More Evidence of the Einstein Conspiracy.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:46:04 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

I see stuff on sci.astro.research that looks similar to, and about as crazy
as, yours, submitted by someone styling himself as "Rabbo" who used
ellipsis-type fake email addresses. There are no replies, but that may be
because people did not find anything worthy of reply.

Elsewhere I did find postings attributed to Henry Wilson. If that is you
then your stuff is getting there.

I was amused by the threat of legal action against the moderators if your
stuff (or Rabbo's stuff--let's be clear on that) is not published... I'd
like you or Rabbo to keep us posted on the progress of your or Rabbo's
lawsuit through the courts.

By the way, sometimes for no obvious reason newsgroup postings get lost in
cyberspace. It has happened to me, and maybe that is what is happening to
you.

Apparently not....by your own revelations here.

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.


...and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

On Mar 31, 6:03*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:46:04 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"





wrote:
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on *scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

I see stuff on sci.astro.research that looks similar to, and about as crazy
as, yours, submitted by someone styling himself as "Rabbo" who used
ellipsis-type fake email addresses. * There are no replies, but that may be
because people did not find anything worthy of reply.

Elsewhere I did find postings attributed to Henry Wilson. *If that is you
then your stuff is getting there.

I was amused by the threat of legal action against the moderators if your
stuff (or Rabbo's stuff--let's be clear on that) is not published... I'd
like you or Rabbo to keep us posted on the progress of your or Rabbo's
lawsuit through the courts.

By the way, sometimes for no obvious reason newsgroup postings get lost in
cyberspace. *It has happened to me, and maybe that is what is happening to
you.

Apparently not....by your own revelations here.

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.

..and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

I believe Mike already told you that moderators of a newsgroup are
under no obligation to satisfy that request, regardless of your
expectations or taunts.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:58:23 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

What email address did you use? A fake email, such as the one you use to
post here, probably means it goes straight into an unread dead folder or is
deleted automatically.

The moderators of a newsgroup are under no obligation to reply to
submissions they do not wish to accept, nor are they obliged to enter into a
correspondence with you for any reason unless they choose to.

Finally, and I speak from experience, some newsfeeds such as giganews have
misconfigured various moderated groups, and a message submitted via your
newsreader will not go through. They can and do accept submissions via
email, however.


It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

Yes, of course they are. I receive a payment of £100/month to keep silent
about the conspiracy. Although the moderators undoubtedly get more (I am
jealous, very jealous) from conspiracy HQ, they are also probably aware of
the Crackpot Index.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

See 18,19,20, and 34.

The only crackpots around here are the idiots who try to prop up the
Einsteinian religion with insults instead of science.

For instance, it should be obvious to anyone except a relativist that
light speed cannot be independent of its source speed without an
absolute spatial reference?
www.scisite.info/einstein's_aether.exe

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:08:53 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Mar 31, 6:03*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:46:04 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"





wrote:
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on *scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

I see stuff on sci.astro.research that looks similar to, and about as crazy
as, yours, submitted by someone styling himself as "Rabbo" who used
ellipsis-type fake email addresses. * There are no replies, but that may be
because people did not find anything worthy of reply.

Elsewhere I did find postings attributed to Henry Wilson. *If that is you
then your stuff is getting there.

I was amused by the threat of legal action against the moderators if your
stuff (or Rabbo's stuff--let's be clear on that) is not published... I'd
like you or Rabbo to keep us posted on the progress of your or Rabbo's
lawsuit through the courts.

By the way, sometimes for no obvious reason newsgroup postings get lost in
cyberspace. *It has happened to me, and maybe that is what is happening to
you.

Apparently not....by your own revelations here.

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.

..and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

I believe Mike already told you that moderators of a newsgroup are
under no obligation to satisfy that request, regardless of your
expectations or taunts.

Diaper, my point was that their refusal to even acknowledge receipt of
my wholly scientific based article is itself evidence of a cover up.

It is now obvious that they DID receive it since Mike Dworetsky, who
is equally obviously one of the moderators, knows some of the details
I used ONLY for the sci.astro.research posting.

As I said in a follow up post, (also rejected) the truth is too
terrible for the moderators to even contemplate.

Frankly, I don't know why. There is a goldmine of opportunity for any
genuine scientist who uses my theory to revolutionizes astronomy.

BaTh explains many current mysteries of space.

On Mar 31, 6:20*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:08:53 -0700 (PDT), PD





wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:03*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:46:04 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"

wrote:
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on *scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

I see stuff on sci.astro.research that looks similar to, and about as crazy
as, yours, submitted by someone styling himself as "Rabbo" who used
ellipsis-type fake email addresses. * There are no replies, but that may be
because people did not find anything worthy of reply.

Elsewhere I did find postings attributed to Henry Wilson. *If that is you
then your stuff is getting there.

