Checking In on Old Friends
As long-time readers of this blog know, there are a few crackpots who I’ve written about multiple
times. Those nutters have their fans, and people seem to want to hear about what they’re up to. So today, I’ll give you a brief look at what’s going on with the three fan favorites: Gary Osborn (he of the
23.5 degree angle), the Lords Witnesses (the folks who keep making failed predictions about when the UN will get bombed), and of course, George Shollenberger (supposed God-prover and all-around genius). We’ll start with Gary, and then talk about the Witnesses and old Georgie in later posts.
So what’s Gary up to? In case you weren’t around, Gary is someone who I wrote about back when this
blog was on Blogger, and who got into a rather long debate in my comments, and then later took the debate back to his own website, which (naturally) doesn’t allow comments.
Gary has an…. interesting… theory that the angle 23.5 degrees has great mystical meaning, and
that this meaning has been passed down through generations of artists, who have been planting
features in paintings that feature the magic 23.5 degree angle. Gary’s definition of a painting
containing a 23.5 degree angle is, pretty much, “It looks like a 23.5 degree angle to me”. If he can find a way of making the angle precise, then the precision of it is critically important; if it’s off by a degree or two, well, it’s a painting, these things aren’t perfect
Gary is still on his 23.5 degree kick, which is as silly as it ever was. But more interestingly (interesting in the sense of insane), he claims to have received a series of
secret mails from some unknown person deeply connected into the secret societies that Gary thinks
run the world… He claims to think that these letters are very strong proof for his various
nutty theories. To give you a taste, here’s the first of them:
“N. Nominandum” wrote:
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
Allow us to email you. We’ve been expecting your book for over 19 years know, although we must admit we only knew that it was to be launched during the reign of Pope Benedict. (There is no such thing as a free will/ (Du wirst gethan) Nietzsche.)
Let us just help you a little bit more. With a latin text. Composed in the year 1170 AD.
urbs transrhenana anno DCCXI. pupulus nudus silentio noctis conflagrat. hic incipit labor solis. gloriam olivae expectamus.
And remind you of the two last Latin verses in the list of Maleachi (the Popes). de labore solis followed by gloria olivae. Followed, naturally, because a shining Tree of Life (spine and brain), the olive tree, is the product of ‘the work of the sun’, as you will know. Trees well hidden for the moment of course.
It is very important that you realize that the Popes are not involved in this. They are only the vehicles in this ‘story’.
Now, you will also want to stick to these 16 words in this and no other order: beheading, stone, stone (producing) kundalini, racing to the centre of the earth, and coming back again. The stone, although it’s hard to believe, being a real stone, though not a stone like we know it. (Alchemists are not those who write about alchemy, but only those, who produce the stone in their body, which ignites the Kundalini fire).
Now, you will say to yourself: many people claim to have had this kundalini-fire. But you see, they didn’t. They were after power, money, followers, whatever. People who produce the stone, and through that stone the fire of resurrection, will never go public.
And this is very important too: if you produce that stone and were consumed and reproduced through that fire, you will achieve individual and physical immortality, and nothing less. Something for the End of Time therefore. Who ever died was not an alchemist and did not produce the stone.
By the way, your man is a gay man. Born on the 17th of January. In possession of that very special balance in microcosmic male and female forces. A balance never possessed by heterosexual men. And your stone is Christ (He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is near the fire is near the Kingdom). Also: 1 Peter 2:4.
You are going to be just in time now to produce your next and last book on the grail.
Goodbye.
P.S. That gay man, born on the 17th of January, is not the one who wrote this email. He is the one though who allowed us to write it. This email was sent to you from a country in Europe, not being the country your man of the 17th of January is living.
The “forbidden letters” leave me asking a few questions.
- Did Gary, in fact, receive these letters, or are they frauds?
- If he did receive them, are they from someone who actually believes this crap, or are
they a joke to see if he’d fall for it?
I suspect that Gary wrote these. The style of writing, the use of pronouns, and the style of punctuation are all pretty much the same as Gary’s own writing. They read like Gary trying to sound
mysterious. It really seems to be his voice. If I’m right about this, then Gary isn’t really a crackpot at all – he’s a liar and a fraud. In fact, that’s the main reason that I feel any doubt about it; from my past experience with him, he seems to be a genuinely deluded individual – deeply convinced about
the correctness of his ideas, shocked that anyone could not see the obviousness of what
he’s talking about.
On the other hand, the letters could be the work of a clever forger. Someone who wanted to string
Gary and company along, and did it by using a very clever mockery of Gary’s own writings. If so, they’re damn good at it. They’ve certainly got Gary convinced. In his description of his reaction to the letters, he says:
It appears that I am now the ‘bridge’ between 1), the synchromesh of phenomena that surrounds Jack Sarfatti and which has been written about in The Stargate Conspiracy by Picknett & Prince, and 2), this new and growing interest in Alchemy, Christ consciousness, and the link to Kundalini as presented by the ‘Paris 4’.
As for his 23.5 degree stuff, he’s still drawing lines on paintings, and insisting that they’re
exactly 23.5 degrees. In his latest update to this stuff, he’s gone through a bunch of paintings of John the Baptist, and drawn lines to show that they’ve got 23.5 degree angles. It’s gotten sillier over time, some of the lines are so silly – basically, anything that’s anywhere close to his magic angle, he’ll
insist is obviously precise. For example, to the right is one of them. Gary insists that the end
of the reed – where it’s split and curving – is exactly 23.5 degrees. Look at the image – do you see his line as a perfect and unquestionable extension of the reed? No, me neither. Look at the arm, where he claims it’s pointing at his magic angle – do you think that that line is an accurate representation of where the arm is pointing?
To make matters even more laughable, he claims that his awareness of this, and the other stuff he writes about, is all related to his “spritual awakening”, which connects
to his supposed research on the holy grail, which connects to a Velikovskian neo-catastrophic
idea. (All of these angles are remembering the “Golden Age” before the earth was tilted onto its axis.) And that, naturally, connects to alchemy. It just keeps getting sillier:
Having researched into the nature of ‘duality’ – being the result of my own Kundalini (“serpent fire”) experiences – I began to apply my own insights and knowledge to Gardiner’s initial insights about the original ‘elixir of life’.
I understood that the Holy Grail is associated with the ‘Holy Trinity’ and further that the Holy Trinity – based on the esoteric Triad – is associated with the opposites as well as the ‘neutral point’ – the point of enlightenment where all ‘duality’ is cancelled out – a non-dual state in consciousness. The physical location of this enlightenment appears to take place within the centre of the head or brain – hence my own insight as to why these opposite ingredients of the one snake were ‘symbolically’ mixed inside a ‘skull cap’ (head) and why this macabre bowl and the shamanic ceremonies that took place around the partaking of this elixir – like the Christian Eucharist or Mass – was perhaps the original one on which the Holy Grail vessel was based.
Looking at the reference made to the Holy Trinity in Matthew 28:19, and knowing what the ‘Holy Trinity’ really stood for, I felt it necessary to divide our perceptions of the Grail into three levels and these ‘three levels’ correspond with the principle Triad belonging to the various mystery schools of the esoteric and also the Holy Trinity as expressed in many of the world’s religions.
As far as I know, no one – no Grail expert or researcher – had ever done this before. And so by adopting the esoteric principle of the Triad I was able to explain and answer a great deal about our history as well as ourselves in terms of human physiology, the body’s immune system, human consciousness and its processes – as well as the nature of reality.
This work of mine is still ongoing; I have a mission to fulfil (that’s how I see it) and cannot really continue without including and/or touching on the subject of the Grail, so it’s more than likely that I will be writing about the Grail again.
Sounds like Gary has read the “Illuminatus Trilogy” one to many times.
It may be silly, but there are oceans of this crap out there, and it is not nearly as interesting (to me) as your math posts. Regarding whether he’s a fraud or a liar, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was both – lots of human beings are really good at forgetting things, or believing that their dreams are realities, or justifying their deeds to themselves. What makes math different is that it is immune to that kind of insanity by definition.
In normal circumstances I would say it is fortunate to connect with Alchemy, because it is the only esoteric science that ask for external checks (metal transmutations &c) to verify the progress of the adept. But if someone can twist a 23.5 degree angle, hmm, he can retort the meaning of alchemical experiments too.
I was born on the 17th of January … if only I was gay, I could rule the world
Those letters have got to be a hoax. My cohorts in The Illuminati are under strict instructions never to mention our organization in public.
Oops.
For revealing these secrets, Mr. Osborn will likely meet with a misadventure at precisely 23 minutes and 30 seconds past 11 PM on May 23, 2023 (give or take a couple of nanoseconds), quite possibly at the hands of an anarchist dwarf.
Bwa-hahahahaha.
Markov Chaney
That is of course the 17th of January on the Julian Calendar.
Maybe I’m missing something but what is the significance of the figure 23.5. Does it have something to do with the inclination of the earths axis?
I commented on this guy’s stuff before, but:
All he is doing is observing the use of the “Golden Section” or “Divine Proportion” which has been taught to artists for a very long time. Durer and Da Vinci especially relied on it as a framework for composition.
I would be suprised if the artist in the example above was *not* taught this: a lot of art-related teaching is quoted as dogma.
I have a friend who used to go around drawing lines on (reproductions of) paintings. Instead of being a lunatic, he was making a point about the composition techniques of the artists. In the Raphael above the spear is angled at (roughly) 128 degrees, which is the interior angle of a pentagon. It is in fact very interesting how fond of pentagons Claude, Titian, etc were. I suspect it speaks of a time when mathematics was both esoteric and esteemed, and is probably at least in part an allusion to all kinds of neo-platonic claptrap.
It is quite fascinating though how many crackpot theories take the form:
“There are more X’s than chance predicts”. Probably because it’s so easy to erroneously convince yourself you know what should be happening.
My favorite response to “The odds against that are a million to one” is “how many things happen every day?”
The best time of my life was when I was 23.5 years old. Perhaps when I’m 47 I’ll have twice as much fun?
#11, maybe the mystical meaning is that your life, from conception to death, represents 360 degrees and the best time of your life is at the 23.5 degree point.
Or maybe making up bullshit is fun.
#8:
Osborn’s thing is that he believes the earth didn’t have an axial tilt at all back in the day. Some giant catastrophe occurred which gave it the tilt. In the process, it also sunk Atlantis, ruined everyone’s psychic powers, and generally just gave out a lot of bad vibes.
