Some of the greatest Stolen Discoveries Of Science

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:59:42 -0700, Saul Levy
wrote:

The real quacks here are YOU (and MIN)! The details didn't copy over
again...

Your presentation contradicts your claim of no credit for each
finding. Items 1-4 and 7-8 are part of standard astronomical history
with which I am very familiar. Whoever wrote that crap must be only
reading children's books which rarely give named credit. All of those
scientists (and I assume the other 3) have gotten plenty of credit for
their discoveries. What you posted are hideously-biased accounts of
what really happened.

I've worked with Vera Rubin at Kitt Peak (and Kent Ford). I know Jay
Frogel too. Whoever wrote this crap didn't notice that Vera is a VERY
Jewish woman. Her mannerisms and accent remind me very much of many
of my female relatives! Anyway, I had to laugh at the thought that
THE CHURCH disapproved of Vera! I'd like to ask her about that point.
Jews don't pay much attention to THE CHURCH!

Also, what exactly are problems with flight-trauma, and what do they
have to do with fundamental forces in the Universe, possible ftl
flight and airplane trips? That item sure seemed to be pushing the
envelope in kooky crap!

How about adding Halton Arp to this list? Someday he may get his
credit stolen just like the others (!), but that will have to wait for
his ideas to be proven first!

Mad Fool's posting of this deserves a LOT MORE ridicule than just the
responses so far. All of the items he posted are total nonsense!


Yep. I figured since I already showed the nonsense claims on Cepheid
Variables was DUMB, then the rest of the nonsense was too. The site he
stole from is NOT a source of knowledge.


--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

Yep. I figured since I already showed the nonsense claims on Cepheid
Variables was DUMB, then the rest of the nonsense was too. The site he
stole from is NOT a source of knowledge.

Kook/Troll. Nuff said.

Imperishable Stars wrote in news:2ZK1d.45702$vkm.11971
Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

Yep. I figured since I already showed the nonsense claims on Cepheid
Variables was DUMB, then the rest of the nonsense was too. The site he
stole from is NOT a source of knowledge.

Kook/Troll. Nuff said.

agreed! totally!

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:39:57 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:59:42 -0700, Saul Levy
wrote:
SNIP
Mad Fool's posting of this deserves a LOT MORE ridicule than just the
responses so far. All of the items he posted are total nonsense!
*****************
Yep. I figured since I already showed the nonsense claims on Cepheid
Variables was DUMB, then the rest of the nonsense was too. The site he
stole from is NOT a source of knowledge.
******************
No matter under what name that poor little critter posts, his habit of
plagirizing, of refusing to credit sources, and, all too often, the
quality of those URL's he visits, clearly speak louder than all of his
protestations.
Considering how many of his headings go for "shock value", he probably
is hoping to work with Jerry Springer...
---Mac

Yeah, we know who the real kook is! How come you didn't call me a
kook, too? Was my excellent rebuttal of that crappy article you
posted too much for you?

You need help even more than before!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:16:14 GMT, Imperishable Stars
wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

Yep. I figured since I already showed the nonsense claims on Cepheid
Variables was DUMB, then the rest of the nonsense was too. The site he
stole from is NOT a source of knowledge.

Kook/Troll. Nuff said.

"Wally Anglesea" wrote in
message ...

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote

Wally, for the Nth time, if you and the others would ignore him he
would
go away.

Yeah, I know, but if he posts twisted lies, I gotta point out the
truth
occasionally ( I rise to the bait, I realise).

We know how he works:-
He gives a provcative title to the thread
The body of the post contains either a short amount of text setting up a
straw-man argument, or a long amount of text quoted from a kook website.
Finally there is a link to the original site - which generally does not
support the title of the thread in the first place.

Can we try again the principle of ignoring his posts? - if absolutely
necessary one of us may give a single, fairly detailed response to his
initial post and then let the thread die. If he responds further, we
know it won't actually contribute to a reasoned argument, so there's no
need to do any more.