I was amused by the threat of legal action against the moderators if your
stuff (or Rabbo's stuff--let's be clear on that) is not published... I'd
like you or Rabbo to keep us posted on the progress of your or Rabbo's
lawsuit through the courts.

By the way, sometimes for no obvious reason newsgroup postings get lost in
cyberspace. *It has happened to me, and maybe that is what is happening to
you.

Apparently not....by your own revelations here.

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.

..and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

I believe Mike already told you that moderators of a newsgroup are
under no obligation to satisfy that request, regardless of your
expectations or taunts.

Diaper, my point was that their refusal to even acknowledge receipt of
my wholly scientific based article is itself evidence of a cover up. *

And that's your delusion, Ralph. Being ignored is no indication of a
cover-up, except to egomaniacs on the verge of a psychotic breakdown
who believe that what they have to say is too important to be ignored.

An indicator of the first steps back to sanity, normality, and
productivity would be your realization that perhaps some things you
say are of such poor quality that they are not worth a response.

You may want to scan some of NoEinstein's posts and take some
comparative notes with your reflection in the mirror. I sincerely hope
that the exercise produces a "Holy crap" moment for you.


It is now obvious that they DID receive it since Mike Dworetsky, who
is equally obviously one of the moderators, knows some of the details
I used ONLY for the sci.astro.research posting.

As I said in a follow up post, (also rejected) the truth is too
terrible for the moderators to even contemplate.

Frankly, I don't know why. There is a goldmine of opportunity for any
genuine scientist who uses my theory to revolutionizes astronomy.

BaTh explains many current mysteries of space.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Mar 31, 6:20*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:08:53 -0700 (PDT), PD


wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:03*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:46:04 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"

wrote:

Apparently not....by your own revelations here.

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.

..and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

I believe Mike already told you that moderators of a newsgroup are
under no obligation to satisfy that request, regardless of your
expectations or taunts.

Diaper, my point was that their refusal to even acknowledge receipt of
my wholly scientific based article is itself evidence of a cover up. *

And that's your delusion, Henry. Being ignored is no indication of a
cover-up, except to egomaniacs on the verge of a psychotic breakdown
who believe that what they have to say is too important to be ignored.

It obviously was NOT ignored.
It was very quickly placed in the 'too hard' basket where it could
threaten no reputations...or maybe the 'too embarrassing basket'....

On Mar 31, 6:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT), PD





wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:20*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:08:53 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:03*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:46:04 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"

wrote:
Apparently not....by your own revelations here.

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.

..and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

I believe Mike already told you that moderators of a newsgroup are
under no obligation to satisfy that request, regardless of your
expectations or taunts.

Diaper, my point was that their refusal to even acknowledge receipt of
my wholly scientific based article is itself evidence of a cover up. *

And that's your delusion, Henry. Being ignored is no indication of a
cover-up, except to egomaniacs on the verge of a psychotic breakdown
who believe that what they have to say is too important to be ignored.

It obviously was NOT ignored.

I beg your pardon, but read your own original post, complaining that
you got zero response. Zip. Nada.
And on the basis of NO response, you conclude that it was NOT
ignored?
Ignoring your submission MEANS not responding to your submission.

Do some small part of your brain tell you that you're in trouble,
Ralph?

It was very quickly placed in the 'too hard' basket where it could
threaten no reputations...or maybe the 'too embarrassing basket'

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:42:24 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Mar 31, 6:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT), PD




And that's your delusion, Henry. Being ignored is no indication of a
cover-up, except to egomaniacs on the verge of a psychotic breakdown
who believe that what they have to say is too important to be ignored.

It obviously was NOT ignored.

I beg your pardon, but read your own original post, complaining that
you got zero response. Zip. Nada.
And on the basis of NO response, you conclude that it was NOT
ignored?
Ignoring your submission MEANS not responding to your submission.

Diaper, the article I sent to sci.astro.research contained different
details to the one I posted elsewhere.

Mike Dworetsky admits to knowing those details.
Mike Dworetsky must have read the version I sent to sci.astro.research
but which was not published there.

What conclusion might one draw from that?

.....A COVER UP?

On Mar 31, 4:03*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
[....]

My scientifically based article was rejected for one reason only...IT
THREATENS TO BRING DOWN EINSTEIN along with many other reputations.

Nothing says 'science!' like a discredited theory.


Why don't you read it? Then you can tell me where it is wrong.

So you can argue, misunderstand, and do anything but change your mind.


..and by the way, the email address I used is a genuine one. You can
use it to explain formally why the article was rejected..

Since "From: ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.)" is neither an email, or your
real name, one might suspect the compulsive liar was lying again.

On Mar 31, 4:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
[...]

It obviously was NOT ignored.

Giving the park bench mutterer a sideways look does qualify as "not
ignoring him", but it certainly doesn't constitute assent.

It was very quickly placed in the 'too hard' basket where it could
threaten no reputations...or maybe the 'too embarrassing basket'....

The evidence for this being what? Beyond your personal delusions, of
course.