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer
layer
of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much
of
materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in
the
earth's interior?"
Frode... From (non-"scientist")
Dick Fojut. I don't know what Dean is going to reply, but I
must! That typical "scientific" gibberish needs
commenting on. Here's another dissertation. Quit now if you can't go
on...
I skimmed through the rest of the mail. I posted this because I
fund it refreshing to read that someone questions the current
geological model of earth. I personally agree to some of your
complains such as the earth being 4.5 billion years. But she is
investigating flaws in our current understanding of gravity and not
geology. The above was just a side note. Calling something scientific
gibberish and junk science just because it does not agree with your
faith (you asked for it by labeling yourself as non-scientist) is just
plain silly.
Frode,
No, I haven't received her book yet.
What interesting comments. I'll be getting in contact with her- I'll invite
her to our list, the site, and I'll ask if she knows about Cater.
Dean
···
Dean,
Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?
Here she question the current accepted Earth Model (page 119):
" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some
4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density
of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer layer
of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of
materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the
earth's interior?"
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept
Dean,
Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?
Here she question the current
accepted Earth Model (page 119):
" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the
law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for
some
4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest
density
of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer
layer
of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much
of
materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in
the
earth's interior?"
Frode... From
(non-"scientist") Dick Fojut. I don't know what Dean is
going to reply, but I must! That typical
"scientific" gibberish needs commenting on. Here's another
dissertation. Quit now if you can't go on...
I skimmed through the rest of the mail.
I posted this because I fund it refreshing to read that someone
questions the current geological model of earth. I personally agree
to some of your complains such as the earth being 4.5 billion years.
But she is investigating flaws in our current understanding of
gravity and not geology. The above was just a side note. Calling
something scientific gibberish and junk science just because it does
not agree with your faith (you asked for it by labeling yourself as
non-scientist) is just plain silly.
Frode... Fair criticism above. Good challenge. I
sometimes get carried away by my hardening opinions about the
frequent POMPOUS declarations from so many of today's orthodox
"scientists." An honest physicist (Dr. Ron Merrill) I heard once
on Laura Lee, gave his opinion that "All Science" is
CONJECTURE. Good word. So much of what I have read in orthodox
(and some alternative) astronomical and geological works is very
often just conjecture... theories, but not necessarily
factual. Yet too often many of these really unproven theories have
been enthroned as "FACTS" mostly because a majority of
respected university "scientists" have AGREED among themselves
that they are no longer theories but facts.
Most of the followers of those respected "scientists,"
wanting to be accepted and orthodox (and also keep their jobs), go
along in complete agreement. "Accepted" theories that should
be CHALLENGED or QUESTIONED, frequently are not.
I speak again, of just one typical example, about that
particular orthodox myth that there was an ICE AGE. A near frozen
earth for thousands of years, with gigantic twin piles of ice at both
poles that would have required most of the water on the entire
earth to be HIGH enough to slide DOWNHILL (obeying the law of
gravity) from the north as far south into the United States as it was
supposed to have reached. And remember, that magnificent miles
thick "plastic" sheet of moving ice had to also FIRST clear
mountain ranges up to 8,000 feet high, before it could continue
"sliding" further south in the U.S. (If you also believe the
"accepted Model" that our mountains were uplifted millions of
years back... instead of Churchward's assertion that all of Earth's
mountains and mountain ranges were uplifted relatively recently,
around 15,000 to 10,000 years back, when the great gas belt tunnels
formed in the crust across the world and under the oceans.).
Therefore, in my opinion, it is above easily proven that the
still "accepted," and totally unquestioned, myth of giant
geological glaciers at both poles is "scientific gibberish" and
"junk science." Or just call the myth
"ABSURD."
If we OBSERVE that most earthly phenomena (from
Ocean Depths plus Mountain heights, uplifted by subterranean gas
tunnels beneath them, with Volcanos being the tunnel escape valves
and Earthquakes being caused by tunnel blocks, to the known
geological composition of Earth's rocky crust, etc.) appear to be
explained logically by someone's theory, shouldn't we seriously
appreciate such a theory? I think so. Churchward has presented
that "theory."
Is that just "faith" about - or strong
RECOGNITION that a theory MAY be MORE valid than other SIMILAR
theories today? I may dump some (or most) of Churchward's
"theories," in the future if I discover BETTER overall
explanations of the above mentioned phenomena. (I disagree now about
some of his other non-geological views). Show me a better(or
equal) INCLUSIVE geological explanation for the above mentioned
phenomena and I will seriously consider it. Haven't noticed one yet,
but I may have missed it. I've changed my mind many times in my
life, including about the HE theories. But I still stand by my
extreme labeling of that "currently accepted Earth model"
described in the book, as seeming to me like "Scientific
gibberish".and "junk science"
- Dick Fojut.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept
Show me a better(or equal)
INCLUSIVE geological explanation for the above mentioned phenomena and
I will seriously consider it. Haven't noticed one yet, but I may have
missed it. I've changed my mind many times in my life, including
about the HE theories. But I still stand by my extreme labeling of
that "currently accepted Earth model" described in the
book, as seeming to me like "Scientific gibberish".and
"junk science"
- Dick Fojut.
