Sunday, December 27, 2015

... against Zionism and those who think Palestine Support is New Age

Video commented on:

Enoch: Prophecy of Isis, Israel, Rapture, World War 3, Antichrist, End Times and Bible's Armeggedon
Trey Smith

My comments are sometimes introduced with quote of relevant passage of video, sometimes just with time in video.

10:50 "The Romans kicked the Jews out of Israel"
Meaning they kicked out most Christ rejecting Jews. Christians who had fled to Pella and not taken part in the war were therefore not kicked out, they were allowed to return to near Jerusalem, not quite into, at least the Holy Sites were covered with Pagan Temples.

10:58 [And the name became Palestine, from that point.]
A change of name by decree from Caesar does not change the population.

You have passed over SEVERAL centuries without ANY account of what happened in Holy Land basically from Romans defeating Jewish rebellion to English coming to Palestine. How do you do your research?

I do mine in books giving diverse informations, and some off the topic.

THE DESERT A CITY by Derwas Chitty is mostly about Egyptian monks and especially hermits and cenobites.

One chapter is about Palestinians monks.

You hear how they were discovered as being already there when Egyptian monks thought it would be cool to have monks in the land of Christ Himself.

You hear of how they were persecuted under Chosroës, who desecrated the Cross Relic publically. Some Palestinian Christians "reverted to Judaism" (Derwas being Anglican saw no difference between OT religion and Judaism) and later followed Chosroës out of Holy Land into Persia. Those who had not thus apostasised or who reverted were again Palestinian Christians.

But why "reverted"? Only makes sense if their ancestors had in any sense been Jewish : either OT religion or even for some time Christ-rejecting Jewry.

ONE indication that Palestinian Christians were not of Gentile stock.

Here is the next one. The triumph over Chosroës (in which the Cross was honoured publically, as reparation for the desecration, on September 14th), was short lived. The next invader was Omar, from Arabian Peninsula.

Now, nearly last words of that final chapter : tribes who had been Christian came to the monks and told them they had to be forced to become Muslims, but were still their friends (and were indeed friendlier than the subsequent Seldjuk invasion which provoked Crusades with its brutality against Palestinian Christians and against Pilgrims, as I know from elsewhere).

Wait, Palestinian Christians lived in Beduin TRIBES, before Ishmaelite such came from Arabian Peninsula?

Where they some kind of "Arabs"?

Well, arguably they were Beduins speaking Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus Christ!

Palestinians were only LATER adopting Arabic of the Peninsular type, like Syrians who also spoke Aramaic - but they remained the people they were except for a gradual apostasy into Islam. Only slowly did the majority become Muslim. In recent years or decades, I heard of Christians still being 30%.

So, what kind of Semitic people were these Christians?

Well, Judean, Samarian and Galilean Christians of Israelite stock certainly fits the bill!

Other reason
ALSO, I had the discomfort to hear about what a Rabbi had said in Notre Dame. I think it was then and there that I heard that Jews regard Jesus as "not Messiah" BECAUSE He "didn't fulfil" Isaiah 11.

I looked it up.

10 In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious.

Fulfilled in Crucifixion and Resurrection, including Longinus admitting He was Son of God. longinus was a Gentile. An empty tomb guarded by angels is a very glorious sepulchre too.

11 - 12 resumé of fulfilment : Pentecost day.

13 And the envy of Ephraim shall be taken away, and the enemies of Juda shall perish: Ephraim shall not envy Juda and Juda shall not fight against Ephraim.

Ephraim being the tribe in Samaria, this refers to the union of Judean and Samarian Christians, when Church of Jerusalem sent missionaries to Samaria. Acts 8.

It remains true to this day, in the Palestinian Christians.

They are fulfilled prophecy. Even if they are just 30% of Palestinians and many of them also in exile, they still are so.

Next verses some way refers to end of Paganism and beginning of Christianity in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

I have no doubt. I did not get it by Ouija boards, but by Bible study, which I undertook to convert Jews to Christianity. And by the previous books I had read.

HOW THE HOLY CROSS WAS FOUND by my friend Stephan Borgehammar is also very instructive.

A Jew was tortured by St Helen so as to reveal where the Holy Sepulchre and Golgatha were. He did. But the end of the story isn't he was tortured. He saw the miracles the Cross did. He converted and became a bishop of Jerusalem (where the Pagan temple was taken away, also on order of St Helen).

One thing more : Christian Palestinians are generally NOT the vengeful kind who sing songs about killing Jews. Did you get that?

12:07 Other than religious reasons.
Exactly. Palestinians of Bethlehem, Nazareth (which meanwhile has now recently got Muslim majority, alas), Cana, Gaza even, wanted to stay near the place where Christ and St Peter and St James formed their nation by reconciling Judea and Samaria, but more importantly, saved their souls.

Under Christian Roman Emperors, from Constantine on, official name of land was Palaestina Salutaris - the Palestine where we were saved.

12:33 "even while we watch this"
... Christian Palestinians watch both Jews and Muslims.

They are like Civilians caught in Marseille or on Sicily between two fighting Mafia clans.

Tsahal shoots on Muslims - they duck.

Hamas shoots on Jews - they duck.

They do quite a lot of ducking and taking cover.

Actually, the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jewry (which I don't write off totally as a contribution, but who can't be totality, since the German dialects of Yiddish obviously come from French Jewry expelled into S & W Germany and going eastward from there) have been touted by Ernest Renan, who was a secularist Christ admirer and a heretic, but a bit too early to be New Age. It has also been touted by a Jew whose father was participating in Bela Kun's communist revolution in Hungary. Arthur Koestler.

The Khazar contribution is not about acting, but about a Turkic people being adopted into Judaism when converting to it.

About the same time as the real Russians, in Ukraine, mainly, converted to Constantinopel's Liturgic version of Christianity.

They certainly honestly felt they were Jewish. But that doesn't make them as Jewish as Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, or as Palestinian Christians, as far as ancestry and traditions are concerned.

Just for the record, I am NOT New Age, I do NOT believe in Aliens. OK.

NEXT question?

Oh, and as already SAID, I have NOT picked up my views, either on Palestine or on any other matter, by speaking to Aliens under whatever guise. I have been spared "encounters of third degree", unless you count human people behaving like certain aliens, namely shrinks. And free masons.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 3) ... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A - Genocide, Churches, Pre-Trib, Western Australia, WOE
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Before going in to the things he answers after reading part of my letter, here is the blog copy of my letter:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God

Maybe I was in the original letter less well showing what were my words and what were those I quoted or quoted as quoted by someone, but I still think I did some of that.

Also I forgot to congratulate him on getting my first name right.

Also, if I did not use "Doctor" to Kent, it is two things: 1) if people start denying him a doctorate he nevertheless has, why call anybody doctor? And the habit has so grown on me, I forget he was the reason for it in the first place, 2) in relation to someone who thinks it is wrong to call a priest "Father", one can mention that "Doctor" is more or less equivalent to "teacher" or "rabbi".

1:32 Hi, Hans Georg Lundahl here, I am from Sweden and Austria*, but live in and around Paris*. Of course I do not endorse the qualifications that "reader John" gave Jerry Coyne on "why evolution is true" about you!

1:41 I have actually on my blog referenced a video by your son Eric and PP Simmons (I think the other guy was), I was NOT endorsing those descriptions of you, should perhaps have left them out, but was giving full quotes for context of the salient quote from you. Here is one of my blogs:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists)

And here in the left margin** it links to:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS

[2:40 I was not bearing the false witness, I was quoting it for context and didn't bother to read all of the introductory quotes.

Unlike Jerry Coyne and his reader John, I do believe the Bible and I do believe in not bearing false witness. (Not sure the latter is a difference.)] - While I tried to change this, adding the parenthesis, I suppressed it, and in this library (Nanterre University Library) I cannot copy-paste into youtube comments. Or could not.

4:31 Now, I agree the diseases are a possility. Though NOT an attested fact. But I do not agree they constitute a complete theodicy for killing of the children as well.

If God had told Joshua to convert Canaaneans, presumably God could have cured all those diseases. The reason this was not the case was that God had just taken Hebrews out of Egypt where they had become somewhat materialistic and crude (I mean they went through an attempt of genocide under one bad Pharao, and that before they had a Torah to comfort them).

So, I am still not happy with diseases being a justification for killing the children.

Louis XV eradicated bubonic plague after the last time, by firing at innocent people who were presumed to have been contaminated. This was a public health benefit, but it was not Christian justice, it was a sinful way to acquire a public health benefit.

5:15 That ONE option is, in itself, a bad one, unless strictly subsidiary to more just ones. I have heard things about God punishing parents through their children. Assume Moloch worshippers were habitually sacrificing their own children, some chosen ones of them ... Joshua's soldiers killing a whole bunch before fathers and mothers might have awakened them to what they were doing. Joshua would still not have been right to do so, unless it had been on God's order.

5:43 sth I did study history of quarantine. It is sinful, like abortion is sinful, or nearly so.

[At least the cases where people are deliberately killed for trying to leave a quarantine, even if they could consider themselves still healthy and fear to be lost if not leaving.]

5:53 That's "common medical sense" - like abortion of disabled? Some call THAT "common medical sense" too! Of course not, it is mortally sinful!

While we are at it.

If "original fifty AIDS patients" had been killed, that would not automatically have spared us the AIDS epidemic, since there could have been undetected ones even back then. Also, it would have been unjust if even one was a rape victim, an innocent spouse contaminated by an unfaithful one, or got it through a blood transfusion. If the conspiracy theory is true, the earliest ones were indeed deliberately contaminated by the unethical doctors who monitored the virus transfer from green monkeys to man - if this were true, every one of them might have been innocent and undeserving to die. Not saying it is or that it isn't true, I don't know, I know what I suspect but also I have not right now access to Lyndon LaRouche's study on that question.

6:01 "That may be why God told them to do that?"


This comment may be why hovind (all lower case!) adds up to 666 in ASCII Code. HOVIND upper case = 474. 32 added on each upper case English letter to make it lower case. 474 + 192 = 666. A = 65, Z = 90. a = 97, z = 122.

[Go figure who has that number in upper case ... BERGOGLIO, and with a space and a French transscription, V POUTINE]

[My bad - it is Hovind with normal spelling which is the less well attested value for Apocalypse 13:18 - 616. And since less well attested, less likely and thus safer.]

