Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Moon? Sleuths

Evidence of artificial structures on the Moon? One image here
purportedly looks very much like a Sphinx is on the inside of a crater.
Sleuths?

---

http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/Moon.html

http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/III.html

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:06:16 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:

Evidence of artificial structures on the Moon? One image here
purportedly looks very much like a Sphinx is on the inside of a crater.
Sleuths?

---

http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/Moon.html

http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/III.html


Oh please, this has been rehashed a billion times over the years. More
kook nonsense.

Another Usenet Sociopath tries to make a truly worthless point

Tom Randy wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:06:16 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:


Evidence of artificial structures on the Moon? One image here
purportedly looks very much like a Sphinx is on the inside of a crater.
Sleuths?

---

http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/Moon.html

http://www.keithlaney.com/TargetMarsHome/III.html



Oh please, this has been rehashed a billion times over the years. More
kook nonsense.

Sociopath: Those not possessing the higher faculties which separate
mankind from animals.

Mad Scientist wrote in news:cJtVc.1828592$Ar.916109
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

Evidence of artificial structures on the Moon? One image here
purportedly looks very much like a Sphinx is on the inside of a crater.
Sleuths?

Dear M.S.,

You really need a new outlet. I would suggest that you find out if your
High School has a debate team. You will learn rules of argumentation, how
to research, how to formulate arguments, how to listen and analyse
arguments logically, and how to respond to arguments which do not support
your position with something other than misapplied invectives. Good debate
skills will be a great help to you throughout your life, I promise. Please
don't just dismiss this offhand. You seem to love to argue, and if you
really learned how to do it, it might just lead to a career. Up to 70% of
the U.S. Congress and the vast majority of attorneys were former debaters,
as were the heads of many of the largest corporations.

regards,
paul

Nothing really needs to be said againg for you since you have already
proven that whatever you say remains worthless.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in news:cJtVc.1828592$Ar.916109
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:


Evidence of artificial structures on the Moon? One image here
purportedly looks very much like a Sphinx is on the inside of a crater.
Sleuths?


Dear M.S.,

You really need a new outlet. I would suggest that you find out if your
High School has a debate team. You will learn rules of argumentation, how
to research, how to formulate arguments, how to listen and analyse
arguments logically, and how to respond to arguments which do not support
your position with something other than misapplied invectives. Good debate
skills will be a great help to you throughout your life, I promise. Please
don't just dismiss this offhand. You seem to love to argue, and if you
really learned how to do it, it might just lead to a career. Up to 70% of
the U.S. Congress and the vast majority of attorneys were former debaters,
as were the heads of many of the largest corporations.

regards,
paul

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
Nothing really needs to be said againg for you since you have already
proven that whatever you say remains worthless.

Perhaps your willingness to discard or disregard what others have to
say about your 'points of contention' or 'points of conjecture' reflects
poorly on your own estimation of self- worth. Perchance were you willing to
discuss rather than discard viewpoints other than your own, in a reasonable
manner, the group would discover some worth in your opinion. I suppose
I waste my time here, but there are some extremely intelligent individuals
who post to this newsgroup, and an exchange of views can result in discovery
and individual growth. Surely moderation in one's behaviour in a 'polite
society'
is a sign of maturity. Display some please.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in
news:cJtVc.1828592$Ar.916109
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:


Evidence of artificial structures on the Moon? One image here
purportedly looks very much like a Sphinx is on the inside of a crater.
Sleuths?


Dear M.S.,

You really need a new outlet. I would suggest that you find out if your
High School has a debate team. You will learn rules of argumentation,
how
to research, how to formulate arguments, how to listen and analyse
arguments logically, and how to respond to arguments which do not
support
your position with something other than misapplied invectives. Good
debate
skills will be a great help to you throughout your life, I promise.
Please
don't just dismiss this offhand. You seem to love to argue, and if you
really learned how to do it, it might just lead to a career. Up to 70%
of
the U.S. Congress and the vast majority of attorneys were former
debaters,
as were the heads of many of the largest corporations.

regards,
paul

Hop wrote:

Perhaps your willingness to discard or disregard what others have to
say about your 'points of contention' or 'points of conjecture' reflects
poorly on your own estimation of self- worth. Perchance were you willing to
discuss rather than discard viewpoints other than your own, in a reasonable
manner, the group would discover some worth in your opinion. I suppose
I waste my time here, but there are some extremely intelligent individuals
who post to this newsgroup, and an exchange of views can result in discovery
and individual growth. Surely moderation in one's behaviour in a 'polite
society'
is a sign of maturity. Display some please.