Apparently artists have always known this, and put secret codes in their paintings to make fun of all the people who don’t.
Of course, he doesn’t bother to look at just what would *happen* if the Earth didn’t have an axial tilt. The Cliff Notes version: CHAOSLOLZ.
Guy sounds like he’s suffering from schizophrenia. And I agree with comment #2, I find the math posts much more interesting.
Mark, I can’t believe that you can read through crap these crazies are producing and still have energy to comment on it. Bravo! 🙂
All he is doing is observing the use of the “Golden Section” or “Divine Proportion” which has been taught to artists for a very long time. Durer and Da Vinci especially relied on it as a framework for composition.
This would make a lot of sense to me, but I’m a little confused. How do you relate 23.5 to the golden ratio?
Fools!
Dont you see??? 23,5 is the same as 235 in pareto-magneto-numerology. Using Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg showed that atoms didnt exist and that the number that solved his equations was 431. 235+431=666!!!!Number of the devil!!! Clearly the I-l-luminati (they scan the internet using braincrystals!) and random assorted magicians from the Kent area is behind it!11!1
As Dr. Wütender-Affe of the university of Leipzig discovered before his mysterious disapperance (he moved to berlin…or so THEY want us to believe!) 23,5 degrees is the true angle. Proof: 23,5×3+289,5=360!!!! the full circle!
How deep does the rabbithole go? 23,5!!!!
“If I’m right about this, then Gary isn’t really a crackpot at all – he’s a liar and a fraud.”
These are certainly not mutually exclusive!
someone get Tomas a beer. – L
I’ve read the Letters (www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/) and the response articles and they are a revalation IMO. Especially read the articles by de la Censerie, Jonathan Rice and RFC and the rest down from that (they are in the left list). Here’s a selection of quotes from the Letters and the response-articles. [Taken from a Forum]
[quote]
In his 1945 Festschrift for Gustav Senn, Carl Jung said that the Stone of Alchemy was ‘a great embarrassment to the alchemist, for since it had never been produced, no one could say what it really was.’ It was said it was ‘born from a living thing’ and ‘extracted from man,’ and ‘its connection with immortality was attested from very early times,’ but, again, ‘no one could say what it really was.’
For Jung the most probable hypothesis was, that that stone represented ‘a psychic experience.’ This suggests that he indeed missed ‘the deeper level of alchemy and thereby of resurrection.’
[de Renzi, Fenelon, de la Censerie][/quote]
[quote]
“I too have approached several alchemists about the Letters, and they all have been in favour of them; that what is being divulged in them is true. One said that the secrets of Alchemy are no longer secret. Simple as that.” [Gary Osborn on July 12 2007][/quote]
[quote]
Because through the Forbidden Letters we know now that the Stone of Transmutation is indeed a real stone. That it…
‘…grows from flesh and blood…'[Jung]
…that it…
‘…is produced about where the liver is…'[The Paris 4]
…and that it is…
‘…even pointy and about the size of a child’s fist.'[The Paris 4]
That it…
‘…ignites the Kundalini-fire…'[The Paris 4]
… and that the Phoenix is a metaphor for the alchemist in that fire. [see footnote 2][/quote]
[quote]
‘Following this thread, we found evidence that Alchemy is a demonstration of the physics at work in the galactic core [which resides in our microcosm, according to the Paris 4/Jonathan Rice].The true inner core of Alchemy appears in this light as the ability to apply the physics of creation to the task of personal immortality.’ [Jay Weidner and Vincent Bridges][/quote]
[quote]
And this is very important too: if you produce that stone and were consumed and reproduced through that fire, you will achieve individual and physical immortality, and nothing less. Something for the End of Time therefore. Who ever died was not an alchemist and did not produce the stone.
By the way, your man is a gay man. Born on the 17th of January. In possession of that very special balance in microcosmic male and female forces. A balance never possessed by heterosexual men. And your stone is Christ (He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is near the fire is near the Kingdom). Also: 1 Peter 2:4.[/quote]
[quote]
‘In view of the recognized frequency of this phenomenon [of homosexuality], its interpretation as a pathological perversion is very dubious. The psychological findings show that it is rather a matter of incomplete detachment from the hermaphroditic archetype, coupled with a distinct resistance to identify with the role of a one-sided sexual being. Such a disposition should not be adjudged negative in all circumstances, in so far as it preserves the archetype of the Original Man, which a one-sided sexual being has, up to a point, lost.’ [Carl Jung “Concerning the Archetypes and the Anima Concept,” CW 9i, par. 146./italics by me] [see footnote 1][/quote]
[quote]
It has been proposed by the Paris 4, although with reservations [see footnote 1], that only certain homosexuals [see footnote 2] possess the necessary balance of the microcosmic male and female [see footnote 3] to safely conduct the forces of resurrection[see footnote 4]. Resurrection being phase one of the Great Work of Alchemy: the furnace of Kundalini. A work serving deification of a human being from within, and possibly, through such a human being then, of all of creation in the end too, if creation is in reality microcosmic, and the world hence…
‘… my projection.’ [Schopenhauer]
This is intriguing, homosexuality being a requirement for apotheosis, since so little seems known about the cause of homosexuality. Because in spite of the fact that…
‘… the accumulation of evidence from independent laboratories across the world has shown that the biological differences between gay and straight people cannot be ignored…’ [Wilson and Rahman in Born Gay/BG hereafter]
… and we also know that…
‘…sexual orientation is largely determined by the time of birth, partly by genetics, but more specifically by hormonal activity in the womb arising from various sources…'[BG]
…it remains a mystery…
‘…how homosexuality could survive in the face of evolutionary forces*, especially given its genetic component.’ [BG]
[*Alchemy is evolution proper. [The CE2] [see footnote 5]
In their brain…
‘…gay men are found to be more like women, and lesbians show similarities to men.’ [BG] The brain of gay men and lesbian women…
‘…seems to be cross-sex shifted in certain respects, more than those of heterosexuals.’ [BG][/quote]
[quote]
Summarizing the resurrection.
1978 : Pope John Paul (de labore solis = of the work of the sun) comes to power. During his reign 90% of the work of the sun in our gay man is taking place.
March 1986 : testicle-pain starts (the work of the sun starts)
July 1986 : testicle-pain is at his height and stays at his height till a about a week after the resurrection (September 4 1986)
End of august till September 4 1986 : our gay man becomes a child. That is, psychologically during certain minutes. During those minutes, and to his own surprise, he even produces a child’s voice. (pupulus nudus means the naked young boy and this reminds us of the words of Jesus too: you must become like a little child again if you want to enter the Kingdom of God.)
September 4 1986 (little after midnight ‘silentio noctis’ ( in the silence of the night): resurrection.
a) Our man is on the floor on his back. He had his eyes closed during the whole resurrection. A ‘thread’ (very thin) is closing around his neck. The head is decapitated by that ‘thread’.
b) The stone is produced about where the liver is. The stone ignites the Kundalini fire (the fire can actually be heard) and starts to move about, increasingly violently. Fire getting stronger. Arms and legs break into pieces.
c) The snake is driven out. Our friend doesn’t know where it went. Up the spine, but after that: no clue. (Into the earth?)
d) The wheel starts to spin and is raised to the forehead.
e) One starts to descend into the earth. After 2 minutes our man ‘fell asleep’ or passed out in another hypnagogic way. Hypnagogic, because he couldn’t remember that moment the morning after. If you lose consciousness you remember. So he ‘fell asleep’.
f) 10.30 in the morning. He woke up. Coccyx and back of the head firmly attached to the floor. As said before, it took him about 30 minutes to free himself.
g) September 5 1986 : the top-chakra opens.[The Paris 4][/quote]
[quote]
… like the authors of those letters do. What’s more, all the mysteries of alchemy seem solved. From the ludus puerorum to the decapitation, and from the role of the stone to the alchemist having to visit the center of the earth. Everything fits, and fits neatly. Even the Phoenix is explained, being a metaphor for the human body consumed and recomposed in kundalini-fire.'[/quote]
[quote]
For you will remember too that in certain grail-lore heads are taken of and replaced by other heads. Now, we are not talking about the head of flesh to be taken of. That would be lethal ofcourse. It is the microcosmic, subtle head, interwoven in the head of flesh that is taken of and replaced after the fire by a new subtle head (the Christ).
We are closing for today. If you search in alchemy, at one point you will find the expression V.I.T.R.I.O.L. (= visit the centre of the earth and by rectification you will find the stone). The alchemist- writers are quite mistaking here. We recommend our 16 words from our first mail: first the stone is produced, then the journey to the inner earth starts. The stone is found in the body, not in the earth. Mind you, everything is, in the end, found in the body. If an alchemist travels through the earth, he’s doing that in the microcosmos of the body. Remember what we said: the real sun and moon (and earth) are in you. Not outside. And this explains why our friend could still hear common street noise outside his apartment when he traveled to the centre of the earth over 19 years ago with tremendous speed.
It will be more than clear to you now that nothing ‘Christian’ has happened in the year 33. Let alone something crucial. The acts of Jesus are as fictional as the acts of Parzival.[The Paris 4][/quote]
[quote]
“Anyone who thinks that the Paris 4 Letters are a fraud or a forgery is simply not paying attention.”
[Jay Weidner][/quote]
[quote]
14.
“Nonetheless, the real history of the world seems, in verba Jungi, to be ‘the progressive incarnation of the deity’. When Jung spoke of this incarnation though, he was speaking of a gradual one, and of the masses, where he should have spoken of the existence of a sudden one in the individual, the alchemist.” [JRA]
15.
“If the testimony of the Paris 4 is true, and I have no reason to assume it isn’t, are we then living in the ‘Latter Days’? Petrus Bonus, who still thinks one is to be resurrected from a grave by the way, Petrus Bonus tells us that the old philosophers discerned the Last Judgement in the germination and birth of the Stone of Alchemy, the agent to the Kingdom of God.” [JRA]
16.
“This is what the Kingdom of God is like: a man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how.” [Gospel according to Mark]
17.
“[That Kingdom] grows quite the way Jesus tells us it grows; like a plant, in the body, with the full grown chakra’s as the flowers in the end.” [The Paris 4]
18.