6:16 Yes precisely, Peter Singer is in favour of killing babies the age killed in the massacres of Joshua ... for medical reasons. Now, if you are NOT in favour of Peter Singer, as I am not, you need to allow God had a much better motive than Peter Singer!

7:57 I am NOT blaming you for saying God told Joshua to kill all of certain nations. But I AM blaming you for making the medical reason your PRIME theodicy about this. That is NOT in the text, nor are the speculations on Canaanites being all sick with diseases.

8:00 "I'm just the messenger boy" No, when it comes for making the medical aspect the main reason, you are NOT a messenger, you are making your own thoughts about the matter and this one on this matter is sinful.

8:05 Again, the "medical reason" is NOT in the Bible. On this one you are NOT a messenger. Study William Lane Craig (also cited in Jerry Coyne's post), he's better than you, though incomplete.

Or he is incompletely quoted by Jerry Coyne, I am no longer sure if I saw more on his own page.

8:23 I consider this as a formal release.

This will be blogged, though on the other blog where I do youtube comments and youtube debates in English.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Just so you know, it has up to now 79568 pageviews since November 2008.


* Born in Austria, Vienna, of Swedish parents, lived most of childhood in Austria and Germany, and most of life in Malmö, Sweden, now homeless in Paris. ** Left margin : 1) Eucharistic Miracle probable proof Ordo Missae of Paul VI is valid (link), 2) Sister Blog in French: Répliques Assorties (link), 3) Other issue: somewhere I had written something about Kent Hovind possibly having tax frauded as laws now are. Here is what his son has to say about it: [linked to video above in this message], 4) Labels (co-authors, boards or label reconsidered positions) [Kent Hovind Official appears "under K", eight posts before this one, which will make it nine], 5) Loyal readers (3 so far, including myself), 6) Blog Archive (the one that goes by year and month), 7) Marital Age, Catholic Sources Thomas Aquinas, Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII. Marital Age, Catholic sources. Cited by Hans Lundahl (Hans_Georg1) on Antimodernism MSN Group. (link here too, to backup :, Russian Orthodox sources from same time (under Lithuanian supremacy or under the Czars) would have given similar age limits. And 8) Resist Meta-Man! (Also still available on this link: here, le même jacobite : Resist Meta Man).

Appendix on ASCII Code Gematria:

L76Y89 32I73

Other appendix:

He did finally say, though I missed it after the words I took as a release, he did not know why God ordered, but that this theory was only one seeming reasonable to him. It is not quite reasonable in Christian morality, but thanks for caution. Belatedly.

Monday, December 7, 2015

... against an Anti-Catholic Rant and Critical of Annett's Work

First video commented on:
The Scary TRUTH About The Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Jesuit Pope Exposed Full Documentary)
SoulJa Of GOD

3:04 two problems

  • 1) death to the heretic is not canon law as per current code, even the Medieval code did not say "death", but "punishment by the appropriate authorities", even when death was the most severe punishment of the scale;
  • 2) not only Catholics but also all non-baptised cannot be heretics.

In cases where Baptists do not count as validly baptised, that also means they cannot count as heretics.

Btw, in case you wonder, heresy means treason to your baptism if you are baptised and it means treason to God. Whatever punishment, spiritual (like excommunication) or secular (from death during certain times to merely being incompetent to hold certain offices) comes with it.

Defeating heretics at ballot box ... would that be in some part of Australia where this could be done, because Catholics were majority there? You mean this Gilroy, I presume:

Btw, would you mind giving a link to a good - i e Catholic, not Protestant Fundie or Masonic - source for Gilroy's speech?

And I very much doubt that he can have said a phrase like "Protestants, Jews and other heretics". Loosely speaking, Jews are heretics insofar as they have texts of the Revelation of God and nevertheless reject important parts of it - like Jesus being the true and promised Christ, and true God - but in more strict speech they are not heretics since they reject ALL of NT and therefore are a category between Christian heretics and Pagans.

"Gilroy enforced strict discipline in accordance with the Code of Canon Law on his clergy, who had grown lax under the elderly Kelly."

A canonist - therefore very unlikely to class Jews as heretics, since that is neither canonical nor liturgical.

5:19 And a link to this Lincoln speech, if genuine, is also in order. That said, Pope Pius IX did recognise the CSA, since the Constitution had not yet the Lincoln amendment of forbidding a going out of the Union. Or a leaving of it.

5:50 If Lincoln said that, he was very badly instructed. Since he was a "self made man", that is of course still possible.

7:15 Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were indeed all baptised as Catholics while small children. Of these, Hitler and Benito (but not his equally fascist brother Alessandro) were as adults neither believing nor practising. Whether Stalin, Hitler or Polish ambitions on Danzig (which had a German majority back then) were most responsible for WW-II, certainly neither Mussolini nor Franco were. I support Franco, as far as the War of Spain is concerned. That is indeed a Catholic position and it was openly endorsed by Pope Pius XI (after he had failed to endorse the Cristeros in Méjico, alas). But I will certainly not give him the blame for either racialism in Nazi Germany or collectivism in Soviet Union or the war between these, after they both warred against Poland (and the Nazi measures there were excessive, even after Danzig provocations!). Not Franco, nor the Pope that stood behind him. Before you go on, the Landesbischoff of Saxony was not a Catholic bishop, it was kind of a successor to Martin Luther. Who then was a Nazi and now is a woman. The office still exists.

7:38 The terrorism in IRELAND is the Vatican's handiwork? Like Black and Tans and Ulster Freedom Fighters are agents for the Vatican? More like agents of British Crown and Ulster Scots Orangist Freemasonry!

If you meant IRA, they are excommunicated. Even Eamonn DeValera was part time under excommunication for fighting under unrecognised armies (so were the Cristeros). But unlike Eamonn in his days in IRB, today's IRA is usually more likely to be Marxist than Catholic, even if recruited exclusively from Catholic ethnic group there.

7:31 "En septiembre de 1939 se inscribiría en el Colegio de Dolores, de los jesuítas, también en Santiago de Cuba."

Yes, Fidel Castro was Jesuit trained in 1939 and a few years hence. Like certain boys in England are "Eton trained". THEN he joined the university and became a commie.

Voltaire, who so loved it when Madame Pompadour got Louis XV (with whom she had an adulterous affair, he was married to the Queen, Marie born Leszczyńska) to expel Jesuits, was also Jesuit trained. Does that make him of all people a Jesuit agent in your eyes?

9:12, blaming Leary on the Vatican ...

"Leary was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, the only child in an Irish Catholic household. His father, Timothy "Tote" Leary, was a dentist who left his wife Abigail Ferris when Leary was 13. He graduated from Classical High School in that western Massachusetts city."

OK, he was Catholic as a child.

"He attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts from September 1938 to June 1940. Under pressure from his father, he then accepted an appointment as a cadet in the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York."

West Point? A very Catholic place, right? No. One can be certain he was pressured to apostasize from Catholic Faith, if not on paper, at least as to real beliefs. I was during my military service.

"In the first months as a "plebe", he was given numerous demerits for rule infractions and then got into serious trouble for failing to report infractions by other cadets when on supervisory duty. He was alleged to have gone on a drinking binge and to have failed to "come clean" about it. He was asked by the Honor Committee to resign for violating the Academy's honor code. He refused and was "silenced"—that is, shunned and ignored by his fellow cadets as a tactic to pressure him to resign. He was acquitted by a court-martial, but the silencing measures continued in full force, as well as the onslaught of demerits for small rule infractions. The treatment continued in his sophomore year, and his mother appealed to a family friend, United States Senator David I. Walsh, head of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, who conducted a personal investigation. Behind the scenes, the Honor Committee revised its position and announced that it would abide by the court-martial verdict. Leary then resigned and was honorably discharged by the Army. Almost 50 years later, he said that it was "the only fair trial I've had in a court of law"."

And this means he was in a position in which such pressures could be put on him. So, did he really remain a Catholic?

"To the chagrin of his family, Leary elected to transfer to the University of Alabama in the fall of 1941 because of the institution's expeditious response to his application. He enrolled in the university's ROTC program, maintained top grades, and began to cultivate academic interests in psychology (under the aegis of the Middlebury and Harvard-educated Donald Ramsdell) and biology, but he was expelled a year later for spending a night in the female dormitory, losing his student deferment in the midst of World War II."

If the University was to the chagrin of his family, I bet it was not very Catholic. If he spent a night in the female dormitory, he was not very practising (unless all had clothes on and were talking). In other words, whatever you can say about Leary, it cannot be put up to openly Catholic influence on his doings, from then on. You can of course claim SECRET obedience to Vatican, but then how do you check these secrets really happened? What are your sources, except your bias against the Vatican?

10:35 Much as I have come across people who seem overenthusiastic about pseudo-Pope pseudo-Francis, alias Bergoglio, Papacy is not what Catholics worship and Catholic Church is one over all the world in obedience to the Words of the WORD made flesh.

This still remains true to some extent among Bergoglio-accepting Catholics, though it might be changing.

11:01 Since the Temple of God is the Catholic Church, Bergoglio does not need to get to Jerusalem or wait till an OT Temple is rebuilt in order to fulfil these words.

I have a suspicion he did that when "canonising" Roncalli and Wojtyla in 2014. Or when phoning Buenos Aires to say an adulteress living in an invalid adulterous marriage should even so receive Communion. Less than a week away from canonisation. A "Crucifix" like the "creepy crooked cross" carried by Wojtyla and perhaps Montini, but more than life size, fell down and crushed a man to death between the dates of these acts where he flouted God's law.

12:28 How do you know Judy Byington is a good source about Bergoglio? She references a process by Kevin Annett whom I have not found trustworthy in the past.

[Hence my interest in next video.]

He is not an appointed judge of any state, the court has no legal standing, the accused have not been brought there by police and if innocent can say "why should I attend?"

It is an improvised court. Therefore, the "in contumaciam" sentence, and this is what I think it is, is not a very convincing argument.

12:44 I left Bergoglio's sectaries, those [even just] accepting him as Pope, after I heard the canonisation was done, or so called canonisation. I am not leaving Roman Catholicism. That is another question.

13:41 Christ gave authority of Priesthood to his Twelve Disciples and to all they should "lay hands on", themselves or through successors whom they had laid hands on. Or eleven, the twelve minus Judas. But St Matthias replaced him. Since some of these priests, both St Peter and St Barnabas, not forgetting St Paul, came to Italy, obviously Italians can be priests. Note well, not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec.