Hardly, your response at least makes no assumptions about where I stand
on issues. Unlike others on usenet who demonstrate sociopathology with
their non stop harassment and smear campaigns against people like me. I
am just one among many, but its ok, the many opinions I have about
science are held by many bonified scientists the world over, so they
really are insulting them, but remain ignorant of it to their own shame.

For example I just found out this week that Einstein was a good friend
of Velikovsky, and when I posted a paper on alt.astronomy, some usenet
fakes (who claim to understand science) insulted me and the paper. I am
sure Einstein would be rolling over in his grave at how so many people
today claim to respect his discoveries but fail to really comprehend
them. I knew a person years ago (a nasty little fellow) who dropped out
of high school in grade 9, but when Hawking published his book, he
bought it and after he read it, tried to shove it down everyone's
throats, especially people who believe in the Creator. (as he is an
atheist) Because I had already flipped through the book at the
newstands, I knew something about the book. I told him Hawking was in
error over some things he says about black holes. I told him they
weren't portals to other universes, and how information (energy)
actually leaves the black holes. (it was around the same time I met a
physicist who overheard me talking to a friend in a coffee shop about
galaxy formation - i drew for him a disk, with galactic arms - and
'jets' of material extending out perpendicular to the galactic plane. He
asked me how this takes place, and I said it has to do with the nature
of black holes which emit radiation) At that point he insisted that I
claimed to be 'smarter than Hawking'. So it doesn't matter how many
people you talk to, they believe what they wish no matter how reasonable
a person is or isn't with them. And that is what you and others are
seeing on this forum, in fact all of usenet is filled with people like
this.

Another friend of mine (whose father recently passed away, who was my
colleague for many years) was studying in university and had a major
interest in mathematics. (his father use to say my religion was the
'kidney' religion due to me always talking about fractals - LOL) We
talked one day about the shape of the universe, and I told him that the
universe is a gigantic 'donut' within another gigantic 'donut', within
another gigantic donut. Universe here means a galaxy, within a
super-galaxy, within a super-super-galaxy [SSG] all whirling around like
a VAST fractal - astronomer remain incapble of imaging a super-galaxy,
in fact what is known as galaxy clusters (a small part of a
super-galaxy) actually are comparable to starclusters which reside
within a single galaxy! He then asked me to clarify what I meant by
'donut' and I asked him if he had ever heard of 'toriodal' shapes? He
said yes, and I said that is what I mean. This 'shape' to every galaxy
is for the most part invisible to us. An SSG is just one universe
within the many universes of the Supreme Creator who is utterly beyond
comprehension!

So I really don't give a rat's ass what people say to me online, because
I know they just don't have a clue about me. I show respect to everyone
until they insult me, and I have no tolerance for that type of behavior
whatsoever.

Mad Scientist wrote in
t.cable.rogers.com:

Hardly, your response at least makes no assumptions about where I
stand on issues. Unlike others on usenet who demonstrate
sociopathology with their non stop harassment and smear campaigns
against people like me. I am just one among many, but its ok, the
many opinions I have about science are held by many bonified
scientists the world over, so they really are insulting them, but
remain ignorant of it to their own shame.

There are many who have not harassed or smeared you, but have been the
butt of your insults and epithets, regardless. The word is "bona fide."
Your High School probably doesn't offer Latin, but if they do, that would
be a helpful class for you to take also.

For example I just found out this week that Einstein was a good friend
of Velikovsky, and when I posted a paper on alt.astronomy, some usenet
fakes (who claim to understand science) insulted me and the paper. I

Even if true, the fact that Einstein and Velikovsky were friends, does
not give credence to any of Velikovsky's assertions.

*Snip* several paragraphs where M.S. claims to have insight and
understanding about galactic structure superior to the world's most
respected cosmologists and theoretical physicists.