“The Paris 4 confirm that that seed sprouts and grows by itself. They tell us their gay man had no active part in his Work of the Sun. It was all done by the inner alchemist.” [JRA]
19.
“All by itself the soil produces grain. First the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.” [Mark]
20.
“But where does all this leave us, ‘ordinary’ people, not having been decapitated by Kali Ma? Are we the tares from Matthew 13 perhaps?” [JRA]
21.
“The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
The servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field [on September 4th 1986/Fox]? From whence then hath thy field tares? He said unto them, an enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” [Matthew]
22.
“Because every tree [i.e. spine and brain/Fox] that does not bear good fruit [i.e. chakra’s/Fox] will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” [Matthew]
23.
“Without a parable he didn’t speak to them; but privately, to his own disciples, he explained all the things.” [Matthew]
24.
“It is clear that the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven are about alchemy. – But ‘why secrets?'(Nietzsche)” [Wood]
25.
“For whosoever hath [i.e. lightbody] , to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables.” [Matthew]
26.
“Is Spitzer right then when he claims that ‘a metaphysical theory is bogus, if that theory tells us that we are all, potentially or not, children or priests of God, and equal before Him?’ Or are we to trust the CE2 who wouldn’t be surprised ‘if the gold of immortality is fetched by some for the benefit of many?'”[/quote]
[quote]
In other words, Gardiner and Osborn had failed to see that the Elixir of Life is produced in the lightbody of the victorious alchemist (the Shining One), i.e. man deified. That it is a purely microcosmic elixir therefore, and not a macrocosmic one, meaning one mixed in a skull for instance and presented to some patient. In yet other words: the Elixir of Life is not swallowed, it is exclusively produced and consumed in the body of a triumphant alchemist.[de la Censerie on the Forbidden Letters][/quote]
[quote]
[29]
‘In the human body is concealed a certain metaphysical substance which needs no medicament, being itself an incorrupt medicament.’ [Gerard Dorn]
[30]
‘The Naassenes considered Naas, the serpent, to be their central deity. (…) Eden, they said, is in the brain.’ [Carl Jung]
[31]
‘The Sethians, Hippolytus says, compared the Father with the cerebrum and the Son with the cerebellum and spinal cord.’ [Carl Jung][/quote]
[quote]
19.
“You will be given ‘the right to eat from the tree of life [spine and brain/Bernier] that is in the garden of God,'[Revelation 2] and ‘of the hidden manna.'[Ibid] A purely microcosmic manna, dispensed by the human brain. After all, ‘Eden is in the brain,’ (Carl Jung quoting the Naassenes) and ‘the Father compared with the cerebrum.’ (Carl Jung quoting the Sethians)”
20.
“The nuptial union in the thalamus [Greek for inner chamber or bridal chamber/Bernier] signifies the hieros gamos (the alchemical wedding of the microcosmic male and female) and this in turn is the first step towards incarnation, towards the birth of the saviour who, since antiquity, was thought of as the filius solis et lunae (the son of the Sun and Moon), the filius sapientiae (the son of Wisdom), and the equivalent of Christ.” [Carl Jung]
21.
“The word thalamus (bridal chamber) is Greek. We are told that the thalamus received its name in the second century from Claudius Galen, an Ionian Greek anatomist and Christian who had studied at the Great School in Alexandria, Egypt and was a doctor at the gymnasium attached to the local sanctuary at Asklepios.” [Gary Osborn][/quote]
[quote]
One of the respondents nevertheless went so far as to say that…
‘… the Forbidden Letters by the Paris 4 are the conclusion to the mysteries of alchemy.'[/quote]
[quote]
‘You have the energy of the sun in you, but you keep knotting it up at the base of your spine.’
[Ibn Rumi][/quote]
[quote]
‘In short, my friend, build a temple [meaning a Lightbody/Hume] from a single stone.’ [The alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis][/quote]
[quote]’Within the visible body there resides a spiritual body which Boehme compares to an ‘oil’ which must be set on fire.'[Aniane]
‘And at night, Isis (‘who belonged to the cosmology of Heliopolis’ [Baring and Cashford]) placed the child in a fire to burn away all that was mortal in him.'[Baring and Cashford]
‘Texts about ‘burning Horus’ and his salvation are extant in various Egyptian and Greek documents.'[Burkert]
‘Throughout the Middle Ages, pilgrims visited Heliopolis to view the tree in whose shade, according to the Christian texts, the Holy Family rested on their flight from King Herod. [Quirke]
‘You are born once with a soul and a body, and a third agent, spirit, can come in to save that body and soul by making it immortal in the Work of the Sun.'[Hanno Temming in his article on the Forbidden Letters at World Mysteries]
‘Through baptism by fire, man, who was before dead, is made a living soul.'[Aurora Consurgens]
‘Let the dead bury the dead.'[Jesus in Matthew]
‘I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.'[John the Baptist in Matthew]
‘Nothing depends on baptism with water. Baptism with water only symbolizes the fact that we were born through water, meaning biologically born. We need two births to be saved. The one through water which gives us our spine and brain, the Tree of Life, that infrastructure for the Work of the Sun, and a second one through fire, when God plants our Tree of Life in that fire ‘to stand everlasting.’ So it’s silly to say that you need to be baptized. You need to be biologically born through water, and to be born again though fire. That fire being the alchemical one called Kundalini, that water being the water of the womb. People who practise baptism and think anything depends on that confuse the symbol with the real thing.'[Fenelon]
‘Whoever is near me, is near the fire, whoever is far from me, is far from the Kingdom.'[Jesus in Thomas]
‘Kundalini either saves or destroys.'[de Beaumont]
‘You Christ, who are all fire, have mercy on me.'[Ephraem the Syrian] [/quote]
Alejandro Rivero wrote, “In normal circumstances I would say it is fortunate to connect with Alchemy, because it is the only esoteric science that ask for external checks (metal transmutations &c) to verify the progress of the adept.”
While this was to some degree true with the medieval alchemical tradiction, as imbued with mysticism as it was, modern alchemists have gone off the deep end into crockpot mysticism.
The modern alchemists interpet the writings of the medieval alchemists as being coded referances to transformations of the soul. Unrelated to the three traditional goals of medieval alchemy: longevity, wealth and futurity.
See what RPG’s can do to one’s knowledge? I did research into the modern alchemical tradition for a horror RPG based on modern and medieval Kabbalistic traditions. The medieval alchemists are a lot more rational than the current crop.
#21. You’re all wrong there. First a quote by Gardiner and Osborn:
“Pliny the Elder, who lived between AD 23 and 79, wrote extensively on metallurgy, but not on alchemy, or the idea of changing one metal into another. The fact that he did not relate alchemy to the transformation of metals is not surprising, since this was a later addition.”[Gardiner and Osborn]
ORIGINaly alchemy was METAPHOR for the transformation of the Soul. The metaphores have been dressed in agricultural language (the Bible) and in chemical language (Alexandria/Arabia/Europe). By saying that the medieval alchemist ‘are rational’ you’re only showing that you don’t understand the first thing about Alchemy. Because alchemy is about the lead and gold of the SOUL, not about Au en Pb.
If you would just care to study the Forbidden Letters and the response articles, then you would find that out for yourself.
Hi all,
Thanks for providing me with some amusement.
This analysis of myself and my work and the responses given will have me and my family my friends laughing for a long time.
People think they know me and where I’m coming from and that’s what’s so funny. It’s so way off.
Thank god that I’m actually a very down to earth guy with a good and healthy sense of humour.
. . . the irony of it. I’m the fraud and the liar!
That’s rich that is . . .
Anyway, I will place a link to this page from my website to give an example of the phenomenon that sweeping the world these days . . . that people are viewing everything in favour of the opposite to what is; that in general many of us have our brains wired back-to-front.
All the Best,
Gary
Hi Mark.
I have to confess to not reading the entire article. When you call Gary a “liar and a fraud” and them mock what you can not even comprehend but is in reality called The Kundalini (yeah look it up) you actually bring out the pity in me.
Cheers and continue down the dark alley and hope beyond hope that one day you will see The Light.
Meanwhile my websites should add fuel to your embarrassing and un-informed gaiety.
Cheers
Don Barone
I think you and your visiting friends have convinced us that some have their brains wired 23.5 degrees from the normal.
Mark,
I would have preferred this post to be placed after your own post. And furthermore I have had to ask my friend Don to post this for me as for some reason I cannot post a reply on your blog. Anyway, just a few things that do concern me. Perhaps its a waste of time, but I feel some balance should be brought to order here for you and your readers/fans/followers:
First this quote from my own ‘response post’ to these Forbidden Letters:
“It appears that I am now the ‘bridge’ between 1), the synchromesh of phenomena that surrounds Jack Sarfatti and which has been written about in The Stargate Conspiracy by Picknett & Prince, and 2), this new and growing interest in Alchemy, Christ consciousness, and the link to Kundalini as presented by the ‘Paris 4’.”
Its obviously gone way over your head that I wrote this “tongue in cheek” – in other words, I was expressing my concerns as to how I was being viewed – and your blog is another good example of this.
Also you write:
“I suspect that Gary wrote these. [PARIS 4 LETTERS] The style of writing, the use of pronouns, and the style of punctuation are all pretty much the same as Gary’s own writing. They read like Gary trying to sound mysterious. It really seems to be his voice. If I’m right about this, then Gary isn’t really a crackpot at all – he’s a liar and a fraud. In fact, that’s the main reason that I feel any doubt about it; from my past experience with him, he seems to be a genuinely deluded individual – deeply convinced about the correctness of his ideas, shocked that anyone could not see the obviousness of what he’s talking about.”
. . . Careful Mark.
I really have nothing to do with these letters other than having wrote a good deal of the book that actually prompted or inspired the ‘person’ or ‘people’ behind these letters to write to myself and my former “co-author”. What is expressed in the letters and how, is nothing like my own writings thank you very much – bad analysis.
And as for your accusation that I am a “liar and a fraud”, well its ironic that you are taking this angle, and I am apt to ask ‘why’?
Please check out this page on my website:
Unlike you, I make sure I have all the facts, the evidence to hand and even the proof before I accuse someone of being a fraud and a liar. Because I have been too honest and trusting – as is my nature – Its not surprising that I found myself the victim of someone else’s lies and deceptions and I lost a great deal in the process, so your accusations are not something I would usually take lightly, but I do see the funny side of all this and can only just shrug my shoulders at the absurdity of it all and how stupid people can be and go my merry way. Perhaps I deserve it for having told the world about the deceptions made by this person, as “what goes around surely comes around”.