13:53 Melchisedec was a Gentile and not from the tribe of Levi.

13:58 No, THIS is not what shows even occupied Vatican of today to be unscriptural. You misread the Bible. You are heretics.

14:01 Jesus became the only High Priest, in His own Right, but the Apostles He had made priests by participation.

Found four more
of my comments, which I did not find when collecting them before publication.

6:53 I have a very hard time believing Jesuits were involved in killing JFK. In my book, they are more likely to play around with all the heretics and pagans, not forgetting Jews in between these, that they seem to consider automatically and collectively all of them so unaware of the truth that they cannot be blamed for not being Catholics.

7:20 Funny, Hiroshima bomb depicted when you pronounce RC "cult" ... The US President who ordered that bombing was not a RC. And the one connection Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have with Catholicism is that on one of these places a house sheltering three Jesuits was alone spared, while they prayed the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and they did not get sick from radiation either.

8:49 all these things, that God hates, the dvilish Vatican is, you say. But you have not shown it. You are calumniating truly Catholic Popes, supposed predecessors of Bergoglio and for that matter Wojtyla and Ratzinger, pseudo-popes - over anxious, at least overtly, to do the opposite of that last thing, by their ecumenism, which has become a syncretism or at least a shared culpability in pagan idolatry and Mahommedanism, in Judaism and in Heresy (David Palmer was a heretic).

9:48, tracing your Lincoln quote:

My Gospel Workers : I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome – Abraham Lincoln

which links to Google Books:,+the+colleges+and+schools+of+the+Jesuits,+the+convents+of+the+nuns,+and+the+confessional+boxes+of+Rome%22&source=bl&ots=I_d6fqidD1&sig=ZNpFTL7v2RmLhU3qa3_QHXuvQqw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=70c6UNHVLuiq0AHg-oC4BQ&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22It%20is%20with%20the%20southern%20leaders%20of%20this%20civil%20war&f=false

Which is the title:

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome
Charles Paschal Telesphore Chiniquy
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1886 - Canadians - 832 pages
on p. 714

NOT a standard work on Abraham Lincoln, but it IS a standard work, no doubt, of Anti-Catholic Propaganda.

Other video:
Child Sacrifice and Trafficking in Holland An Eyewitness speaks out Introduction)

"the vicar" is not a Roman Catholic title of any current parish priests. [Correction, a "vicaris" can be the replacement of a parson, while he is absent or not yet named.] The normal title for a parish priest is "curate" [or parson, in Dutch pastoor], back in late Medieval times (perpetuated in France which did not totally obey Trentine Reform, and in England among Anglicans), the curate might sometimes not yet have been ordained a priest, but be a noble who got a Church prebend, and then the "vicar" would do his work, in theory up to his ordination, in practise often for more long than that. In Holland, as far as I know, Catholic Parish Priests have not been called Vicars for Centuries.

Will she later say how she "knew" it was the vicar or was Annett satisfied that "she knew it"? Because, if she was tricked, her telling how she knew is important for realising that.

So, the House Doctor was givng her pills after the ritual - meaning he was involved - but somehow the Medical Corps is NOT being charged in this so called International Court?

A bit like how a scary number of doctors had been involved in the camps, but only twenty were charged and only one or two condemned to heavy punishments at Nuremberg.

Ah ... for the freemasons.

"Bernardus Johannes Alfrink (5 July 1900, Nijkerk, Gelderland – Nieuwegein Utrecht 16 December 1987) was a Dutch Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as Archbishop of Utrecht from 1955 to 1975, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1960."

That is, by Roncalli. A k a John XXIII. A k a Pope of the Vatican II Council. A k a "Saint John XXIII", since a "canonisation" by Bergoglio in 2014. If she was seeing Alfrink in this prank which was cruel, while he was already a Cardinal, this happened after death of Pius XII in 1958.

Added next day
First a response about "dock". It may be, rather than "duck", "dog". German and Polish certainly, Dutch possibly too, uses Auslautverhärtung : g > k, as here, or d > t, or b > p.

Then a pertinent question in general.

Freemasons are CERTAINLY involved, if this testmony is genuine.

A house doctor is, same observation.

Why is the court enquiring just about "Church and State" and not about "Freemasons and Medical Practitioners" too?

Would a crime committed by a parson who was also a freemason in your book be a crime by masonry infiltrating the Catholic Church - or a crime of the Catholic Church?

In my book, it is a crime by Masonry infiltrating it.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

... on Second Half of the Hovind video

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …, 2) Assorted retorts: ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

1) ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 2) ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

"sometimes the opponent won't allow that for some reason, they don't wan't to look stupid"

Hear, hear!

How lawabiding of you! I blog debates I have on internet without release, and IF they sue me, I have planned to use that argument.

They might get me in jail, they might get a blog down, but they would make publicity for my arguments. And if they try "it's for your sake", I call that bluff. Have been doing so for more than ten years now, and have never been sued.

However, if their problem is not wanting me to get money from a post they contributed to, that is alreay arranged on my part: my general licence is such that THEY can make an edition and earn money of it themselves before sending me some.

Never one who did that either, as far as I know.

ONE possible exception : I heard a Calvinist geocentric claim that the best book he had read on Geocentrism, technically, was by a freewillbeliever, he maybe even specified Catholic, and "set as fictional dialogues". Meanwhile, the debates I had put up on MSNGroup Antimodernism had gone down in February 2009, most of them, along with all MSN Groups. So no one could check on internet if the texts were there. I did not get a penny of that book, which was perhaps not needed even IF it was my work, and I have not found the video again, so I can't ask the speaker for specifics on that one.

BUT, I have never been sued yet!

Lying and bearing false witness against one's neighbour are related, but every small lie is not a big sin against that commandment.

One I recall "I am Norwegian" - before end of conversation I had admitted I am Swedish and only quarter Norwegian and know very little about Norway beyond what Swedes usually know, which is Flåklypa and Flexness, and I wasn't asked about them.

I think that is the kind of sins one can be freed from very easily, simply by saying sorry to God, or, in this case, "thanks for not succeeding in the sin".

Now, how about exact quotes from Habacuc next time you speak about alcohol?

There are cases when rape is not punished by death.* In certain cases, the victim had an option of taking culprit for husband. In such a case, divorce was impossible (women never divorced husbands anyway under old law, and husband was specifically forbidden to do so if marriage had such a background).

*Even under old law, when by divine mandate some rapes were so punished.

And for the very few with no author precisely known, it seems there was collective and consecutive authorship. Judges was probably written like Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - writer after writer taking down current events, and these writers being believeable people in their community, in the case of Judges probably kohanim (or people screened by them) and in the case of ASC, monks.

"it wouldn't matter who's the author is God wrote it"

Well, wrong.

Now, we know God is ultimate author BECAUSE we know (with some approximation, as in case of Judges) who the human author was and BECAUSE human author believably to the Church of God (Patriarch families in Genesis, Israel in OT times, earliest Catholics in Acts and Gospels) made that claim and was the kind of man, witnessed by that Church, who would not have made it unless it were true.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

... on Religion, Brain Damage, Magic in Entertainment Literature of Fantasy Genre

Video commented on:
Why Religion causes brain damage

My first comment:
3:51 Thought patterns may indeed cause changes of the brain.

However, how do you argue religion, and especially all of them are causing the wrong ones from neurological perspective?

That study?

Gundam Z
+Hans-Georg Lundahl i know religious fanatics, both Muslim and christian ones. and i tell you sometimes you just get the feeling that the religion is messing up their minds. an example is i know someone who refused to allow her kids watch harry porter bcos she claims it's demonic and a work of satan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My dear, I would not want my own children to watch Harry Potter.

If "in book" the magic is a natural though rare talent, the way it is studied is very close to how magic is studied in the real world (excepting farce, like riding on owls or playing quidditch) and that study is indeed demonic.

By contrast, I would like my children, once I shall have such, to read Lord of the Rings and the Narnia Chronicles.

As to the Puritans who claim THAT is satanic (when no good character is tudying magic anywhere in the books, and the study of magic is stamped as evil in more than one place in them), I think they are wrong.

About as wrong and about as Puritan as the person on the video who thinks religion messes up the brain of people.

Puritanism can exist without religion, and it is rather morals than brains that it messes up.

TheO c casionalAtheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Since magic and religion are both man-made fantasies, how can you say the study of magic is "demonic"?

In the Lord of the Rings, while no good character is depicted as "studying magic", Gandalf is a practitioner of magic. Why do you have a problem with the study but not the practice? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Since magic and religion are both man-made fantasies, how can you say the study of magic is "demonic"?"

Because they aren't. Man made fantasies, that is. Even a false religion is not totally man made, it is usually at least partly demonic.

"In the Lord of the Rings, while no good character is depicted as "studying magic", Gandalf is a practitioner of magic."

Not in the same sense, since he is an angelic being and was given the powers at his creation, unlike a man who studies to get them.

"Why do you have a problem with the study but not the practice?"

I have a problem with any MAN practising (look how Gollum ended up just by using a ring, look at Angmar the Witchking), but not with a real angel like St Raphael or a fictional one like Gandalf having per se "magic" powers and taking a human form (Tolkien overdid the "incarnation" part of him and Sauron as "incarnate" angelic beings).

TheO c casionalAtheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are presuming that demons exist.

If birthright is your deciding line, then you should have no problem with Harry Potter. The wizards and witches, went to Hogwarts to learn how to control their inborn magic. No muggles were allowed to study there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You are presuming that demons exist."

A man who presumes opposite is no Christian.

"If birthright is your deciding line, then you should have no problem with Harry Potter."

Angelic beings are not BORN.

"The wizards and witches, went to Hogwarts to learn how to control their inborn magic. No muggles were allowed to study there."

  • 1) The distinction between "wizards/witches" and "muggles" being one between people all the same actually born like human babies, this is not the same as the "non-muggles" being angels AND it endorses a kind of superstitious differentiation between people (much like New Age concepts, say of Indigo Children) AND it is a false explanation on how some people get magic powers, the real one being demons;

  • 2) Angels never had to study for using their in-created powers, they were created adults, like Adam and Eve. If any angel needed to study anything, it is presumably fallen angels who study their victims and their personalities before choosing approach.

TheO c casionalAtheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Aren't you a bit old for fairytales?

Adam and Eve never existed, nor do angels. A man who presumes demons do not exist is called a "grown-up".

