More Evidence of the Einstein Conspiracy.

On Mar 31, 7:08*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
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?

Being IGNORED?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
wrote:

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.

poor little eric....

Never utters a word of physics...

On Mar 31, 8:58*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse









wrote:
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.

poor little eric....

Never utters a word of physics...

Well if you'd like to keep pushing ballistic theory without giving a
solid explanation for all those results that disprove it, then go
right ahead. That's why you are on USENET, after all.

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

[trim]

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.

It is obvious only to someone who likes to make things up. Your imagination
is getting the better of you. I am certainly not one of the moderators.


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.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
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?

Ah, the conspiracy theory.

On my server, at least, the messages from you and from the other guy who may
or may not be you are there on sci.astro.research for anyone to read. So
maybe the problem is that you have set your newsreader to ignore your own
posts. The moderators have not, as far as any normal person can see,
censored your postings.

Moderation is done "by hand", not by a robot, in that group, so if the
moderators are away from their desks for a while, posts may not appear for a
few days.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On 01/04/2011 00:03, 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.

You are definitely accelerating up the crackpot points curve and already
at a great speed. Your "theory" is so weak and feeble that even
Androcles can refute it.

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

Just about everywhere would sum it up nicely. Relativity is a well
founded and experimentally verified theory. And you are a netkook.

..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..

You would do well to note that the "Rabbo" the BaTh loon postings are on
sci.astro.moderated. No-one has bothered to answer either of them
because the material is total garbage and does not deserve a reply.

I think the moderators probably should not have wasted bandwidth by
accepting and distributing them, but that is only a personal opinion.
Traffic is so light in s.a.r that it hardly matters.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:21:50 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
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?

Ah, the conspiracy theory.

On my server, at least, the messages from you and from the other guy who may
or may not be you are there on sci.astro.research for anyone to read. So
maybe the problem is that you have set your newsreader to ignore your own
posts. The moderators have not, as far as any normal person can see,
censored your postings.

My message in sci.astro.research does not appear on my newsreader. All
messages from other NGs do.


Moderation is done "by hand", not by a robot, in that group, so if the
moderators are away from their desks for a while, posts may not appear for a
few days.

That does not appear to be the problem. It's over a week since I
posted and YOU say the message is there already.

On 01/04/2011 09:29, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:21:50 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
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?

Ah, the conspiracy theory.

On my server, at least, the messages from you and from the other guy who may
or may not be you are there on sci.astro.research for anyone to read. So
maybe the problem is that you have set your newsreader to ignore your own
posts. The moderators have not, as far as any normal person can see,
censored your postings.

My message in sci.astro.research does not appear on my newsreader. All
messages from other NGs do.

It would appear that the Rabbo posts are only on some NNTP newservers.
It is on the free Teranews server that I use, but not on Google groups.

Moderation is done "by hand", not by a robot, in that group, so if the
moderators are away from their desks for a while, posts may not appear for a
few days.

That does not appear to be the problem. It's over a week since I
posted and YOU say the message is there already.

It is there at least on some news servers. It may be relevant that just
after you posted there was an adminstrivia posting from the moderators
stating that you *MUST* provide a valid email address when posting so
that rejection messages can be sent out when appropriate.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:21:50 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
| wrote:
|
| Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
| 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?
|
| Ah, the conspiracy theory.
|
| On my server, at least, the messages from you and from the other guy who
may
| or may not be you are there on sci.astro.research for anyone to read. So
| maybe the problem is that you have set your newsreader to ignore your own
| posts. The moderators have not, as far as any normal person can see,
| censored your postings.
|
| My message in sci.astro.research does not appear on my newsreader. All
| messages from other NGs do.
|

Two posts from Henry Wilson,
one post from Henry Wilson DSc,
one post with All Astronomical Theory is WRONG,
two posts with Astronomers....Ignore This at Your Peril,
all with a url whining about Einstein and no
other content.
You'll do better with a sandwich board reading "The End is Nigh",
then Phuckwit Duck and Goose will be over it like flies on ****, but
nobody else is interested.



|
| Moderation is done "by hand", not by a robot, in that group, so if the
| moderators are away from their desks for a while, posts may not appear
for a
| few days.
|
| That does not appear to be the problem. It's over a week since I
| posted and YOU say the message is there already.
|
Which it is, and almost as attractive as Liz Taylor - and she's buried.

On 31.03.2011 00:01, 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.

Good grief! :-)

This ramble-bumble:
http://www.scisite.info/The_new_ball..._of_light.html
should be "undoubtedly the most important document they have
ever received."

You _are_ living in Wonderland, are you not? :-)


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.

There are zillions of cranks like you out there, writing zillions
of papers which each and every one is "the most important paper
ever written".
It seems like most cranks, like you, are suffering from megalomania,
and are out of touch with reality.

Of course "genuine scientists" won't waste their time discussing
these nonsensical "papers", and the moderators of serious discussion
forums can't take the time to give a reason for why they are ignoring
all the garbage they are receiving.

The only ones who bother to respond to your nonsense are we
who are doing this purely as entertainment.
None of us are taking you seriously, Ralph, your role in this
NG is that of an involuntary comedian.

And you are a bloody good one! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/