But it just shows me that you are as wrong now as you have always been and have no idea what you are writing about.
Just like to know, if 1) this is your own personal vendetta because you were not happy that I proved your arguments wrong and showed how naive you are and how amateurish your debunking tactics?; or 2) you been asked or put up by someone else to launch this personal attack?
Knowing what I now know and what I have been through in the past with certain people who would like to discredit me and my work and for obvious reasons, No. 2 seems right somehow. And if so, then I have to say ‘shame on you’ mate.
Best,
G
“I suspect that Gary wrote these. [PARIS 4 LETTERS] The style of writing, the use of pronouns, and the style of punctuation are all pretty much the same as Gary’s own writing.”
Pretty much the same? They are as different as can be. What are you talking about? Stick to your math and leave philology to the experts.
Joan Perkins.
“What is expressed in the letters and how, is nothing like my own writings thank you very much – bad analysis.”
Quite.
Gary:
It’s always a conspiracy, isn’t it?
Funny how “you can’t post comments here”, despite the fact that comment #23 was posted, successfully, by you. There’s no other comment by you that got flagged for moderation, or trapped by the spam filter. No one else has problems commenting; you commented successfully just two comments before where you claim to have been blocked… But it sure looks better, if you’re making a conspiracy accusation, to claim that evil forces that oppose you are trying to silence you.
The only reason that I wrote this post is because you’re one of the three most popular crackpots that I’ve written about before. I’ve gotten plenty of questions about you – generally of the form “So what ever happened to that goofy guy who goes around drawing lines on paintings?” There’s no conspiracy, no dark powers putting me up to it; just simple amusement at an idiot.
Finally – last time around, you left after admitting that nothing could ever convince you that you’re wrong; that you have no consistent methodology for how to determine the angles in the paintings; and that the precision of the angle only counts when it’s precise; if it’s not precise but close (like “golden ratio” angles), then the imprecision doesn’t count.
But you go on thinking that you “proved me wrong” somehow. And keep drawing lines on paintings, and pushing conspiracy theories about how everyone is trying to stop you from revealing the truth about the world. It’s really amusing for the sane folks.
We’re in deep trouble if our 4-dimensional brane universe is on a collision course with a second 4-dimensional brane universe, at a 23.5 degree angle in the 5-space multiverse.
And the Other brane is full of scary monsters who invade us, and then the universes explode in an ekpyrotic explosion and all of us who weren’t already raped and dismembered and eaten by the monsters get vaporized along with our entire earth and solar system and galaxy and stuff.
And we might have been saved if only we’d paid attention to superhero Gary Osborn and the warnings he’d discovered in the paintings of artists who were either 5-dimensionally psychic or freedom fighters from other branes.
Actually Mark this site was set to block the name “garyosborn” but I see that you, having been called on it, have removed the block. So actually Mark it appears you are the liar and the fraud.
Don Barone
#22, re #21 amd my own post #3. you are just being tricked away from the true way; of course if you are already going to be trapped so trivially, I’d not suggest you to pursue the alchemical path. Also, instead of repeating secondary sources I’d suggest to look for yourself.
The idea of changing one metal into another is already in Pliny, and he names Ostanes and other magi related to the alchemical processes. It is true that the complete transmutation of a metal was a later addition, still not present in the age of Pliny, or at least not in the age and geographical location where he was. Alchemy evolved. In the age of Pliny, even Mary had not invented the sand bath. What Pliny observes, for instance, is the use of tinctures on the silver, curiously “enhancing his value”.
Note that Pliny is 2000 years old. By noting that Pliny mentions the operations but not the mystics, it can be _argued_ (not proof) than the mystics of alchemy evolved later. I’d think that operators have already some pre-mystic at that age, but even if it comes 300 years later, it is still 1700 years old. I can name a lot of mystic barely milennial.
BTW, I am not suggesting to practise alchemy. It is a poissoning bussiness, only appropiate for old people in open villages. I know two or three practising persons in Spain, all of them very secretive.
So… The site was set to block “Gary Osborn”, but I somehow knew to remove the block before anyone accused me of creating it, so that Gary’s comment was posted *before*
anyone said that I was blocking him.
Yeah. Gosh, I must be a psychic.
In the history of this blog, I’ve blocked exactly two people, and both got multiple warnings before I reached the point of banning.
One was John Davison, a creationist who’s managed to get himself banned from damn near every forum, on the net and off. He actively tries to be banned – it’s a point of pride for him, and he continually escalates his abusive behavior until he gets banned, so that he can then brag about how he’s banned everywhere.
The other is George Shollenberger, who I only banned temporarily. George is one of the most petty, horrible,
disgusting people that I’ve ever had the misfortune of meeting. When he starting using the comments on my blog to criticize Google for hiring me during my week at the company, I banned him. I lifted the ban about a month or so later.
At the moment, the only person in a blacklist here is Davison.
In the interests of honesty, I just checked my MoveableType settings for moderation, and I was wrong that I’ve only blocked George Shollenberger and Jon Davison. There’s another name in the filter, whose email address name is jebub. That’s some guy who was posting spam in the comments when I was on vacation. So there’s three people who’ve been banned.
The current settings don’t actually ban anyone; it bounces people into the moderation queue, which I try to remember to check daily. The current list of things in my mod-filter are:
There’s also a spam filter, which pretty much contains a list of prescription drug names for things spammers try to sell, and a list of poker games that some jerk was trying to promote via comments on my site.
Mark
Please see links to three images of screen captures. The first will show what is impossible to post. (try it yourself) and then an image of the site it directs you to.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9172/markcc3tm3.jpg
and then it directs you here …
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1792/markcc2qs9.jpg
where if you click on “more info” gives you this …
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4492/markcc4ap8.jpg
On further experimentation it is not garyosborn that blocks the link but something else in the website address.
My apologees !
Don Barone
Thank you for at least having the decency to admit being wrong. The ScienceBlogs site does a lot of work to block spam, but from the look of what you show in your screenshots, I don’t think that it’s anything to do with the spamblock.
I don’t know what the problem is; but if there’s something you want to post in the comments, and it’s not working for some reason, you can always forward things to me directly to post, and I’ll (of course) post them without edits.
Well, I would describe the modern alchemy variants that works (accelerator, reactor or nuclear bomb transmutations) as more radioactive poisoning business. But YMMV.
“The only reason that I wrote this post is because you’re one of the three most popular crackpots that I’ve written about before. I’ve gotten plenty of questions about you – generally of the form “So what ever happened to that goofy guy who goes around drawing lines on paintings?” There’s no conspiracy, no dark powers putting me up to it; just simple amusement at an idiot.”
Mark,there is too much noise in your despice towards Gary. ‘True despice is silent.'[Schopenhauer] ;wink:
And for the rest of youposting here:alchemy has never been about chemistry at all. The chemistry was the metaphor. If you would read for instance the de la Censerie, RFC and Jonathan Rice response articles on the Forbidden Letters you would understand that.Anyone who still goes on suggests that alchemy was about chemistry just shows he understand nothing of the Great Work.And that includes the ancients. The alchemical Work is for the first time explained in those Forbidden Letters.Mind you,you need to do some 2 hour reading (response articles on those Letters) to grasp the thing really.And one rather surfs on Internet for 2 hours,isn’t that so?
As was written in this post-list: the biblical alchemy was agricultural, the classical chemical. Here is qquote from one of the response articles that shows how stupid one is if one takes themetaphor literally:
“I.
“Hmm… explain alchemy. That’s like asking me to stand up and be shot. There are a great many interpretations, because there were a great many alchemists. From China to India and Europe to Islamic cultures. There were a great many things discovered by them, from mathematical conundrums to chemical substances, from inner enlightenment to accessing the divine. It isn’t something I would be brave enough to say “its this”!
Each individual has to come to his/her own concept of what alchemy really is and that can depend on a lot of things. For me, it is a work on the self, to turn my own lead into gold. But, alchemists did search for the elixir, they did try and convert metalic substances and so what we end up with is a mixture of alchemical proportions.”
Philip Gardiner (on a Forum)
“So, call it alchemy, and then it becomes alchemy?…
Surely these were people who called themselves alchemists, but were in fact only taking the allegory for the thing itself. For instance, take Thomas 96, where the process of Fermentatio within the alchemical process is discussed in agricultural, instead of chemical allegorical language.
Jesus [said], The Father’s kingdom is like [a] woman. She took a little leaven, [hid] it in dough, and made it into large loaves of bread. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!
(Fermentatio is the process believed to end just before the actual construction of the chakra-system. (the loaves))
Now, would you agree with a baker who bakes bread and calls that alchemy, that he actually thereby is an alchemist?”
__________________________________________________________
You write:
“Gary:
It’s always a conspiracy, isn’t it?”
No. Not at all. I don’t much believe in ‘conspiracies’ Mark – you are reading me wrong yet again.
Let’s just say I am a complex person with a wide range of interests – always taking a ‘balanced’, common-sensical view of everything. I’m not a person you can easily pin a label on.
You write:
“Funny how “you can’t post comments here”, despite the fact that comment #23 was posted, successfully, by you. There’s no other comment by you that got flagged for moderation, or trapped by the spam filter. No one else has problems commenting; you commented successfully just two comments before where you claim to have been blocked… But it sure looks better, if you’re making a conspiracy accusation, to claim that evil forces that oppose you are trying to silence you.”
I didn’t say that; that’s your belief about me – and what an ignorant one it is too. I merely said that for some reason I couldn’t post on your blog – which was the truth. You are being too subjective and analytical Mark.
You write:
“The only reason that I wrote this post is because you’re one of the three most popular crackpots that I’ve written about before.”
Really. Well thanks for the attention. I really don’t know why you bother or what your problem is, but I am concerned that you are making false accusations against me, and its clearly wrong what you are saying and what you are doing. ‘Why’ you are doing this is another question I am asking.
You write:
“I’ve gotten plenty of questions about you – generally of the form “So what ever happened to that goofy guy who goes around drawing lines on paintings?” There’s no conspiracy, no dark powers putting me up to it; just simple amusement at an idiot.”
Let me put you straight once and for all. I really don’t know what your problem is about this.