There's no "god", no heaven, nor hell. Here I thought you were arguing the abstract, but you really believe in this bullshit?!? LMAO


Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Aren't you a bit old for fairytales?"

Lucy Barfield, when The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came out, was probably so. Author predicted she would be even older and old enough to read fairy tales again. Which I think happened.

"Adam and Eve never existed, nor do angels."

Atheist claptrap.

"A man who presumes demons do not exist is called a 'grown-up'."

More like ignorant. Your definition of "grown-up" makes it a synonym of Atheist. Worse, since it implies that the Atheist was not such when a child, it implies Apostate.

Are you an Apostate or are you a childhood believer in Atheism?

In the latter case, you should know better than claiming to have been a Christian when a child.

"There's no "god", no heaven, nor hell. Here I thought you were arguing the abstract, but you really believe in this bullshit?!? LMAO"

Enjoy your laugh.


I actually do, when I am confronted with obvious temptations against Christian virtues. Or should be doing it.

However, not by looking over the shoulder.

Monday, November 23, 2015

... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 3) ... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

1) ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 2) ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

Video of which first part is here commented on:
Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A - Evolution, Saved Atheist, Worship God, DNA, Carbon Dating, etc
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Nice I could at last hear the video, I was asking about in the letter.

1:18 For Bern/Bernard:

Creation vs Evolution

I nearly only mention the Bible when defining what I am defending.

2:12 Ah, so you mean the publicity "if you pray this, sincerely, you KNOW you will go to Heaven" (perhaps not by you, what about those pre-prison videos? I tried not to watch that part, since I am a Catholic) might not be correct?

[context for those not watching video : a now atheist asked if the sinner's prayer he had devoutly prayed before apostasy meant he would go to Heaven.]

3:19 "where the minerals have all replaced the bone itself"

Hmmm in the meantime you were in prison, soft tissue and DNA have been found on fossils. DNA might tell what colour* the mammal was.

Welcome back to the fray.

* Yes, I use British spelling, that's what we learn in school in Sweden, and I also think useless spelling reforms suck.

7:13 Trusting God until you know the answer, sure, good.

But the ex tempore guess ... not so good.

As said in the letter, if you meant there were other reasons, but God also gave a healthbenefit for obeying his apparently cruel command, yes.

But if you think that was the main reason, no. That is not Christian morals.

Under the NT, there is no reason to annihilate any nation. But if you did, back under OT times under Joshua, it makes some sense to kill the children along with parents.

[That is: that Israelites did so back then.]

You see, one couple of parents need to be both put to death by public justice, of course you don't kill small children. They can be adopted by someone. It will be a shock for them later to know they did not grow up with their real parents, but it will be the shock of one or two small children. If there is a child already teen, but not accomplice to the crimes, he can take care of them and later tell them "sure, our mum and dad were killed, they maybe deserved it, but at least they let us stay together." No teen spared = adoption, more of a shock. The one you were licing with would be the choice of the judge who hanged your mum and dad.

BUT that shock will be diluted by a whole society where this is uncommon.

If a whole nation had been wiped out and children adopted, I think the emotional shock would have been immense and NOT diluted. There might have been factions of people knowing or thinking they were sons of a killed nation and wanting revenge. Their might have been rebellions against God because of this.

I think US and Canada Protestants sometimes tried saving children the dumb way : not by convincing their parents, not by waiting till they were old enough to be independent of unconvinced parents, but by taking them away from parents who were Amerindian just because these parents were Pagans and sometimes at least considered (and sometimes rightly) as recently defeated ex-robbers.

This caused IMMENSE bitterness, some of which was classified as mental illness, where the treatment caused immense bitterness too, and I think souls were lost because of this.

And this was what God did not want to do or want the Israelites to do back then.

However, in the NT there can be no such occasion, since Matth 28 gives a call for the Church to convert ALL nations. How many is ALL? ALL. Can a nation annihiliated be converted? No.

The Assyrian apparently will annihiliate a nation or try to, even if he didn't want to. I don't think he's a Christian and would not want to be that man.

And even under the Old Law, that kind of act would have been murder without the order of God, just as the act of an executioner would now be murder without the order of the judge and his sovereign (in US often governor).

7:45 UN give God a trial?

Didn't they already do that back under Caiaphas?

10:16 DNA of apes.

Let us say, for instance, the time they develop a digestive apparatus under gestation is similar to ours, because the disgestive apparatus is similar, why should they NOT have similar DNA for their digestive apparatus?

There is ONE pseudo-gene we have, which with one "DNA-letter" (base) different would have been able to code for vitamin C produced by the body. Apes share the same defect. Guinea pigs have a defect in same gene too.

So, God punishes Adam and Eve by destroying that gene (part of what makes us mortal), or he destroys it when shortening life spans. Either way, he destroyes it for apes too, because they are so to speak a parody of man, and for guinea pigs, because they are close to the modern man who knows about vitamin C, so as to give us an extra cause for empathy for them.

As for extremities, the human genome for hands and feet must be more complex than the ape genome for fore-hands and back-hands. But the part they have might very well have similarities to the part which directs the fetal development of our hands with fingers and thumb : because the result is pretty similar too. However, man has a capacity for a better precision grip.

Ah, you said basically same thing a bit later.


Do you have one man or woman around who knows French?

I gave your solution/the one I also learned in Edgar Andrews' FNTN (before I knew of you) to a couple of evolutionists, they told me that would need either Sun being lots closer or else a nuclear war or sth.

I actually didn't believe them, I wrote an essay on the topic basically restating your theory.

However, I tried to do a table on Carbon 14 buildup in atmosphere, starting with a level at time of Flood which could give erroneous datings for 20,000 - 50,000 years. It was supposed to account for among other things a stable level the last 2500 years, since this is a period in which C14 dates and proven historical dates tend to coincide very closely.

Actually, there has been a spurt. Cosmic radiation would have been stronger at Flood then now, I calculated roughly twenty times stronger. At least if Abraham's Ur is the one found by Woolley, south of Baghdad. COULD also be Urfa/Edessa in Turkey, near Göbekli Tepe.

NOW ... twenty times stronger sounds much. But we have 0.39 milliSieverts per year in medium from cosmos around the globe, twenty times that is 7.8 mSvs per year, not much more than total background radiation in Princeton.

Here is link one of that essay series.

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique

There are ten. Last one is broader. Links between them in top section of each post.

My conditions for use are a bit similar to yours:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions

I've sent it around to 70 Catholic mainly pastors (two Eastern non-Catholics as well) - the ten essays, that is.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

... on The Principle and parallel examples of Media Power

Video Commented on:
"Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle"
The Principle Movie

2:20 "this is the power of media today" ...

Reminds me of a Pro-Palestinian priest, who considers he identified the Beast as Zionism. "Mouth like that of a lion" stood for power of .... media.

However, I wonder if Heliocentrism isn't more into this power than Zionism. It is easier to hear an alternative view on Palestinian question (which I think is right, one should hear even more ones - like Palestinians being Israelites of 2000 years Christian and 1400 / 1300 years Muslim confession, but still mainly descending from "Judah and Ephraim" - Isaiah 11, Acts 8 - and Galilee too). I mean of course Zionism as what it purportedly stands for, the narrow sense of the word.

"this is the power of media today" - I guess you have heard the one about Middle Ages being when they died around 35 or 40 - if they were lucky?

Here is part 8 of some English statistic research I did:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related

And part 10 of a French research I made:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : La Lettre A d'une Encyclopédie

I suppose you know what Minimum, Maximum, MEDIAN, LOWER QUARTILE, and HIGHER QUARTILE mean?

Well, point is, Median in very many of these researches go to 60 or more.

And where it is lower, it is usually Kings. The James Deans of their time, but non-rebels WITH a cause.

8:15 Krauss on Universe ... have you heard sth like "nothing, literally nothing, zero, had quantum fluctuations into plus and minus ...." Does that sound like a sensible grasp on what "nothing" and "numbers" mean?

May I presume you answer "no"?

Does that sound like his believing too literally that "zero is just a number on the number line, between an infinity of positives and an infinity of negatives"? I volunteer to answer yes.

Would Medievals have agreed on that one?

No, absolutely NO WAY, outside perhaps the quip of a "sophista" - someone engaged in constructing and refuting "sophistici elenchi" - logical fallacies. The kind of intellectual exercise which now comes mainly as humour.

"This stove will save half your costs of fuel" - "Great, I'll buy two and save all of it!"

9:19 Did I hear him correct?

He mentioned Harvard and Yale?

Harvard is where Iannis Romanides, an Orthodox priest, ended up accepting "bright" ideas like "natural law is not accessible to man in his fallen state", "religion, any religion except Orthodoxy practised as hesychasm, is a psychophysic illness", not to mention his anto-Roman or rather anti-Latin stance. He considered Greek was the language of Rome except for some unimportant plebeians who spoke Latin, and that only Franks made Latin an important language AND that Franks oppressed the Roman population in Gaul AND that the French Revolution was Romans taking back their own against Frankish oppressors ... in other words, I am not a great fan of Harvard.

17:30 "Giordano Bruno was burned in the streets of Rome, for daring to question the place of Earth in the Cosmos" ...

ONLY .... ? Let's listen to good old Wickipeejuh :

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[58] Similarly, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) asserts that

"Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc."[59]

Note 58 : Sheila Rabin, "Nicolaus Copernicus" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online, accessed 19 November 2005).
Note 59: "Giordano Bruno". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.

The Wickipeejuh : Giordano Bruno
a linea : Theological heresy

Here is the other Catholic Encyclopedia:

Thus, his system of thought is an incoherent materialistic pantheism. God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body and soul, are two phases of the same substance; the universe is infinite; beyond the visible world there is aninfinity of other worlds, each of which is inhabited; this terrestrial globe has a soul; in fact, each and every part of it, mineral as well as plant and animal, is animated; all matter is made up of the same elements (no distinction between terrestrial and celestial matter); all souls are akin (transmigration is, therefore, not impossible). This unitary point of view is Bruno's justification of "natural magic." No doubt, the attempt to establish a scientific continuity among all the phenomena of nature is an important manifestation of the modern spirit, and interesting, especially on account of its appearance at the moment when the medieval point of view was being abandoned. And one can readily understand howBruno's effort to establish a unitary concept of nature commanded the admiration of such men as Spinoza, Jacobi, andHegel. On the other hand, the exaggerations, the limitations, and the positive errors of his scientific system; his intolerance of even those who were working for the reforms to which he was devoted; the false analogies, fantastic allegories, and sophistical reasonings into which his emotional fervour often betrayed him have justified, in the eyes of many, Bayle's characterization of him as "the knight-errant of philosophy." His attitude of mind towards religious truthwas that of a rationalist. Personally, he failed to feel any of the vital significance of Christianity as a religious system. It was not a Roman Inquisitor, but a Protestant divine, who said of him that he was "a man of great capacity, with infiniteknowledge, but not a trace of religion."