So I really don't give a rat's ass what people say to me online,
because I know they just don't have a clue about me. I show respect
to everyone until they insult me, and I have no tolerance for that
type of behavior whatsoever.

That is incorrect. Jay Windley and I have never insulted you, yet you
continue to erroneously call us sociopaths, idiots, kooks, and all manner
of abusive names.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in
t.cable.rogers.com:


Hardly, your response at least makes no assumptions about where I
stand on issues. Unlike others on usenet who demonstrate
sociopathology with their non stop harassment and smear campaigns
against people like me. I am just one among many, but its ok, the
many opinions I have about science are held by many bonified
scientists the world over, so they really are insulting them, but
remain ignorant of it to their own shame.


There are many who have not harassed or smeared you, but have been the
butt of your insults and epithets, regardless.


That is a lie. There is no one online who I have not insulted who did
not first begin and thus 'established the rules of engagement'. Heck
anything which is outside people's limited scope of vision is insulted
first by them, regardless if it is solid science or not. I am not
interested in what is already known about the universe and science -
that is merely engaging in history lessons and usually done by most
people because it boosts their ego. I am interest in new discoveries,
new platforms, new sciences without which mankind will NEVER go to the
stars, or solve the worlds problems. And that quality is makes me so
different from the usenet 'sociopaths' who remain 'hypnotized' by their
history building and that is why I get insulted by them non stop as if
it were a smear campaign - 'where is the evidence' they insist always
like a mantra as if it proves something, when all it proves is how all
they have for science is history, nothing, NOTHING truly new.


The word is "bona fide."
Your High School probably doesn't offer Latin, but if they do, that would
be a helpful class for you to take also.

Word games. I type really fast, about 200 words a minute and don't
bother with spell checks. Only poseurs afraid of being insulted need to
use them, on usenet especially, now really. Anyone can pretend to know
how to spell perfectly, but even all great writers admit to having
spelling problems. Since the advent of the internet, sociopaths tend to
point out spelling errors by others as a ploy to insinuate their 'low'
intelligence. Its a kook tactic and a joke.




For example I just found out this week that Einstein was a good friend
of Velikovsky, and when I posted a paper on alt.astronomy, some usenet
fakes (who claim to understand science) insulted me and the paper. I


Even if true, the fact that Einstein and Velikovsky were friends, does
not give credence to any of Velikovsky's assertions.


Yeah ok whatever you say, know it all. I guess you remain unaware of
how many of his theories are now well established.


*Snip* several paragraphs where M.S. claims to have insight and
understanding about galactic structure superior to the world's most
respected cosmologists and theoretical physicists.

'Superior'? And this is supposed to NOT be an insult I take it? It's a
patent projection, nothing more and nothing less.



So I really don't give a rat's ass what people say to me online,
because I know they just don't have a clue about me. I show respect
to everyone until they insult me, and I have no tolerance for that
type of behavior whatsoever.


That is incorrect. Jay Windley and I have never insulted you, yet you
continue to erroneously call us sociopaths, idiots, kooks, and all manner
of abusive names.

Liar. You have insulted me so many times, I lost count, and Jay and you
had a 'nice' little converation over how I am supposedly a 'moron'. Do
you all have memory problems?

Mad Scientist wrote in
s.com:
Paul Lawler wrote:
Mad Scientist wrote:

Hardly, your response at least makes no assumptions about where I
stand on issues. Unlike others on usenet who demonstrate
sociopathology with their non stop harassment and smear campaigns
against people like me. I am just one among many, but its ok, the
many opinions I have about science are held by many bonified
scientists the world over, so they really are insulting them, but
remain ignorant of it to their own shame.

There are many who have not harassed or smeared you, but have been
the butt of your insults and epithets, regardless.

That is a lie. There is no one online who I have not insulted who did
not first begin and thus 'established the rules of engagement'. Heck
anything which is outside people's limited scope of vision is insulted
first by them, regardless if it is solid science or not. I am not
interested in what is already known about the universe and science -
that is merely engaging in history lessons and usually done by most
people because it boosts their ego. I am interest in new discoveries,
new platforms, new sciences without which mankind will NEVER go to the
stars, or solve the worlds problems. And that quality is makes me so
different from the usenet 'sociopaths' who remain 'hypnotized' by
their history building and that is why I get insulted by them non stop
as if it were a smear campaign - 'where is the evidence' they insist
always like a mantra as if it proves something, when all it proves is
how all they have for science is history, nothing, NOTHING truly new.