What you don’t know and if you do you, will still will not accept, that it was already acknowledged – (textual evidence, Charles Higgins, 19th Century) that the angle of 23.5 degrees was a significant angle that was referenced in numerous works of art – especially those with mythical themes as well as Masonic imagery and symbolism. Also there is the signifiance of this angle in the Masonic manual which Jeff Nisbet quoted in his article about Rosslyn.
These sources reveal that this angle was acknowledged as being significant by various esoteric circles and was ‘consciously’ applied – encoded, and not just because the earth is tilted at this angle.Therefore these ‘angle references’ exist and were done intentionally and now we are beginning to find them.
‘Why’ and for ‘what purpose’, is what we should now be asking. I don’t see why I should be persecuted or ridiculed – called an “idiot” – for having re-discovered these references and for presenting my own interpretation.
Discovering things and sharing them is how our understanding of history and the world evolves. Again, I don’t see why I should be persecuted for this. Its shocking and disturbing really that people can be so low and shallow.
I have already shown for example, that in almost every Vanitas painting by Edwart Collier (17th century), the objects – even the same objects, are at the same angles. And there are other artists who are as consistent as he is as regards painting the objects at these angles.
At one point I was becoming exasperated by the number of references I was finding because it meant I had to go through the slow process of measuring and marking what I found and then filing it away.
One only has to look at the several ‘letter racks’ Collier painted to see that he painted almost all the objects at these same angles repetitively and knew what he was doing. For him to have done this again and again through several different versions of the same composition, shows that this could only mean something.
“Finally – last time around, you left after admitting that nothing could ever convince you that you’re wrong; that you have no consistent methodology for how to determine the angles in the paintings; and that the precision of the angle only counts when it’s precise; if it’s not precise but close (like “golden ratio” angles), then the imprecision doesn’t count.
But you go on thinking that you “proved me wrong” somehow. And keep drawing lines on paintings, and pushing conspiracy theories about how everyone is trying to stop you from revealing the truth about the world. It’s really amusing for the sane folks.”
Again, I know I am not wrong about this. The references are there – they exist and what’s more this has been acknowledged by others – other writers in history. One doesn’t need to involve oneself in some stringent, scientific excersise or methodology to see that the objects are painted at these same angles. Its simple. All it takes is common sense. Where’s yours? Others have also found these angles in paintings. This is demonstrable and the findings are consistent.
And I have not ever said there is a conspiracy. Please show me where I have said this? Again all this is associated with your own stereotypical views and beliefs about writers of the so-called “alternative history” genre.
I would suggest too that instead of just reading what you’re saying and agreeing with you on everything that others here remind themselves that they have a mind of their own. Please look for these references yourselves. That’s the only way you could be convinced of this if you don’t trust my own presentations. Try it!
That’s all I can say. This is my last post here.
G.O.
Gary:
First, allow me to note that, once again, you ignore the issue of how you measure your angles. As I point out in a specific vivid example above, and as numerous commenters pointed out last time, it’s far from clear that the lines you’re drawing are somehow the correct angles for describing the features you’re talking about. But instead of actually addressing a real issue, you go off into another rant about how it’s all so obvious.
Second, you wrote:
How is that not claiming a conspiracy? You specifically point at some shadowy group of “certain people who would like to discredit me”, and allege that this group of people worked behind the scenes to put me up to writing this post. A hidden group of people working to discredit you by having third parties dishonestly attack you at their bidding, well, that pretty much seems like the definition of a conspiracy to discredit you. But as usual, you don’t want to actually stand up and defend any of your claims.
You’re a fraud, and I think you know it.
Besides the obvious conflict between the two statements, why should we care? Alchemy isn’t working knowledge, and that is but a small part of Gary Osborn’s difficulties with the observable world.
Sorry Torbjörn, but I really don’t have any difficulties with the observable world.
What makes you think that I would?
By the way, I cannot place my name in the Name box. If I do this my posts won’t go through.
G.O.
“you’re a fraud and I think you know it”.
Ok, I feel I’ve got to post a reply to this – although I know you’re just trying to get a rise out of me.
Knowing your “scraping the barrel” strategies Mark, you would probably call me a ‘liar’ for saying that my previous post to you was my ‘last post’.
But allow me some amusement at your expense before I take my evening bath.
You write:
“First, allow me to note that, once again, you ignore the issue of how you
measure your angles”.
Mark dear boy, you’re really beginning to bore me now. We’ve gone over this before more than a year ago, and I answered you then and showed that many if not all of your arguments were in error. You were clearly wrong about a lot of things – don’t you remember?
But for your information, and if you really want to know, I have felt it necessary for various reasons to purchase full-size prints of a few of the paintings I have examined, and I have measured these the conventional way with a petractor, and the objects I have previously suspected and discovered to be at this angle, are even more precise with these prints.
You write:
“As I point out in a specific vivid example above, and as numerous commenters pointed out last time, it’s far from clear that the lines you’re drawing are somehow the correct angles for describing the features you’re talking about. But instead of actually addressing a real issue, you go off into another rant about how it’s all so obvious”.
Er . . . perhaps because it is?
“Rant” – that’s funny.
And the “specific vivid example” you showed above is a rare ‘poor example’ – not one of the better ones – although there is another painting like this which shows a similar object bending from upright to a perfect 23.5 degrees. In any case, knowing that pseudoskeptics and debunkers are only human and are therefore pathetically crafty in that they will use anything to their own advantage to win an argument, I wouldn’t have expected anything less of you to use this poor example to make your own point that all this is “pants” – even though there are many excellent – undeniable – examples to choose from.23.5 degrees is not the only angle. The other angles referenced are 52, 38 (90 – 38 = 52) 6.5, 30, 60 and 72 – also 18 (90 – 18 = 72) – and all for good reason.
And I don’t buy the argument that there are too many angles here and that surely the objects are bound to fall on these angles somewhere. The odds against this are not much -320 to 40 – but seeing as we find ALL the objects in some of these paintings and drawings at these angles, then that’s impressive and shows intent. Take the Masonic Drawing for instance or Edwart Collier’s ‘wall racks’ – in fact, there are many examples too numerous to mention.
See 23.5 References on my website.
And yes, all the index fingers of John the Baptist in over 30 paintings from between the 15th and 18th centuries is pointing either upwards or at the angle of 23.5 degrees – and sometimes both. Its a fact. The consistency of this should be proof for anyone who can be bothered to check for themselves.
I don’t know why I am having to defend myself here, but I will because people should see for themselves and make up their own mind instead of listening to someone whose real motives for attacking me and other writers is surely about receiving attention. Its a fact that debunkers and pseudosceptics often make their name on the backs of those they attack – especially those
whose work is receiving attention.
Also, I didn’t say anything about a “shadowy group”. Nice try but I really wouldn’t elevate you and anyone else that ‘might’ be working with you to the status of calling your pathetic attack a ‘conspiracy’ – merely an annoyance – an irritant, like a fly that keeps landing on my nose.
I’ve taken a look at the other posts on your blog, and really pal to me you come across as an extremely sad and boring individual. My thoughts turn back to the time when the US military had tried to use psychological warfare to oust Panamanian drug-lord, General Noriega from his HQ. Now if they had just broadcast a few pages from your own blog – in his own language – instead of Jethro Tull’s album, “Too Old to Rock n Roll, Too Young to Die”, then maybe they would have stood a better chance at ousting him – no problem . . . chinese recipes, Jesus/mathematics and oh yes you’re a fan of Dr Who. I would wager that you are a regular at the conventions dressing up as a Dalek or Cyberman or something. Betcha you’re a real “babe magnet”.
You write:
“But as usual, you don’t want to actually stand up and defend any of your
claims”.
Not claims – ‘discoveries’ Mark, discoveries – and as for defending myself, I just did and have done so many times and more times than you deserve mention.
The following is from Jeff Nisbet’s article:
See here: http://www.mythomorph.com/mm/content/2007/0908rosslyn_chapels_darkest_secret.php
POSTCRIPT
While I did not know it at the time the article went to press, I was soon informed that the 23.5-degree angle, and it’s 47-degree double, are two of Freemasonry’s “Cosmic Angles,” according to Frank C. Higgins in his 1919 book, Ancient Freemasonry: An Introduction to Masonic Archaeology. Higgins goes on to say that these angles are also encoded on coins showing pre-Christian Phoenician temples of Cypress, ancient Greek paintings of Hermes and Ceres, as well as in the Masonic Keystone and Compass of the present day. This was, of course, in Higgins’ “present day.” Today’s Masonic compasses are opened to 60 degrees.
It is interesting, however, that the 23.5-degree angle has become a part of modern-day Masonic ritual. In a 1998 Masonic Manual and Monitorial Instructions booklet I have consulted is a section titled “Manual of the Rod,” abridged as follows:
“The rods are carried by the Deacons and Stewards as emblems of Office. They are carried in the performance of official duties, either directed or implied, from the sound of the gavel which congregates the Lodge to the sound of the gavel which closes the Lodge … While they are marching, they carry the rod between the upper arm and the body, inclining it forward at an angle of 23 and one-half degrees …”
The Masonic Manual, though highly interesting in its entirety, does not elaborate on the significance of that angle, but I have been told that many Masons do in fact know that this is the angle of the tilt of the Earth.
I have been unable to discover whether those same Masons know why such an angle is considered important enough to be a part of their ritual, or whether they are simply satisfied that it is.
————–END ———————
I don’t know how you feel you are justified in saying this is all rubbish Mark.
From an email sent to myself from fellow author Andrew Collins:
“Zervan [ancient Persian statue] holds a staff, which could easily be an allusion to the earth’s axial tilt, and sure enough – line up the staff from the vertical centre line of the figure and it is 23.5 degrees. Evidence like this will help your case for the importance of the 23.5 degree tilt axis in the ancient mindset.”
And I would say to my friend Don and anyone else here who thinks the same as I do, that I think we have found ourselves in a sad corner of cyberspace and I really don’t know what I’m doing here arguing with some cretin – PhD or no PhD. On a better day, I would rather pick my toenails or perhaps watch a few re-runs of the day in the life of Jordan and Peter Andre – really.
G.O.
“Alchemy has never been about chemistry at all. The chemistry was the metaphor. … the biblical alchemy was agricultural, the classical chemical.”