And unfortunately for the painful duties of St Robert Bellarmine, he was that, not as an unbpatised Chinese Mandarin, but as a Baptised and confirmed Catholic and a Dominican. Even a priest.

New Advent > Catholic Encyclopedia > B > Giordano Bruno

Let's link to first reference too:

Wikisource : Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 : Giordano Bruno
by by William Turner

[Updated later with content of an extra comment.]

18:04 To answer you, one thing it WOULD mean or rather DOES mean, as per my view so far of state of evidence, barring only perhaps delays and hastenings in the progress of Voyager 1 to distances further away (measured by sending an identifiable signal and measuring time when it gets back = 2 times the distance in light time, if radio signals travel as fast as light) ... sth you previously denied Rick DeLano : parallax is no measure of stellar distance, the cosmologic distance ladder breaks down at first step and the other steps too, and "distant starlight paradox" is no longer a problem for YEC - paradoxically so many YECs refuse the solution because a Catholic like me came up with it. Or Catholics like you and Sungenis.

Monday, November 16, 2015

... on Two Responses from AronRa's Followers

I sent AronRa a mail about quite another subject, and got no answer, if none arrives by tomorrow, I'll publish it unanswered. Meanwhile I started getting answers from some of his followers in the youtube comments.

Update next day: I found a message under the youtube comments from AronRa, and he seems not to have got my mails. I sent him three mails again - the one I thought of yesterday while writing above, its PS, on historicity of Gospels and related, plus an earlier one on C14. I also told him which email adress to look out for and to have it on his green list. For correspondence, it is for now./HGL

[Update, now is no longer a mail provider, I use - without claiming a doctor title, just because was taken.]

Late coming comments
under threads on AronRa's videos


Marilyn Newman
+Hans-Georg Lundahl What has evolution got to do with fairy tales? Fairy tales are their own problem. when they don't make a lick of sense. Like the guy climbing Rapunzel's hair. I lost my faith in the bible when I read it at 9. Cain not only killed Abel, he killed any possibility of my believing any of it. I mean, after he killed Abel, there was only him, his 2 parents. so who was the woman of NOD he had sex with?

And there are others.

Gen 1 26 God creates the animals 27 God creates Adam & Eve.

Gen 2 7 God forgets he did this 2 days ago. God makes Adam out of dust

20 God creates animals & tries to get Adam to get it on with them, but for some strange reason Adam is not cooperating.

21 So God rips a rib out of Adam to make Eve. I guess he ran out of dust? How did he run out of dust? I clean my house, I never run out of dust?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Marilyn Newman It is funny that age 9, when you STOP believing in the Bible is exactly the age at which I STARTED believing it.

"Cain not only killed Abel, he killed any possibility of my believing any of it. I mean, after he killed Abel, there was only him, his 2 parents."

No. His siblings had not been mentioned yet in the text, but that does not mean they were not yet around in the order of events.

ANY series of events is a selection of all events happening during that time, and if you want to take in two parallel strands, the point is one way of doing that is going back a bit in time.

You are NOT a great reader if that hasn't occurred to you.

Prince Caspian, several ones in Arabian Nights, every break between books in Lord of the Rings, except the first two (note, books, not volumes : there are three volumes but the work is divided in six books, which give five breaks between books, where three illustrate my point) PLUS some other breaks within books III and V. The fact that these stories are fiction does not mean this is not a valid technique for telling things, even in non-fictitious contexts.

With this in mind; take a look at this passage:

Genesis 5: [3] And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. [4] And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters. [5] And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Ah, yes.

  • 1) Cain and Abel probably already had siblings before the killing. It's just that the killing is told in chapter 4, and the Cain and Cainite chronicle follows, and the birth of these siblings is not told until chapter 5.

  • 2) Even supposing that Seth was only the third child, rather than a specially appointed heir of Adam and ancestor of Noah, the sister whom Cain married could have been born "in chapter five" and the marriage still have been told "in chapter four". This would of course involve Cain waiting quite a few years before getting a wife, after the murder, but we are not told in chapter 4 how long it took between murder and founding of Nod.

EITHER WAY the problem with telling the story is that at least two strands are told which unfold in parallel in the events, and therefore the simplest way of telling each in a fairly straight way (they do not intermingle extremely) is to tell each to the end separately before telling the other from the beginning separately.

So, Cain married a sister (which was not yet sinful and would not yet have involved any risk of perpetrating mutations, since they aren't any, except becoming mortal) or possibly a niece.

No problem of credibility involved at all.

That said, at age 9 it was the NT which I started reading, before getting to the OT.

Creating Eve out of Adam's rib obviously means ultimately creating her from dust if Adam was created from dust. Chapter 1 gives the big panorama, chapter 2 gives details from day 6.

As for animals created after Adam, there are two possible answers.

DRBO has Genesis 2: [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.

That is, he had already created them before bringing them to Adam, but it is the bringing of them to Adam which happens after Adam was created.

Other possibility, he created an extra sample of each kind before the eyes of Adam so Adam could witness God creating them.

"God creates animals & tries to get Adam to get it on with them, but for some strange reason Adam is not cooperating."

No, God is TESTING the good sense of Adam, and that he HAD.

Probably Satan had already fallen and this because of honours God was going to bestow on Adam (like a Son of Man, Jesus Christ, being King of Angels, or like the Lady His Virgin Mother being Queen of Angels), Satan had said sth about Adam being "just an animal" and not being able to pass that test, and pass it he did. But this last part is just speculation. And one might add "fallen or starting to fall".

Now, exactly HOW many times are you going to say these problems over and over again, even if Christians (those faithful to Bible at any rate), give you same and functioning answers over and over again?


Soren G
"behemoth like"...really? well,thankfully,you neither write biology nor history books....we leave that to people,who actually know what they are doing.. besides:"Mokele-Mbeme" was a hoax...just to let you´s as credible as Nessie...oh,speaking of: where do you put Nessie than...LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nessie, if real, would be sth like a Plesiosaur.

If Mokele-Mbembe has been "admitted as a hoax" (actually it would be possible to do it if someone had previously informed villagers of Diplodocus and these decided to see how gullible white men were), where can I find the admission.

I did find an exploring trip done, largely, in vain.

And what about this dino:

Palaeocritti Blog : Jobaria tiguidensis

Meaning of generic name Jobar-, Jobar (Tamacheck); -ia, pertaining to (Greek). Named after the mythical creature Jobar, to whom local Touregs had attributed the exposed bones.

As I commented under copy of this part of article:

[Meaning they thought people had seen Jobarias, how do we know they were wrong?]

Soren G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

so what? I don´t get your point here.....

first:Moklele-Mbeme is just as Nessie a has never been found,nor a trace of evidence has been provided for it´s has however,been claimed by answersingenesis (I think),that it does exist and that eye witness reports and footprints etc have been found....underlined was it with a drawing,from a "scientific source" course was the "scientific" source a creationist couple,you drew it from their imagination......

so,the other dinosaur is pretty clean cut too....they found the fossil of a large,but not really unexpected....ever heard of pangea? the supercontinent? that was pretty much the time,when those huge sauropods were around....they basically roamed the whole world....nothing new...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) What you say about Mokele Mbembe does not imply positive evidence of a hoax, just negative evaluation of opposing evidence, which may be insufficient.

  • 2) You totally missed the reason why the Jobaria was NAMED Jobaria. Because the Tuaregs had a "mythical" creature whic they called Jobar and which resembled it.

Did you get what I said this time? Are you slow?

Soren G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

are you slow?

obviously....cause you just can´t understand,that normal people don´t care,what mythical creatures are being credited with mythical properties....I know,you take everything for real until proven unreal or untrue..a quite alien concept, given the fact that you don´t care about evidence much,if it contradicts your wishful thinking belief world.

Nessie, Bigfoot, Yeti, name it....every poeple has stories like that...means,that they are real? Laughable....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
",that normal people don´t care,what mythical creatures are being credited with mythical properties"

I don't care what people YOU consider as "normal".

The point is that the "mythical" creature Jobar corresponds VERY well to the palaeontological creature Jobaria, found in same area as the Tuaregs withn their "myth" about Jobar.

The people I would consider as normal are able to take a hint about that.

"every poeple has stories like that...means,that they are real?"


Soren G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
you know what normal is? obviously not.....normal is,to only belief claims,for which evidence can be presented....what can be checked..your whole belief system is based on have clink on to creationist bullshit blogs about some bullshit,supposedly backing up your bible fairy tale .....well,come back with something,recognized by credible scientific institutes ...does the Smithsonian has anything about your little fantasy creature? than don't try to sell me that shit.....see,the border between insane belief system and normality is quite clear defined....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Soren G We cannot absolutely check whether the Tuaregs believing in Jobars had seen Jobarias alive or had seen skeletons of them.

We can however check, or palaeontologists did it for us, that it would have been either. Because, for one, the coincidences between a Jobar as per Tuareg lore and the Jobaria as per dig out is a bit remarcable for being just coincidence.

However, it stands to reason that "we saw the skeleton of a monster" does not easily become "we saw a monster alive", even after many generations.

The Jobaria is dug out in palaeontology, though I think palaentological finds from Africa don't usually go to Smithsonian. I found all about it that I know about it on a site for palaeontology - including the reference to naming after a "mythical" creature.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting the Difference

Series with Dimond Brothers: 
On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting Difference

Video commented on
(or start of it, since it is long)
“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists

Intro and first minutes
"these acts are impossible for a human being to perform without the assistance of a spirit or spirits"

Are you sure of that? Btw, I have not yet seen the video.

3:59 cards - sleeves?

Does not look like that, but if it looked like it, it would be a bungler.

I tried to learn this kind of sleight of hand, never came any way, and I consider this as due to my clumsiness.