Dick,
Spolter was not presenting a new geological
explanation. She was criticizing the existing model. OK! Maybe she did
not question all of it, but it was a good start and one has to start
somewhere.
I am mostly in agreement with what you say.
I might question some of it, but I don't even know what that should be
since I have no intention of using time on this now.
The current accepted Earth Model is
gibberish and junk because it is a dogma rather then science.
Science is the way to explore reality, and the only authority in
science is reality (the existence of all that is). If you want
to understand reality, why don't you call yourself a scientist rather
then label yourself as a non-scientist?
Frode
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept
Show me a better(or equal)
INCLUSIVE geological explanation for the above mentioned phenomena
and I will seriously consider it. Haven't noticed one yet, but I may
have missed it. I've changed my mind many times in my life,
including about the HE theories. But I still stand by my extreme
labeling of that "currently accepted Earth model"
described in the book, as seeming to me like "Scientific
gibberish".and "junk science"
- Dick Fojut.
Dick,
Spolter was not
presenting a new geological explanation. She was criticizing the
existing model. OK! Maybe she did not question all of it, but it was
a good start and one has to start somewhere.I am mostly in
agreement with what you say. I might question some of it, but I don't
even know what that should be since I have no intention of using time
on this now.The current
accepted Earth Model is gibberish and junk because it is a dogma
rather then science. Science is the way to explore reality, and
the only authority in science is reality (the existence of all that
is). If you want to understand reality, why don't you call
yourself a scientist rather then label yourself as a
non-scientist?Frode
Frode,
I didn't mean to imply that I thought the
"Model" was Spoiler's. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Unfortunately, you didn't present anything giving her
differing views about the paragraph statements. Regardless of
the original source, that "currently accepted Earth model" phrase
and other "gibberish" statements pushed my irritation button
yesterday evening, thus my excessive tirade.
Okay, Frode... you're right. I'll drop that
(yes, silly) reference to myself as a "non-scientist." If I
attached any label, I probably should have said university untrained,
amateur "scientist," but hell, that's unnecessary too. Goodbye
labels. Thanks, Frode..
- Dick
UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean De Lucia" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accepted Earth
Model
Frode,
No, I haven't received her book yet.
What interesting comments. I'll be getting in contact with her- I'll
invite
her to our list, the site, and I'll ask if she knows about Cater.
Dean
> Dean,
>
> Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?
>
> Here she question the current accepted Earth Model (page 119):
>
> " This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of
> sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some
> 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
> molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density
> of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
> inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
> and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer layer
> of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
>
> Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of
> materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the
> earth's interior?"To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accept
UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !
···
----- Original Message -----
From:
Dick Fojut
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accepted Earth Model
Dean,
Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?** Here she question the current accepted Earth Model (page 119):
" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some
4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density
of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer layer
of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of
materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the**
** earth's interior?"**
Frode... From (non-"scientist") Dick Fojut. I don't know what Dean is going to reply, but I must! That typical "scientific" gibberish needs commenting on. Here's another dissertation. Quit now if you can't go on...
I skimmed through the rest of the mail. I posted this because I fund it refreshing to read that someone questions the current geological model of earth. I personally agree to some of your complains such as the earth being 4.5 billion years. But she is investigating flaws in our current understanding of gravity and not geology. The above was just a side note. Calling something scientific gibberish and junk science just because it does not agree with your faith (you asked for it by labeling yourself as non-scientist) is just plain silly.
Frode... Fair criticism above. Good challenge . I sometimes get carried away by my hardening opinions about the frequent POMPOUS declarations from so many of today's orthodox "scientists." An honest physicist (Dr. Ron Merrill) I heard once on Laura Lee, gave his opinion that ** "All Science" is CONJECTURE** . Good word. So much of what I have read in orthodox (and some alternative) astronomical and geological works is very often just conjecture... theories , but not necessarily factual. Yet too often many of these really unproven theories have been enthroned as "FACTS" mostly because a majority of respected university "scientists" have AGREED among themselves that they are no longer theories but facts.
Most of the followers of those respected "scientists," wanting to be accepted and orthodox (and also keep their jobs), go along in complete agreement. ** "Accepted" theories that should be CHALLENGED or QUESTIONED, frequently** are not.
I speak again, of just one typical example, about ** that particular orthodox myth that there was an ICE AGE** . A near frozen earth for thousands of years, with gigantic twin piles of ice at both poles that would have required most of the water on the entire earth ** to be HIGH enough** to slide DOWNHILL (obeying the law of gravity) from the north as far south into the United States as it was supposed to have reached. ** And remember, that magnificent miles thick "plastic" sheet of moving ice had to also FIRST clear mountain ranges up to 8,000 feet high, before it could continue "sliding" further south in the U.S.** (If you also believe the "accepted Model" that our mountains were uplifted millions of years back... instead of Churchward's assertion that all of Earth's mountains and mountain ranges were uplifted relatively recently, around 15,000 to 10,000 years back, when the great gas belt tunnels formed in the crust across the world and under the oceans.).