Then T. comes in and writes:”Besides the obvious conflict between the two statements,”
What conflict? There has been knowledge on the alchemical process (inside the body, because the body is the vessel) and some chose agricultural metaphor to encode that knowledge, others chemical.
“Alchemy isn’t working knowledge,”
There is clearly no talking to you guys here.
” and that is but a small part of Gary Osborn’s difficulties with the observable world.”
You mean the world projected. But perhaps that’s too difficult for you. I mean if alchemy can’t be explained to you, then we will not try to explain solipsism.
Steve Massey writes:
“It may be silly, but there are oceans of this crap out there, and it is not nearly as interesting (to me) as your math posts. Regarding whether he’s a fraud or a liar, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was both – lots of human beings are really good at forgetting things, or believing that their dreams are realities, or justifying their deeds to themselves. What makes math different is that it is immune to that kind of insanity by definition.”
Posted by: Steve Massey | October 8, 2007 2:28 PM
. . . and human beings are really good at jumping to conclusions, making premature assumptions based on what someone they like says, misinterpreting things, getting things wrong and basically talking a load of rubbish!
rpsms writes:
“I commented on this guy’s stuff before, but:
All he is doing is observing the use of the “Golden Section” or “Divine Proportion” which has been taught to artists for a very long time. Durer and Da Vinci especially relied on it as a framework for composition.
I would be suprised if the artist in the example above was *not* taught this: a lot of art-related teaching is quoted as dogma.”
Posted by: rpsms | October 9, 2007 2:35 PM
Ok that’s an intelligent and well-informed analysis.
#8:
Osborn’s thing is that he believes the earth didn’t have an axial tilt at all back in the day. Some giant catastrophe occurred which gave it the tilt. In the process, it also sunk Atlantis, ruined everyone’s psychic powers, and generally just gave out a lot of bad vibes.
Apparently artists have always known this, and put secret codes in their paintings to make fun of all the people who don’t.
Of course, he doesn’t bother to look at just what would *happen* if the Earth didn’t have an axial tilt. The Cliff Notes version: CHAOSLOLZ.
Posted by: Xanthir, FCD | October 9, 2007 9:50 PM
Of course I have looked into this. I have done my research and I’m still doing it. Two reputable geoscientists Allan & Delair have put forward their theory that the earth was almost upright less than 10,000 yers ago. Now, I don’t totally believe this myself – but I’m looking into the possibility.
In fact, I would always be hesitant or cautious to believe in anything 100%, and so that’s where you lot have got me wrong. Still looking for concrete evidence – but I would stake my life on the reality of these angle references and that they were applied with intent and design.
G.O.
“If I’m right about this, then Gary isn’t really a crackpot at all – he’s a liar and a fraud.”
These are certainly not mutually exclusive!
Posted by: Jon H | October 12, 2007 6:26 PM
Yes John, but they are from me, and Mark should not be making these kinds of accusations and you should not be commenting as if you agree with him – its wrong.
G.O.
Is this the carnival of illogic by any chance?
Gary Osborn:
Those difficulties are the ones under discussion so I didn’t think I would have to specify them, but see the post for examples. You should address them instead of making unsupported assertions.
It’s bad pseudoscience. Already the 160 000 year old Vostok ice cores describe our recent climate well enough over this period and refute any catastrophism.
A minor detail after such serious debunking, but there are no traces of reputation or geoscience in what CV I can get hold of. They self describe as “researcher” but where is their scientific research?
I think Wayne M5WJF said it well enough:
It takes less that a minute on the web to verify that they are scam artists peddling pseudoscience. Anyone who looks at this as a serious possibility after that is completely deluded.
It would be good if you could support your wild assertions instead of Gish galloping them here.
X:
“Alchemy has never been about chemistry at all. … the classical chemical.”
The rest of your comment is mostly noise, as far as I can interpret it. An empirical explanation makes predictions that we can test. Alchemy doesn’t do that.
Gary:
I’ll just ignore the ad hominems, all right? You can make geek jokes all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re spouting rubbish.
As usual, you play the classic crackpot game of avoiding answering any questions. It’s what we call the Gish gallop, after the creationist Duane Gish who’s well known for the tactic. The idea of it (as you well know) is to try to distract readers from the fact that you can’t answer any of the questions/criticisms of your work in a real way, so you spout lots of nonsense, and throw in a few pointless and irrelevant insults. It’s just an attempt to obsure things. The fact remains that dating all the way back to our first contact, back when I was on blogger, you’ve refused to answer the real, serious questions about your methodology. And you’re still running away, avoiding answering the question.
I mean, we both know that when I’m asking about how you’re measuring angles that “with a protractor” is in no way an answer to the question. It’s just an attempt to evade.
The issue is, the feature that you’re pointing at in the paintings are virtually never true straight lines. They’re bent fingers, arms, etc. Things that are neither perfectly straight nor regular. For features like that, different ways of determining the “true” angle of the feature can get dramatically different angles. Just eyeballing things, for many of the paintings you’re citing, different methods of choosing how to identify the the angle can produce an arc of possibly angles spanning around 20 degrees – with your 23.5 generally not in the middle of the range.
Given that, the precise methodology of measurement: how you identify the “correct” angle within that arc is critical. Your method appears to be: if 23.5 degrees is within the arc of possible angles, then it’s 23.5. The problem with that is that it’s entirely subjective. It’s shifting the question from “What’s the angle of this feature?” to “Is there any way of identifying this feature as being a 23.5 degree angle?” And given how close 23.5 degrees is to the angle produced by using the golden ratio, a subjective methodology is going to identify virtually all uses of the golden ratio with your 23.5 degree angle.
So how do you differentiate between golden ratio instances and 23.5 degree angles? What’s your methodology for identifying the correct line through a feature to produce a
specific angle with a resolution of 1/2 of 1 degree? Remember how much precision that is: if you put a perfectly scaled copy of one of your images onto my laptop display, and extrapolated the angles to the opposite edge of my screen, you’re talking about a difference of about 5mm for 1/5 degree precision. What method are you using that allows you to resolve it that precisely?
So I decided to go looking for the two scientists that you cited above with:
So looking for them, I assume that they are: Derek S. Allan and J Bernard Delair.
Calling these two “reputable geoscientists” is rather interesting.
Let’s look at Derek Allan first. When I search for him in online citation indexes, I find no publications, no citations. Google search comes up with nothing but links to his book with Delair, which is not peer reviewed. As far as my publication searches and web searches can detect, he has never published a single paper, and has no scientific qualifications whatsoever.
Moving on, let’s see about Delair. Once again, there are zero publications and zero citations in the citation indices. He’s never written a scientific paper about any topic. The main result from a web search are links to “Contact International UFO Research” and his book with Allan, which is (once again) not peer reviewed, nor cited by any actual geoscientists, nor positively reviewed by any actual geoscientists. As far as I can tell by searching, he has no degrees in anything relating to geoscience, and has never done any work in the field.
These are not what anyone could honestly call reputable scientists. Neither of them appears to have any qualifications, nor do either of them appear to have any experience in actual scientific research.
D.S. Allan is a Cambridge MA., is a science historian specializing in paleogeography, particularly in the Arctic regions. A science teacher for many years, he is a skilled cartographer and has made a speacial study of evidence for climatic and landform change in recent geological times.
J.B. Delair, B.Sc., is an Oxford geologist with wide international and commercial field experience. An anthropologist, he has a special interest in animal and plant distribution and in tribal traditions. He is the Museum Curator of Geology at the University of Southampton, England.
The book has been recognised by the scientific community as a multi-disciplinary scientific and scholarly work.
Also:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426081.200-firestorm-theorists.html
So…
Allan is a science teacher and a skilled cartographer – with *no* scientific publications of any kind, ever.
Delair is both a geologist and an anthropologist, with *no* scientific publications of any kind, ever, in either field. He’s the “museum curator of geology” at the University of Southampton – but the UoS website search does not include him in its “faculty and staff” list. He may well work there, but he’s not faculty, nor is he recognized by the university as a serious researcher in geology or anthropology.
And their book “has been recognized by the scientific community as a multi-disciplinary scientific and scholarly work”, despite the fact that it has *never* been referenced by a scientific publication, nor has it (so far as I can tell) been so much as reviewed by any scientific publication of any kind.
When it comes to people who agree with you, you certainly have extraordinarily low standards.
Looks like I have low standards with the people I give my attention to as well.
And as for insults – you don’t like it do you Mark?
Well neither do I.
Gary in a personal email to Don Barone yesterday:
“Is this guy worth it?”
Don in reply to Gary.
“Not even remotely.”
I think I’ll take Don’s advice; not running away Mark, just that I have better things to do with my time.
I think we’ve done all this before and gone through it all before. Maybe one day you will get a break and go further than writing a blog.
All the best,
Gary
Gary:
The difference between us is: all of my insults of you are based on criticisms of your work. Your insults of me are just purely content-free personal insults. Can you see the difference between “You’re a crackpot because you’ve got a wacky theory, and you refuse to address questions about your methodology”, and “Gosh, you’re such a geek, I bet you never get laid”?
See, I keep on asking legitimate questions. The question about how you measure your angles isn’t a trivial question, or a mocking question, or a silly question, or even a disrepectful question. It’s a question that goes right to the heart of your claims. If you were a real scientist, you’d have a careful methodology for measuring things, and you’d be willing to answer questions about it. But the fact is, when I ask you that question – a perfectly reasonable question about your work, all that you do is throw insults around.
That’s why I call you a fraud. Because a real scientist doesn’t throw childish tantrums when people question them. They answer the questions. But you can’t answer that question, because you don’t *have* a real methodology. You just draw the lines that you *want* to draw, and find a way to make them fit. But that’s so obviously wrong, so obviously ridiculous, that you can’t possibly admit that
that’s the method behind your “research”. So you ignore the question, and fling insults.
And as for “go further than writing a blog”… Have you looked at the little about the author thing at the top of the blog? I’m a senior software engineer at Google. You know Google, it’s that thing that you use to find images on the net to draw your little lines on. I’m an incredibly lucky guy: I’ve got one of the best jobs in the world, for one of the best companies in the world, doing important and valuable work that I really believe will help make the world a better place. That’s plenty for me.
Sorry Mark, its clear to me that you either have some psychological problem in having a need to attack people you see as “crackpots”, or you are just angling for more attention – it could easily be both.
I personally think the world is full of “crackpots” – and when I say this I mean people who have a psychological need or insecurity issue – especially in persecuting others over views or beliefs that they don’t agree with. That’s really childish and one of the reasons why there is so much conflict in the world. I just accept that people are different, that the world is like this and really don’t have a need to engage myself or persue these kind of bigotry-rooted endeavours to satisfy my own egotistical or psychological needs. I also accept that there are people like you and have seen it all before.
James Randi made his name through his attacks on Uri Geller. I notice that one or two of your “accolytes” worship Randi and subscribe to his website. I was invited by author Filip Coppens and PhD physicist Jack Sarfatti to visit Uri Geller last year and went along because I thought it was a good opportunity to meet with Dr. Sarffati whom I have enjoyed a long correspondence with over the last eight years. Because I had visited Uri Geller with these people I was targeted myself by Randi. I was Ok with it, because Randi was just spouting a lot of rubbish about me that was untrue – much like what you’re doing.
So you can see that I view your own motives in attacking me to be questionable – i.e., going beyond any rational or helpful, constructive criticism.
I also don’t know why you feel you are justified in criticising me and my work. My research is honest and the discoveries and theories like most, merely the result of natural human curiosity – and its producing results that are valid and warrants further study. Also these ‘axis obliquity’ angle references in art and other sources have been acknowledged in history and so this feature in art has a reality and is not a figment of my imagination or anyone elses’.
I also don’t know why you feel it right to call me a “fraud” and a “liar” – over what exactly?
I have always been open and honest about who I am, my own experiences and why I do what I do. I really do not fear ridicule over my own experiences – experiences that placed me on this path. Its a fact that most people are ignorant about this experience or phenomenon and again, I’m Ok with that and accept it as a way of life.
Along the way, it is I myself that have encountered dishonest people – so its the injustice of what you say that has initiated my responses – not your arguments.
Sure I find a lot of what you say both amusing and outrageously wrong, and don’t mind having a bit of fun with you, but its wearing thin now and I really have better things to do than to go over the same old arguments with you, when all you are doing is making everything too complicated to appear as if you know what you are talking about. You really need to chill out.
That is all.
G.O.
Gary:
Once again you return, and once again, you wiggle out of actually addressing anything of substance.
You still ignore the fact that I’ve repeatedly asked one simple, reasonable, respectful question, and that you’ve refused to answer it, and instead resorted to childish personal attacks.
You keep talking about how I’m outrageously wrong, and unfair, and generally awful. But you refuse to answer questions about your methodology – which are the most fundamental thing in a legitimate scientific inquiry. That refusal is virtually the *definition* of a crackpot.
You can keep coming back and flinging personal insults and long pointless diatribes. But any honest reader of this thread will notice, clearly, that you refuse to address any real substantive points.
Well now Mark, I didn’t think I was “flinging any personal insults” this time. I thought I had merely expressed a real good handle on the situation as regards your apparent obsession with me and my own research – what I see as the truth. And again, we have been over all this before.
If I remember, it was you that ended our last (2nd) correspondence – in that you didn’t reply after I answered your questions fairly and showed good evidence in these John the Baptist paintings. Now you “rattle my cage” again by coming back with one poor example of the angle references in these particular paintings to ridicule my work in this area – not that you would dare show one of the good examples or perhaps the whole collection that I have presented on my webpages and that clearly reveals this discovery of what amounts to a ‘consciously executed code’ – hidden information – in these paintings and other sources.
As I said, I have never really ‘claimed’ any kind of strict, stringent methodology or scientific analysis – it really doesn’t require it – just common sense to see ‘what is’.
Either something is at a certain angle or it isn’t.
I am satisfied with the results – one doesn’t have to be a scientist to see what is obvious.
For example, I don’t find the same kind of consistency I find in the paintings of John the Baptist as I find in paintings on the theme of say, Mary and Jesus or any other saint, and this speaks volumes.
If you really need or require this degree of ridiculous, meticulous accuracy that you are asking before you are satisfied or accept these findings, then why don’t you formulate a scientific method you would be happy with and examine these paintings yourself – if you’re that concerned? If I cannot get you to accept what has been accepted by a draughtsman – someone who works daily with angle measurements – then I really don’t need your approval – especially someone who is being awkward and lacking in generosity and common sense and “won’t see the wood for the trees”.
So then, the ball’s in your court.
G.O.
Scientists do require “ridiculous, meticulous accuracy”. As I’ve said so many times I’ve lost count: you claim to be measuring angles with one half of one degree of accuracy, from features that could support angles within an arc of 10 to 20 degrees! If you’re looking at a painting which is 50 centimeters across, and the feature that you’re looking at is in the bottom right corner, the degree of accuracy that you claim to your measurements amounts to a moving the point where the extrapolated line hits the opposite edge of the painting of less that 1 and 1/2 centimeters. If you’re looking at paintings on a computer screen, and you can guarantee that the aspect ratio of the painting is absolutely perfectly preserved, then on a typical modern monitor, you’re talking about a difference of something smaller that a dozen pixels – and that’s if the painting is zoomed to fill your screen, with perfect aspect. More typically, on a computer, you’re talking about shifting an extrapolated line by 5 or 6 pixels. On my macbook, the period at the end of a sentence in my browser window is about 3 pixels. So you’re talking about variations the size of two periods side by side – and claiming that you can measure that accurately for features in a painting.
If you don’t have a methodology for doing that – if you’re just eyeballing things – then you’re not doing anything remotely scientific; you’re just drawing lines on paintings. You can’t measure things with that degree of precision without a careful methodology.
Real science is incredibly dependent on precision. Real science considers its measurements – and not just the measurements themselves, but how the measurement was taken, and the degree of precision that is appropriate for the measurement.
Look at virtually any scientific paper with measurements. You’ll see information about error bars. Because real scientists care about precision. The only places where you won’t see error bars are places where the degree of error for a particular kind of measurement is standardized and well-understood; and then you’ll see references in the paper to the standardized measurement system which governs the data in the paper. There are entire fields of research that study nothing but how to produce accurate error bounds in
computational simulations.
Rich. Exactly the type of mirroring and projection we see in all denialists, take your opponents arguments, project your own insecurities or behavior in them and return to sender.
“Crackpot” has an operative definition, easily adaptable outside physics. It was derived to identify them, as denialists and crackpots doesn’t necessarily overlap. Denialism has its own definition, as well as cranks. (See ScienceBlogs denialism for both.) (Most crackpots are denialists though, since there is usually a perfectly good science they are in denial about.)
Riiight, lets pretend that an unsourced web letter to the declining popular science magazine New Scientist (see scientist web discussions, such as this one) is a source.
Probably becoming a double commentary, as the first one got stuck in approval:
Rich. Exactly the type of mirroring and projection we see in all denialists, take your opponents arguments, project your own insecurities or behavior in them and return to sender.
“Crackpot” has an operative definition, easily adaptable outside physics. It was derived to identify them, as denialists and crackpots doesn’t necessarily overlap. Denialism has its own definition, as well as cranks. (See ScienceBlogs denialism for both.) (Most crackpots are denialists though, since there is usually a perfectly good science they are in denial about.)
[Cont.:]
Riiight, let’s pretend that an unsourced web letter to the declining popular science magazine New Scientist (see scientist web discussions, such as this one) is a source.
“Scientists do require “ridiculous, meticulous accuracy”.”
Yes scientists do, but not everything requires it and it takes common sense to know when to apply this and when not to.
Anyway, very good, but I do not accept what you’re saying because exact 23.5-degree angles have been found in the full-sized prints of the paintings I have purchased.
Again either something is at an angle or it isn’t. One doesn’t have to make a ‘mountain out of a molehill’ over this – which is what you are doing.
I could easily draw or paint an object at a certain angle if I wanted to and do numerous paintings with the same objects at the same angles – anyone could using a protractor or other measuring instrument – and it wouldn’t require a scientist using the methods you require before you accepted it so as to check to see if these objects were really at the angle I intended.
Remember: for example, the same objects in different Vanitas paintings are at these same angles time and time again – no matter how accurate you want to be about the angle and this consistency shows intentional design and this should be taken into consideration. Surely you would take this fact into consideration. So what you are saying is absolute rubbish!
Enough said.
Mark,
Just for accuracy’s sake, Delair has published papers. A search on WoK reveals the following (basically historical papers):
Delair, J.B. and Sarjeant, W.A.S. (2002) The earliest discoveries of dinosaurs: the records re-examined.
Proceedings of the Geologists Association, 113, 185-197.
Delair, J.B. and Sarjeant, W.A.S. (1985) History and bibliography of the study of fossil vertebrate footprints in the British-Isles. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology, 49, 123-160.
Delair, J.B. and Sarjeant, W.A.S. (1975) Earliest discoveries of dinosaurs. Isis, 66, 5-25.
Couldn’t find anything on Allan. On the other hand, Bill Sarjeant (Delair co-author) was a good geologist and an interesting character. An obituary:
http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/sarjeant_william_antony_swithin_1935-2002.html
Finally, coincidentally there probably was a catastrophe of sorts around 11,500 years ago as Allan and Delair believed.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0706977104v1
SteveF:
Thanks for the refs. I don’t have an account to access WoK, so I was left resorting to the public tools.
Gary:
I don’t know why this is so hard to comprehend.
You’re insisting on a very precise angle for features in the paintings. Most measurements of angles do not have the precision to differentiate fractions of a degree. In fact, most measurements of angles in things like pictures have a precision no better than +/- two degrees – and that’s assuming perfect aspect ratios.
But you’re situation is worse than that – because you’re drawing lines through *non-linear* features. When you’ve got fingers and arms and such – things with non-zero width, and which usually aren’t perfectly straight, there’s an arc of possible lines that can be drawn through them. Depending on
the method you use to draw the lines, that arc can easily range by more than 20 degrees.
If the angles are really 25 degrees, your entire argument is bunk. Or if the angles are just sort of close, actually ranging from 21 to 26 degrees, your entire argument is bunk. It relies critically on the angles deliberately being precisely 23.5 degrees. But you *admit* that you have no method, at all, for measuring things to the necessary degree of precision. In fact, you maintain that it just doesn’t matter.