4:31 Here is the explanation of wikipedia:

Wickipeejuh : Bian lian (face changing)

4:58 He doesn't even touch his face ... BUT, does he touch his hat?

"The actor can pull down a mask which has previously been hidden on top of his head, changing his face to red, green, blue or black to express happiness, hate, anger or sadness, respectively."

If there is a mechanism tied to the hat, he can avoid touching the face as such.

5:23 "Only" three days?

That is MUCH more time than I spent on any magic trick those months or years before becoming a Christian when I was interested.

If the trick is to learn one or two or three very exact gestures, like biking, you don't expect the learning process to take months or years.

5:29 Here obviously he is making a mechanism work by the shake on his head.

5:48 You did NOT mention any camera taking him from the SIDE so as to discover if when flapping the cape he touches some protruding part of the hat?

6:10 "You can see that there aren't any masks in the hat they wear".

You can rather see that there aren't any masks lying about loose in the hat they wear. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Have they ever allowed anyone in the audience to actually touch and manipulate their hats?

With your attitude, the cokaine and heroine pushers should just hope for a man like you to become policeman and to do the job without a dog. A dog could sniff the stuff, if trained, but you are not the guy to spot the hiding place by sight.

7:34 Slow down the recording?

Anyone tried the technique called ultra rapid?

In celluloid film, you can take normally 18 or 24 images per second.

BUT if you instead take 48 or 96 images per second and show normally 24 images per second, you do purposefully slow down the viewing, since the uptake was more detailed.

The magicians who "admit" using spirits are very probably not admitting but bragging.

They are not concerned with Catholic moralists who would take such a claim as an admission, they are concerned with the public who will be tickled.

Of course that is sinful too, but not half as bad as actually doing what they brag and you say "they even admit".

11:25 Not yet sure how DC does that table act, but I think screwing the cloth in the middle may have involved screwing a button.

If those putting their fingers on it are in fact part of a conspiracy, they could be hiding magnets in the finger tips. [on, perhaps, rather than in] Just ONE suggestion, not sure it is the right one.

12:45, a little before.
The house of prostitutes struck by a lightning and ALL the prostitutes killed?

I do not believe the story.

To me, he has not collected a piece of a house recording a judgement of God, to me he has made a few shackles and made up a wild story.

You seem to be proud of NOT reading Tolkien, but someone who had might not be as gullible as to believe his story.

AGAIN, he is not admitting very bad spiritual contacts he has had, he is inventing stories for fun, which in this connexion might even be sinful stories, but not as sinful as actually collecting such a memorial of a judgement of God (even presuming God would so judge prostitutes!) and debasing the wood which had touched their deaths with invocations of real demons.

As I was unable to post yesterday, since internet time broke off, I did a research on Barclay House, none of the wiki articles with that name fitted the diescription given by Copperfield.

Have you EVER tried to verify in a news article if that house and that fire after a lightning struck ever existed and happened?

Again, though it may be sinful to pretend to be fiddling with items from such a house for magical purposes, it is very much less sinful than actually doing so, so how about verifying D C is as culpable as he claims for show biz purposes?

There was in Sweden a man who was condemned to psychiatric treatment after murders with cannibalism according to his own confessions. THEN one day he confessed a murder he simply COULD not have committed and gave details that demonstrably WERE not true, this invalidated all his confessions (but alas not the mental treatment which had prompted them, except for first?) and now he is a free man.

If there never WAS such a house, if NO brothel burned down killing all the harlots in a fire after a lightning, then D C CANNOT be guilty of fiddling with remains of such a house either. Ever tried that kind of fact checking?

Vaticancatholic to me
No, it's through the assistance of spirits, as the video explains. To deny that is to demonstrate your blindness and dishonesty.


My response I have been watching the first minutes of the video, and so far you have demonstrated your blindness as detectives.

Note very well that I do very much NOT deny there is a spiritual world.

I do NOT in principle deny the possibility of magic in the extremely sinful sense, as in asking evil spirits to do false wonders for you.

I have made myself a target of mockery in "Enlightened" France because I think a priest of Ceres conjured up a demon that took a shape consisting of minerals and by moving which the demon "ate" up persons (though the minerals can hardly have been digesting it), and this monstrosity fled only because the demon was afraid of St Front, bishop of Perigueux.

I also believe that the hydra which Hercules and Iolaus are said to have killed was a demonic illusion, but one which really happened, and one which is the same demon as is shown in Apocalypse as a beast with several heads, or at least a demon taking same sort of shape.

After that I am less sure whether it was granted to Hercules and Iolaus to kill the bodily shape of that demon by strength and firebrands or whether Hercules had a deal with the father of lies, according to which the monster disappeared when Hercules had been there so that he could pass as having been the monster killer. I do believe he killed monsters of non-demonic basic natures.

I only think that you are HASTY in judging where the demonic is.

I think there were thin masks of cloth hidden within that inside stuffing of the hat, and I think the horns on most hats have a function in making a nudge of the head work the change of a mask. The horns are movable, and act like amplifiers of the nudge. When ALL masks finally go OFF and the real face appears, each time the face was hidden behind a fan so that he could have made a closer gesture without this showing. It may also have been a second slower, since two seconds the face was covered by a fan.

This is NOT a case like irreducible complexity of cells.

In other cases, the face was coloured, and then the fan would have been hiding the washing off by water, when the face finally appeared.

And I notified them : Here is the post about this debate:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting the Difference

Vatican Catholic to me
You are a blind, faithless and foolish. Just the Mat Franco 'tricks' alone prove that you have a darkened mind. The problem is that you think you are wise, but you are actually quite dumb in God's sight (a fool), as your numerous previous errors and fallacious comments have illustrated. You are of the Devil.

Me to them
"You are a blind, faithless and foolish."

God bless you too!

"Just the Mat Franco 'tricks' alone prove that you have a darkened mind."

Or that I am still on David Copperfield.

"The problem is that you think you are wise"

No, usually I think just that I am right.

OK, I may well have been wise when reading BERGOGLIO in ASCII Code, according to St John's words.

"but you are actually quite dumb in God's sight (a fool)"

What Bible or Traditional verse or other locus would you base that on?

I have not said "there is no God", for one. But perhaps you accuse me of saying it "in my heart" rather than with my mind?

"as your numerous previous errors and fallacious comments have illustrated."

None of which you have successfully condemned. Your defense of Feeneyist condemnations of me would also condemn a passage by St Pius X. And do NOT give me the canard that he never wrote the passage on "soul of the Church", he did.

Also, you would have to condemn not only Newman, but also Busenbaum whose Medulla Theologiae Moralis he quoted.

But that is ONE supposed "error", and you spoke of "numerous ones".

"You are of the Devil."

Christ said His disciples would hear that from Pharisees. God bless you too!

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Two Comments on Watching Trey Smith's Jurassic

The video
Jurassic (HD) 2015 -- OFFICIAL dinosaur TRUTH documentary. The REAL Jurassic WORLD.
Trey Smith

It's a trailer for a longer DVD.

My comment one:
St George is one of my patron saints.*

No, he did NOT become a saint by killing a dragon. He was a saint, a man living the life of the Holy Trinity in his soul, before he killed the dragon. And he became canonised as a saint, by being killed for his Christian faith.

23 Aprilis. Natalis Sancti Georgii Martyris [heavenly birthday of St George, Martyr] cujus illustre martyrium [of which the illustrious martyrdom] inter Martyrum coronas Ecclesia Dei veneratur [the Church of God venerates among the crowns of Martyrs].

His main business was not killing that dragon. His main business was remaining faithful to God while his former fellow Roman Soldiers were training "interrogation and intimidation techniques" of very advanced types in order to see if he would save his life by apostasising and becoming legal again. He didn't. THAT is why 23 April is a feast, and killing the dragon was child's play compared with that.

* Hans = Iohannes = John, either St John the Baptist or St John the Disciple whom Jesus Loved
Georg = see above
Mikael = another dragon defeater. Who beat a bigger and older dragon, of non reptilian origin.
Elitzur probably means I have some OT patrons in Heaven as well.

Occasioned by blunder:
"It is by killing the dragon that he became a saint."

No, Beowulf killed both a giant or troll and its mother AND much later a dragon, but he enjoys no cult of sainthood, since he is presumed to have died a Pagan. But main thing, as above, sainthood is about more than killing dragons.

The occasion for my next comment, at 30:36, was Trey Smith mentioning how some scientists work for very little income.

My comment two:
30:36 Some of them do it for very little income.

I am not a scientist, but I am a science critic.

Take a look at this:

Some of it is science criticism, some has to do with other aspects of Iserbyt's book, especially since homeschooling is worse off in Europe than in US, some is other Christian stuff. I am Catholic. That might not sit well with your pastor.

If he has any objections to that, I refer him to this blog:

But even if objections remain, there will be things on my blog which he MIGHT like, or which you might like even if he doesn't.

[Should have said blogS, in the plural, btw!]

In France I am targetted, in certain ways.

Some say that my blogs are infringing on "la laïcité" - the separation of Church and state. Unlike 1 or 2 amendment, the French law of 1905, in a state no longer quite in existence (that was III Republic, now is V Republic) really was about divorcing the state from the Church, and also pillaging. Obviously heirs of that attitude will pretend my blogs are illegal or immoral and they are doing me a favour by hindering publishing.

Some say I am a kind of new St Francis. I am not, I never claimed to be, I never vowed poverty for life in that sense, I would not commit sacrilege against such a state of life (since I am not in it), nor against prophecy, since I am not pretending to be a prophet, just a writer, by taking an income, if offered according to my conditions.

Some say I am ungrateful to Muslims. Always attacking them (yes, I actually dated my post from 22 october "Sts Nunilon and Alodia, Virgin Martyrs of Huesca, 22-X-2015", and the régime in Huesca back then was a Muslim one!), despite them always giving me alms, including sweets that I like so much ... I actually have lost quite a few teeth since this generosity on their side and this ungratitude on my side started. But 22-X IS Sts Nunilon and Alodia (ok, there are other saints too, but Élodie is a popular name in France). And Mohammed was NOT a prophet of God any more than Joseph Smith. Is it totally ungrateful of me to not take that observation down from all of my blogs, where I put it last time in 3 September this year ... very briefly, in the context you can check here: ?

But supposing I were, would it not be better for them if I came off the street, ceased begging, by becoming published on paper in paid book or booklet versions too?

So, I am doing my work literally for, at the moment, VERY little income. Thanks for mentioning other honourable people who are doing their stuff same way (or even with some more than I have)!