Therefore, in my opinion, it is above easily proven that the still "accepted," and totally unquestioned, myth of giant geological glaciers at both poles is "scientific gibberish" and "junk science." Or just call the myth "ABSURD."
If we OBSERVE that most earthly phenomena (from Ocean Depths plus Mountain heights, uplifted by subterranean gas tunnels beneath them, with Volcanos being the tunnel escape valves and Earthquakes being caused by tunnel blocks, to the known geological composition of Earth's rocky crust, etc.) ** appear to be explained logically by someone's theory, shouldn't we seriously appreciate such a theory?** I think so. Churchward has presented that "theory."
** Is that just "faith" about - or strong RECOGNITION that a theory MAY be MORE valid than other SIMILAR theories today?** I may dump some (or most) of Churchward's "theories," in the future if I discover BETTER overall explanations of the above mentioned phenomena. (I disagree now about some of his other non-geological views). ** Show me a better(or equal) INCLUSIVE geological explanation for the above mentioned phenomena and I will seriously consider it. Haven't noticed one yet, but I may have missed it.** I've changed my mind many times in my life, including about the HE theories. But I still stand by my extreme labeling of that "currently accepted Earth model" described in the book, as seeming to me like "Scientific gibberish".and "junk science"
- Dick Fojut.
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept
UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail
!
Dean and all...
What's going on with all these repetitious (at top)
"UNSUSCRIBE-SPAMemail" headings, followed by a
number of emails that have already appeared?
- Dick Fojut in Tucson
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accept
Dick, I don't know, I thought it was directed at me, so I promptly unsubscribed! Needless to say, I'm still here!! Hazel.
···
----- Original Message -----
From:
Dick Fojut
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accepted Earth Model
UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !
Dean and all...
What's going on with all these repetitious (at top) "UNSUSCRIBE-SPAMemail " headings, followed by a number of emails that have already appeared?
- Dick Fojut in Tucson
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
--- In allplanets-hollow@y..., Dick Fojut <dfgraphics@g...> wrote:
>UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !
>Dean and all...
What's going on with all these repetitious (at top)
"UNSUSCRIBE-SPAMemail" headings, followed by a number
of emails that
have already appeared?
- Dick Fojut in Tucson
If this person wants to unsubscribe, then he or she should read
the instructions at the main URL for the group, which I sent a few
minutes ago in hopes that it will be utilized.
This individual, with an infantile display, is actually a "spammer."
A nuisance, for sure.
--Mike
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accept
Dick,
I think that this person is having trouble unsubscribing.
It isn't hard getting in touch with me, since I post every day, with these kinds of probs.
But I'll take the person off.
Other people are able to do it.
Maybe I should start signing my name " List Moderator " so that people know who to talk to about these things.
DD
···
UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !
Dean and all...
What's going on with all these repetitious (at top) "UNSUSCRIBE-SPAMemail " headings, followed by a number of emails that have already appeared?
- Dick Fojut in Tucson
Gravity and Antigravity- The mass error
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm
List Members,
Remember that gravity is central to the hollow Earth theory. Let's
familiarize ourselves with gravity theories in general so that we may have
intelligent perspectives.
And let's have no more unsubscribing!
# ;^ )
Dharma/Dean
Dr.Wilhelm Reich, that "lonely eagle" claimed the cosmic 'orgone' forces,
ether, the fifth element comes directly from the sun, is blue in colour and
contained in all organic matter. It is revealed by Kirlain photography.
Scientists deny it exists.
Rodney Cluff calls it 'The Light of Christ.' Jesus said, He walked in the
Light and spoke in the Light. Reich said, Christ was in direct communication
with this force, which governs the miraculous.
In humans, like the energy of Kundalini, it accumulates in the genitals and
produces the libido and the desire to procreate. It is released in the
orgasmic experience, or retained, by yogis, who transmute it to attain
self-realization. Reich claimed hostile 'flying saucers' are here to steal
this vital energy.
This is interesting, because people who claim to be abductees, undergo
intrusions of a sexual nature. A feeling they are being raped or 'harvested.
' A client of Bud Hopkins who claimed to have endured this experience since
childhood, said he'd been asexual all his live. This could be a result of
'orgone' depletion...and explains what 'the greys' are doing to us!
In court Wilhelm Reich said, you cannot legislate against Universal Law.
Still, the FDA had his books burned and his theraputic 'orgone accumulators'
destroyed. He died in prison. Hazel.
···
--
From: "Dean De Lucia" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 9:17 PM
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] The mass error
Gravity and Antigravity- The mass error
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm
List Members,
Remember that gravity is central to the hollow Earth theory. Let's
familiarize ourselves with gravity theories in general so that we may have
intelligent perspectives.And let's have no more unsubscribing!
# ;^ )
Dharma/Dean
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos