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!