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons

1) ... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate, 2) ... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons

My original comment on a video at 25:31
What if the Tower of Babel was as simple as a Cape Canaveral, him hoping to get up above planets and fixed stars?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I like that. Using rockets to send bibles to aliens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As if there were "aliens"!

Up there, there are angels, and Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Meaning, above the stars.

My take on ToB was Nimrod was trying to conquer Heaven by technical force.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Read up on astronomy and you will understand why nothing can be above the stars. Alternatively , stick to your bible and remain ignorant. The choice is yours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Reductionist - I am very WELL aware of the modern astronomy and cosmology. I just do not believe it.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Give me an example of something you do not believe about astronomy/ cosmology !

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm still [a few days later] waiting to hear what it is about cosmology that you do not believe. If you are right, you could be in line for a Nobel prize.

Let's hear from you !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nobel prizes are so made by the Nobel committe, which is Swedish and so secularist (peace prize is by a Norwegian committee).

I do not believe Heliocentrism. As a consequence, I do not belive the angles of annual movement observed in alpha Centauri and 63 Cygni make a watertight or even half secure case for 4 and 11 light years, and as a consequence, I am free to consider stars as forming a relatively thin layer around a globe centred on earth and held together by an aether firmament that God is moving around us daily. This also means, one can be above the stars, locally. The Seraphim and Cherubim are, so is Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. So are the souls of the blessed.

This is where I believe or at least figure Nimrod and the Babel builders were trying to head by sheer travel.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

So you believe pictures taken from satellites showing that the planets orbiting the sun are fakes ? As for the rest, you have clearly made up your mind what you want to believe and ignore anything which might contradict your chosen belief-system. The more intelligent of us look at ALL the available evidence and then make our minds up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So you believe pictures taken from satellites showing that the planets orbiting the sun are fakes ?"

How does ANY picture taken by satellites show Earth orbitting the Sun?

Perhaps same way as pictures taken from Moon (unless these are a fake), and these moving pictures, show Earth turning? Well, if Moon is turning around Earth, that can easily be shown due to the moving angle from which the pictures are taken.

"The more intelligent of us look at ALL the available evidence and then make our minds up."

I'll take that as meaning I am among the more intelligent ones, which is of course a compliment and probably untrue. You make me bashful!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Picture taken at different times show the movement of the planets in relation to the sun.

[true enough, but so do pictures taken from telescopes on earth]

If you believe the sun orbits the earth, please explain how we have seasons !

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Picture taken at different times show the movement of the planets in relation to the sun."

Seems legit.

And as a Tychonian Geocentric, I consider the RELATIVE motions the same. Only, the motion you consider to be that of Earth in relation to the Sun, I consider to be that of the Sun in relation to Earth.

"If you believe the sun orbits the earth, please explain how we have seasons !"

  • 1) The Sun is going West every day along with the aether, which goes at angular speed of star sphere, full circle a few minutes less than 24 h. This motion is due to God.
  • 2) The Sun is ALSO going East in relation to that motion each day, so that the solar day is a full 24 h. This motion is due to an angel that God delegated for this purpose.
  • 3) The Ww motion is around an axis that goes through the poles, N and S.
  • 4) The Ew motion is however along a plane that is not strictly perpendicular but rather swayed in relation to the axis or to equatorial plane. As a result, it includes positions for Sun both North and South of our equator. As a result, we have seasons.

THIS was commonplace for Geocentric astronomers, and Galileo who knew this at least did not try to make THAT the argument for his case, unlike you who have presumably never been told the Geocentric version of the story.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are so wrong that I don't know where to begin. Let me just say that if the sun behaved as you believe, we would have no seasons as we know them. Put another way we would cycle through 4 seasons every 24 hours.

I don't know how you came to believe what you do , but I shall not attempt to explain what is really going on as something tells me you are not open to rational explanation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Let me just say that if the sun behaved as you believe, we would have no seasons as we know them. Put another way we would cycle through 4 seasons every 24 hours."

You suck at reading skills.

The angel of the Sun is getting a RIDE Westward each day, courtesy of God turning the aether around us. This is in a circle perpendicular to axis through poles. He is ALSO touring another circle Eastward which takes him a year to get through. This circle, commonly known as zodiac, is NOT perpendicular to the axis of the poles, and therefore the Sun is in March and September circling each day above equator, in late December above the Southern Tropic (Capricorn) and in late June above the Northern Tropic (Cancer).

Got it this time?

"as something tells me you are not open to rational explanation."

If one of us is not, it is you. Perhaps just a question of reading skills, perhaps a question of dishonesty. Don't know for sure.

But my explanation very certainly would NOT get the consequence you painted out.

may turn up.

Monday, September 28, 2015

... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate

1) ... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate, 2) ... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons

My original article
The problem is described like this one Liberapedia:

There's yet another reason why modern geocentrism goes against science. There is a slight wobble in the earth's rotation. The earth speeds up and slows down its rotation a little and the point of the earth's axis changes just a bit too.

  • 1) Heliocentrists have no difficulty explaining this wobble, the earth moves.

  • 2)Geocentrists have to imagine that the stars and galaxies all wobble together while the earth stays still. Each wobble started at a different time so the light from these different objects reaches us at the same time giving the appearance of synchrony.

    • 1) A star 9 Light years away wobbled 9 years ago,
    • 2) Stars 600 Light years away wobbled 600 years ago,
    • 3) Galaxies 6 billion Light years away wobbled 6 billion years ago. Galaxies that are very far away wobbled before the Solar system formed.
    • 4) The light from all these wobbles that really happened at different times reaches us at exactly the same time so there's the illusion that the whole universe wobbles in synchrony.

Is all the wobbling in the whole universe centred round earth plausible? Consider Occam's razor. Isn't the simpler assumption that the earth wobbles?

But there are two solutions possible.

  • Wobble being actually observed is an urban legend. The quote gave no reference for its observation. Predicting it is no problem for a Newtonian Heliocentric.

  • Wobble is a dance in the stars, but this dance is actually less complex than assumed here, since stars are at a common, little varied distance, and much closer than light years. Its "mechanics" are due to Angelic Movers.

For references, see the Wikipedia article on Chandler wobble.

The variation, as interpretated as a motion of the stars, is coordinated by stars in different directions from the Earth, for example stars near the North Pole and those near the South Pole change their dances simultaneously. The northern stars are at great distances from the southern stars, even if all stars are at the same distance from Earth. We have space probes which are known to be, by the time it takes radio transmission to reach Earth at significant fraction of a light-day, and thus we know that the stars must be quite a bit farther than that. Thus northern stars are significant distances from southern stars, and the coordination of their "dances" is something requiring explanation.

Aside from that, to expect that all the stars are at about the same distance from Earth requires that we totally misunderstand their nature. Sirius, for example, being about the same distance as stars which are so dim that they cannot be seen without powerful telescopes is to demand that they are totally different things, producing light by who knows what different mechanisms.

No, not quite.

Only that they have a totally different origin.


And coming in very different sizes.

However, you suppose they produce light and heat by fusion.

Saying a star is only a few miles across does not make fusion impossible (if it did you are wasting money at CERN), it only means the fusion cannot have started by self ignition after reaching a critical mass which OF COURSE must be greater than that of Jupiter.

Since, if the fusion started by self ignition, if a certain required mass of a body produces self ignition, either Jupiter is smaller than that mass, which is basically what you are saying, and that is why it didn't self ignite, or Jupiter is larger than it and would in such a case have self ignited.

My saying there are stars smaller than Jupiter simply means self ignition was not how stars started to shine. It does not rule out fusion as an angoing process.

Also, there is a question of time here, the smaller a body in fusion, the faster it must burn out. Well, 7200 years is a very much shorter time than millions or billions of years. Plus hydrogen can have been thicker between the stars at the beginning. Plus in a small universe, the redding that is due to interstellar matter (not redshift, which shifts all spectrum, but a cutting off of the bluest parts of it, a distinct thing) would need to be from a denser interstellar matter.

To produce the redding as observed, you either need light passing through a longer distance of less dense or a shorter distance through denser matter.

Coordinating the dance is no problem. I think angels are good dancers (if I may say so) with a very good choreographer, called God.

You claim that "the smaller a body in fusion, the faster it must burn it". That claim is in disagreement with mainstream astrophysics - bigger (more massive) stars burn their fuel faster.

You also claim that fusion can be maintained in a body smaller than a star (as understood by mainstream astrophysics). But if the centre of such of a body was hot and dense enough for fusion the pressure would be too great for gravitational confinement to word, so it would expand and become cooler and less dense and the fusion reaction would cease.

By "faster" I did not refer to speed, but to absolute time frame. And I was referring to stars a few miles across having much less matter than modern models about Sirius. Beyond a certain difference of size, this matters more than speed.

As to fusion, I was not saying the confinement was gravitational, as in the case of CERN we know it is not.

As a Creationist, I am nowise bound to limiting the structures of stars to only what could arise from lifeless and mindless physical processes.

Also, I am not absolutely bound to accept the current theories about what stars are are correct. It's not as if we'd been inside one and looked (the space probes looking closest at sun are obviously outside it).

[I am not so much referring to Hadron colliders and attempts of modelling Big Bang like conditions, I am referring to experiments in nuclear fusion.]

We agree, then, that to accept the fixity of Earth, that one must find practically everything in astronomy is wrong, and that there are spiritual beings which are up to doing practically everything to make things look as if the Earth is moving, in such a way that we poor mortals cannot tell the difference.

The angels could be forming images in telescopes, could be intercepting radio transmissions from space probes, and ... well, you tell us, what more to they do to make us think that Earth is in motion?

I agreed one had to accept some things in astrophysics are wrong.

I certainly agree there are angels and I do certainly NOT agree all they are doing is make it "look as if the earth is moving".

Not to common mortals without a telescope. And to those that have good such, they have done some counter indications - like negative parallax.

See Tycho Main catalogue, which has negative parallaxes to the range of -900 micro-arch seconds and beyond.

Not surprisingly Heliocentrics have disqualified the observations as not correct parallaxes.

Well these *not* correct parallaxes have been "measured" as much as any parallaxes by very good equipment very well placed.

"The angels could be forming images in telescopes"

Could, but I don't think God would usually let them. And the devils are not allowed that high up.