It does matter. It makes the difference between “Hey, there might be something to this stuff”, and “God, what a load of crap”. But when I look at your marked up images, I see *lots* of lines that are questionable. In fact, *the vast majority* of the lines that you draw on your paintings are drawn to match your expectations – not because they are, in any scientific sense, the best fit. You use edges of features, centers of features, lines that don’t seem to match the directions of features at all – whatever matches what you wanted to find. And then you insist that your arbitrary lines are *the* lines that the artists wanted to put there, and that they’re accurate to within one half of one degree.
There are solid mathematical methods for looking at collections of data with low precision, and averaging them together to generate an estimate of a higher precision value that the measurements all fit with. You could use that. Hell, you could just measure the range of possible angles for a collection of your feature lines, and show that they do average to 23.5 with an appropriately small standard deviation. But you won’t do that. You’ll just rant and shout about how it’s all obvious, and doing any of those things is unnecessary.
That’s just silly. And that’s what makes it bad math, and appropriate fodder for this blog. Measurement and precision are hallmarks of good science, and there’s a huge amount of math that surrounds the proper use of measurement and the methods of determining precision. You ignore those in favor of a totally subjective method that confirms what you want to see. That’s not science, and that’s terrible math. That’s what will ensure that you’ll never be taken seriously as a researcher, and that you’ll spend your time at UFO conferences with the tinfoil hat brigade pointing at lines on paintings. I’m sure that it’s a lucrative way to make a living, but not a particularly respectworthy one.
“Bad math”? Mark, you are talking rubbish – no matter how eloquently you try to express it or dress it up.
You are not taking into consideration here the important facts which support these finds and which I have emphasised again and again.
I discovered references to this angle in a number of sources, and then – and only then – I discover that others had found them too and that there was even textual evidence which informs us that for many centuries the angle of 23.5 degrees had been encoded in various works of art and symbolism.
Now this is verification of my own discoveries from external sources, but you conveniently overlook this and continue to argue about methods of measuring the angles – when a simple protractor will do.
And we have gone over this before about fingers and limbs, and as for lines – no matter how daft it might look, its the most direct and simple way to show that an object or feature is at the angle mentioned. I have tried other ways of illustrating this, but there’s really no other way around it.
What’s more we find most of these references in the Vanitas paintings from the 17th century and those on the theme of Arcadia. But if we were to look at another group of paintings from another period or on another specific theme or style we would not find them – especially not with the same consistency. Again you take none of this into account in your responses. You are now trying to blind us with science and I suspect you have a PhD in ‘bull****’.
You write:
“That’s not science, and that’s terrible math. That’s what will ensure that you’ll never be taken seriously as a researcher, and that you’ll spend your time at UFO conferences with the tinfoil hat brigade pointing at lines on paintings. I’m sure that it’s a lucrative way to make a living, but not a particularly respectworthy one.”
Well that’s for others to decide. “UFO conferences”? What rubbish are you spouting now?
And what is this obsession of yours with the word “rant”?
If anyone is ‘ranting’ its you. You are the one who is obsessed with wanting to prove me wrong, and its you who began attacking me. I find your attitude to it amusing really, and I’m confident in these discoveries and this research which is far from completed.
All this is taking me away from what I should be doing – nothing to do with my research on this – (the 23.5-degree stuff only constitutes a small part of my life) – so this is last post for now; perhaps we can continue this sometime.
All the best,
Gary
Sure, we can all see that alchemistry, kundalini and catastrophism takes up other parts.
SteveF:
I must admit that my choice of words (“refute any catastrophism”) was unlucky. I was comparing against
🙂
“Sure, we can all see that alchemistry, kundalini and catastrophism takes up other parts”.
No my three youngest children of four do actually.
And as for kundalini, that experience totally changed my life. Are you familiar with it? And for that matter, is anyone on this blog familiar with it or even experienced it? Just curious.
G.O.
Kundalini helped all of my 23.5 children survive the destruction of the sizable planet Arcadia.
I love the fried kundalini they serve at Cheesecake Factory.
I have to be fair. If I was 16 again those are the kind of responses I would have given.
Just the kind of responses I expected. I rest my case for this blog!
Bye,
G.O.
Not only that Gary. Scientism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
“At universities they teach you to believe.”[Arthur Schopenhauer]
Gary, you offered kundalini as an explanation, not as an experience.
Not only that Gary. Scientism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
“At universities they teach you to believe.”[Arthur Schopenhauer]
Posted by: Pedro | October 27, 2007 7:51 AM
Yes its amazing what the human mind will invent or come up with to explain something away; so now we have ‘scientism’.
I don’t see how or what this has to do with the real world and more importantly human experience – not alone explaining away an experience I had which clearly and noticably changed my whole outlook on life and the world so that I could see through the bull and this is more bull.
And as for Torbjörn – the guy who wrote this:
“Crackpot” has an operative definition, easily adaptable outside physics. It was derived to identify them, as denialists and crackpots doesn’t necessarily overlap. Denialism has its own definition, as well as cranks. (See ScienceBlogs denialism for both.) (Most crackpots are denialists though, since there is usually a perfectly good science they are in denial about.)
Hmm . . . sounds like the kind of twisted thinking that Himmler and others of his ilk espoused.
I would say the term “wanker” also has an operative definition.
I assume that the last anonymous comment is Gary again.
Mostly because it doesn’t make sense. 😛
I must agree that Mr. Osborn’s theories are generally quite inaccurate. There may be something to the 23.5 thing but I really can’t see it being as all pervasive as Mr. Osborn seems to think.
Now try kicking over MY theory, which involves geometry in paintings. Mine is considerably more accurate than Mr. Osborn’s. See Here
Wow, that is actually… much, much worse than Gary’s. Hell, his seems downright reasonable in comparison.
Mr Ettinger writes:
“Now try kicking over MY theory, which involves geometry in paintings. Mine is considerably more accurate than Mr. Osborn’s”
This is yet more silliness . . . childish.
G.O.
Well, I’ve read two replies to my post and I can’t seem to find any factual flaws being pointed out about my theory in either of them. I guess it’s just beyond the capacity of the “math geniuses” on this blog. Trust me on this, the Grail Star is so advanced that not only is there nobody on this blog who can “debunk” it, there is nobody on this PLANET! Better luck next time, “geniuses”.
Well, when there’s nothing there to debunk…
I mean, what ‘theory’ is there? You just drew a pattern on several pictures, matching a handful of the points on the patterns (different ones on each pictures) to random ‘significant’ points on the picture. Most of the pattern points never connect to anything at all.
And then we come to the question of just what it’s supposed to mean…
Indeed, most of the points are not indicated by features of the painting and not all points fall on land in the Mahone Bay version of the star figure. This is known as “subtlety”. You see, the idea was for the average viewer to see nothing unusual at all. That’s what made rediscovering it difficult.
Now, I can’t predict just how many very precise “coincidences” the various viewers of my web page will be comfortable in accepting but, personally, I see a purposeful design here.
You are right that there is nothing to debunk, because it is impossible to debunk the truth. Sorry for the trick I played on you by challenging you to do so. It’s Halloween, after all.
Here’s a challenge that’s actually possible to meet. Who can figure out how that star figure was produced using only a compass and straightedge, starting with a hexagram and pentagram combined in some way (I don’t show those parts in my web page). The angles of the star are top; 66.0057726°, arms; 22.8933946° and legs 34.1037191°
“Since alchemy is performed by the Self and the Self is the only living God, we could say that alchemy is autotheistic.” [Jean Fenelon]
“Autotheism is a possible monotheistic religious belief, that one’s self is God, particularly the Christian view that one’s self is Jesus Christ incarnate. This would be a grave sin in nearly all Christian sects and churches, unless, of course, it is Christ himself who holds this belief, in which case it would be true (from within the Christian perspective). Autotheism can be thought of as being a type of suitheism; it being to suitheism as monotheism is to theism. Conversely, it can also be contrasted to suitheism, as monotheism is to polytheism. It is probable that most autotheists have been Christians or at least monotheists, and are more likely to be solipsists, at least to a greater extant than most mere suitheists, who have tended to be polytheistic pagans or satanists.” [Wikipedia]
If the solipsists are right, that the universe, including the minds of others, is entirely the creation of the mind, then this would mean everybody is fundamentally not only God, but also alone. You need a good stomach to think this really through: our loved ones being only a phenomenon produced by our mind; at the same time you not being the phenomenon of the mind of somebody else.” [John Raven]
“In certain grail-lore heads are taken off and replaced by other heads. Now, we are not talking about the head of flesh to be taken off. That would be lethal of course. It is the microcosmic, subtle head, interwoven in the head of flesh that is taken off and replaced after the fire by a new subtle head, the Christ.” [The Paris 4]
2.
“It is difficult to see how we can see ourselves in any way redeemed by the death of Christ.”
[Carl Jung]
3.
“According to tantric lore, the Goddess Kali is the Dark Secret of the universe. An initiatory power, the Ultimate Shakti [i.e. energy/Fox]. Within the body she is the Kundalini, the Serpent Power, the key to liberation.” [Pagan Paths]
http://www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/forbidden_letters_32.htm
HAHAHAHA!
the book the computation of 666 by james nisbet and co.
Ha ha ha! I just stumbled upon this article – hilarious. Dead right, this dynamic duo (Gardiner/Osborn) are fruit loop central. Patently obvious that they wrote the letters, addressed to one person at first then at the next two people – that’s a clue to the schism (psychosis/lie) in their minds. And there is nothing wrong with the English of the letters; it is just dumbed down in a feeble attempt to make it look like the writer’s first language is not English, maybe indicating that they think French people are stupid, especially the secret squirrel types! Maybe they’re racist! Maybe they’re jealous because the French got the Judaic monarchy! And maybe the tooth fairy told them that – no hang on, they probably got that idea from that deeply researched and well respected thesis ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ – absolutely dripping with solid, verifiable references! And yes, that magical Latin prophecy! I’m no Latin scholar but from what I can pick up it’s all about a naked boy from the other side of the Rhine and his silent nocturnal conflagration, and something about sunrise and the olive of glory. Maybe this is what they are thinking: “In a non catholic city that is open 7/11, naked boys are silenced in nocturnal passion and by sunrise covered in olive oil!” I think these guys go to bed with a hard problem in their hands and wake up with a very ‘Latino’ mess on the sheets 🙂
And here’s the official method of ‘flogging’ oneself for the lordy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8375174.stm
😉