The only time you are asked for proof is when you make an unsubstantiated
claim. Like now. You claim my statement is a lie, therefore you must
provide evidence of a post where Jay Windley insulted you first. If you
cannot produce one, then you are the one being disingenous. That is not
an insult, just a statement of fact.

The word is "bona fide."
Your High School probably doesn't offer Latin, but if they do, that
would be a helpful class for you to take also.

Word games. I type really fast, about 200 words a minute and don't
bother with spell checks. Only poseurs afraid of being insulted need
to use them, on usenet especially, now really. Anyone can pretend to
know how to spell perfectly, but even all great writers admit to
having spelling problems. Since the advent of the internet, sociopaths
tend to point out spelling errors by others as a ploy to insinuate
their 'low' intelligence. Its a kook tactic and a joke.

I am neither insulting you, nor insinuating you have low intelligence. I
am correcting your spelling. That is not a "word game." I am not using
a spell checker either, and I occasionally make typographical errors.
Typing "bonified" for "bona fide" is clearly not a typographical error.

I am not calling you a liar, however, I am incredulous that you can type
200 words (other than gibberish) per minute with any degree of accuracy.
Again, not an insult, and you are certainly welcome to provide evidence
to substantiate your claim. While you are at it, please also provide
evidence to substantiate your claim that "all great writers admit to
having spelling problems."

For example I just found out this week that Einstein was a good
friend of Velikovsky, and when I posted a paper on alt.astronomy,
some usenet fakes (who claim to understand science) insulted me and
the paper.

Even if true, the fact that Einstein and Velikovsky were friends,
does not give credence to any of Velikovsky's assertions.

Yeah ok whatever you say, know it all. I guess you remain unaware of
how many of his theories are now well established.

I do not (nor have I ever claimed to) know it all. Yes, I am unaware of
how many of his theories are now well established. But again, you are
welcome to provide evidence supporting that claim.

*Snip* several paragraphs where M.S. claims to have insight and
understanding about galactic structure superior to the world's most
respected cosmologists and theoretical physicists.

'Superior'? And this is supposed to NOT be an insult I take it? It's
a patent projection, nothing more and nothing less.

It is not an insult, it is statement of fact. You explained to us how
your knowledge and understanding of black holes and galactic formation
was superior to that of Stephen Hawking (among others).

So I really don't give a rat's ass what people say to me online,
because I know they just don't have a clue about me. I show respect
to everyone until they insult me, and I have no tolerance for that
type of behavior whatsoever.

That is incorrect. Jay Windley and I have never insulted you, yet
you continue to erroneously call us sociopaths, idiots, kooks, and
all manner of abusive names.

Liar. You have insulted me so many times, I lost count, and Jay and
you had a 'nice' little converation over how I am supposedly a
'moron'. Do you all have memory problems?

An inaccurate characterization. Neither Jay nor I said anything
whatsoever about you being a "moron" and I clearly indicated (and Jay
clearly acknowleged) my comments were tongue in cheek.

*begin quote*

Jay Windley
I can probably conclude that you have no real interest in this
discussion.

Me
tonguecheek
It took you this long to come to that conclusion? Now you have me
thinking that Mad Scientist isn't the only one who's slow on the uptake.
/tonguecheek

Jay Windley
Nodding to your tongue firmly embedded in your cheek, of course it didn't
take me this long to arrive at that conclusion. If you recall, I
discussed Martian photography with him previously. Somehow he escaped my
killfile on the Apollo 16 thing. I realize his ramblings here aren't
very enlightening reading, but I'm hoping my end of the conversation is
striking a pleasant chord with readers. Have I given Mad Scientist
enough rope with which to hang himself?

*end quote*

Please point out to me ONE post where Jay Windley insulted you. Just one
will suffice. If you cannot provide one, then you owe Jay an apology.