"could be intercepting radio transmissions from space probes"

Actually the radio transmissions from space probes seem to be very well hidden by Heliocentrics. See the article on zig zag.

"what more to they do to make us think that Earth is in motion"

Nothing. It's astronomers who do INTERPRETING to make THEMSELVES (not all of us common mortals, they cannot reach all of us) think that. At the limit, allowing "aberration" and "parallax" to be observed through telescopes could have been a practical joke on astronomers. BUT, with negative parallax, they have alreade signalled "April fools" to that community, which however is not getting it.

Oh, the Heliocentric majority of astronomers, of course. Who are a very tiny minority of mankind, and the angels are doing nothing to make ordinary mankind (except those trusting Heliocentric astronomers) conclude anything about Earth moving.

See articles on Parallactic zig zag of space missions? and Negative Parallax - a Problem for Heliocentrism

To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars.

We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other. Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects). And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature.

You seem to suggest that angels are doing this. To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth. It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation.

To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars.

I refuse to focus out other "apparent" motions. Like such as would render Heliocentric model dubious, if taken seriously (negative parallax).

We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other.

If my guess is right that stars are one or two light days away from us, they are of course much closer than that to each other. One light day away = Adam and Eve could see the light created on day four on the first evening of their life. Two light days away, sorry reverse, two light days away it's just Adam and Eve, but one light day away the birds created on day five could also enjoy them from start.

Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects).

Operative word : can. Before this was predicted and sighted, astronomers had already decided they were going to. They had basically "grown out of" even considering Geocentrism with angelic movers, which was standard in the days of Riccioli (for it) and Newton (who was against it).

And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature.

If you know the dances of European folklore, dance moves tend to be predictable. Very good dancers seen at a distance (not so close you could see their faces or fingers, of course) would look very similar to robots programmed for the dance.

At enough distance, indistinguishable.

I opt for option 3, a design - choreographic such - beyond the nature of stars and angels, and through the will of these, obedient to their maker and chroreographer.

You seem to suggest that angels are doing this.

Not only "seem to suggest" - if you click at category celestial mechanics, you will find Angelic movers. I am saying it very explicitly.

To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth.

Are following a design of things, that in fact can be seen as imitating it.

It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation.

Not so.

My explanation is double. Remember now, the times when planets (including sun and moon) block some object of the zodiak are ALSO designed. But they are not designed FOR the convenience of astrologers making horoscopes, at least not generally for every man. Of course, once over Bethlehem they were strictly designed to guide mages, i e astrologers (at least for this occasion) to Our Lord.

If an astrologer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a horoscope and interprets it as a horoscope, it is his fault.

And if a heliocentric astronomer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a wobble of earth, it is his fault.

In the one case for ignoring how Jacob and Esau (and so many others born same day and even hour same maternity) had same horoscope but very different fates and and characters. In the other case for taking one of two attitudes to angelic movers:

  • "they don't exist"
  • "if they do it and Earth isn't moving, it's their fault".

They have given a corrective by showing negative parallax in the best measurements yet, and astronomers react by calling these "incorrect parallaxes".

One could just as well say, they are trying to tell astronomers they are alive and intelligent by different dance moves and failing all the time, because astronomers always have a newq mechanistic aspect to discover.

"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service.

The wobble's amplitude has varied since its discovery, reaching its largest size in 1910 and fluctuating noticeably from one decade to another."

In other words, the wobble has not any more than the other things exactly lived up to mechanistic explanations, but given astronomers surprises.

And when we speak about celestial mechanics. How about looking at the page here:

Is Newtonian Physics a Sufficient Explanation for Celestial Mechanics?

The wobble seems to accentuate the problem.

I am replying to your request for what we heliocentrists are talking about with regards to the coordination of the wobble of the stars.

Once again, what we are saying is that the apparent motions of the stars (and this includes Solar System bodies and interplanetary rockets and, for that matter, GPS satellites) vary in such a way that the light reaches Earth in a coordinated way. For example, the light from Polaris and the light from Sirius and the light from Neptune and the light from Voyager 1 varies in their direction at the time that they are observed on Earth just as if the Earth were varying in rotation. Even though the various bodies are at great distances from one another, and at great distances from Earth. You seem to think that the distances are "only" a matter of light-days when we are speaking of stars. I'm not going to get sidetracked on that, but only note that that is still far enough to make the effect striking: Polaris makes a wobble at least a day or so earlier than Voyager 1 makes its coordinated wobble. The same is true of Sirius and Voyager 1. Polaris and Sirius are at least a day or so distant from one another and they make the coordinated wobble at the same time (assuming that they are equal distance from Earth). This happens for thousands of stars and Solar System objects. So much so, that astronomers point their telescopes according to the effect. The coordination is a predicable effect, for thousands of objects as an everyday observation.

You say that the angels are capable of doing anything with the stars. I'm not going to bother asking you why angels would be concerned with such behavior, because, of course, angels are beyond our comprehension. But angels should know that humans will see what is going on and be led to suspect that it is the result of the Earth's motion. These angels are behaving like Puck, playing games with these fools which we mortals be. But I am not to question their motives. These angels who are up to making dances with stars, are surely able to - oh, say, making it look like there are people who are typing stuff on the net.

But if you thiink that the wobble is something worth explaining, then invoking angels who are capable of dancing with the stars without limitations - well, then what are they not going to do next?

To return to the question to which I was responding, I think that I have made it clear what we heliocentrists are saying. The wobble of the stars has the appearance of the motion of the Earth. And no other explanation is known, short of "anthing is possible".

"I am replying to your request for what we heliocentrists are talking about with regards to the coordination of the wobble of the stars."

No, I was NOT requesting you what Heliocentrics are talking about.

I was requesting you when and where this has been observed.

I actually found the answer myself. [After his indicating the wiki article.]

I also replied to the argument.

As for angels acting like Puck, that is NOT the case with normal mortals, who have no telescopes. It is NOT the case with astronomers or philosophers who, aware of wobble can imagine it is caused by them. It is ONLY the case with heliocentric and an-angelic astronomers, who decided for error even before looking.

God (and therefore His angels) have a perfect right to "act like Puck" towards these.

The question what they will do next is a bit moot. A bit before the world ends, "stars will fall from Heaven" - whether this is literal or refers to UFOs (literally about how it looks) or allegorical about bishops, I don't know. But apart from that event, they can normally be reckoned on as continuing their dance as usual, with the usual steps.

Unless you count things like a rumour of Moon turning 90° during one particular night (the end times researchers were not able to contact the observatories) or things like the Smiley caught in Hubble as them crying out "April fools" to you.

Like the not so bright idea of using very abstruse observations in flouting of very open and commonplacce observations, like Earth being still below our feet while Heavens turn each day and night around us.

Your point of objects at very different distances was also nearly answered.

The "wobble" is longer than a year.

The distances that I must admit are different are within lighthours or less, except for stars which I consider to be one light day away. Now, if stars had been distant at very different light years from us, like 4 for alpha Centauri or 800 for Rigel, you would have had a point.

For how I reason about this, see this article: Whether Parallax be Valid as a Distance Measure

It is obvious that your only reply is that whatever anyone sees is irrelevant, for supernatural agencies can do whatever they want. It is pointless to discuss this, for whatever you want to believe can be done by supernatural agencies and there is no questioning about what they do, when or where, how or why.

The only remaining puzzle for me is why you pretend to be interested in what anyone has to say, for you know that you have constructed a view of the world which is immune to any discussion.

It is of course obvious I count on supernatural agencies being able to do what I think they are able to do.

It is equally obvious, you are more like allergic than just immune to that kind of explanation.

However, I was genuinely interested in what you would have had to say on "light from Voyager 1".

I am especially interested in whether it has really been observed.

Or for that matter, whether stars seen from Voyager 1 are observed with sufficient accuracy to detect a wobble, if it is really in the stars.

I actually think neither is the case, but if you had given a good source, I would have had to reconsider wobble as being a dance in individual stars performed by their angels, I would have had to consider it a part of the movement of the aether, like the daily rotation.

This is not "immune to any discussion", it is only immune to atheistic and anangelic limitations on what explanations I can accept. Just as a discussion of history is immune to arguments like "resurrection can't have happened, because it would be a miracle, and miracles don't happen".

But if your ONLY argument is contesting for various reasons the angelic explanation of stellar movements, well, my world view is certainly immune to THAT. And I am happy to have shown that you had nothing more than that to offer.

But if you have ANY really good source about Voyager 1 in this context, welcome back, and I'll reconsider wobble as possibly rather made by God's moving the aether.

As far as "light from Voyager 1", I was referring to the observed delay of radio transmissions from interplanetary probes. You can read about an example of that in the recent news stories about New Horizons. This is only one of several signs that you need to read a bit about astronomy before attempting to discuss geocentrism. The available literature is vast, and maybe you should ask your local librarian about some books which are appropriate to your level.

If you care to "explain" whatever happens by saying that agency which is apt to do anything could do it, feel free. Angels could be making messages which you see on your computer screen, and there is no human who is sending them. Maybe I don't exist, but this is just a way of testing your faith by angels.

"I was referring to the observed delay of radio transmissions from interplanetary probes. You can read about an example of that in the recent news stories about New Horizons."

Link to those stories, please?

"This is only one of several signs that you need to read a bit about astronomy before attempting to discuss geocentrism."

I did. That is how I became a Geocentric.

The greatest proper movement exceeds the greatest parallax, and therefore parallax is NOT sth about fixed stars being really and truly fixed, and therefore NOT necessarily about observer moving.

And DO please click reply button so discussion can be read from top to bottom instead of just highlighting your latest idea!

" Angels could be making messages which you see on your computer screen, and there is no human who is sending them."

It is correct this is within their capability. But in what situation could they morally do so?

Let's suppose a blogger had died, and God asked angels to publish his last post with the news of his death, they could do it.

Demons could do other things than moral ones, but are for now not allowed to.

"Maybe I don't exist, but this is just a way of testing your faith by angels"

I never said ANYTHING about ANY deception being worked by angels or by God or otherwise to test our faith, except at a very low level.

During Flood, God may have allowed devils to pile microfossils along with the larger fossils and in layers the larger fossils don't come in, so as to test our faith. But before resorting to that, I would like to be sure the microfossils were so unanimously assorted along with vertebrate fossils assigned to diverse periods as he claimed they were.

Sorry for not answering that before, but I made the previous answer tonight in a cyber.