Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE

On 10 Oct 2005 15:48:13 -0700, wrote:

>> The INVISIBILITY comes in when you flash a SINGLE frame at a
>> person which is SHORTER than 1/15 of a second.... WITHOUT
>> following it up with another,
>
>And that is where you fall completely into the crapper.
>
>Single very short flashes of light __CAN__ be seen. Ones considerably
>shorter than 1/15th sec.
>
>Easy test, get a simple manual camera, open the back, set the shutter
>to 1/30th and aperture fully open and then looking through the lens
>fire off the camera.
>
>There will be a single image available that lasts 1/30sec. You __WILL__
>see the flash of light as the shutter opens and closes, you may even be
>able to recognise an object that the camera is pointing at, you
>certainly will see it. I certainly can.
>
>Now set the speed to 1/125 and 1/250 and faster until you can only make
>out that there is a flash of light. You may need to point the camera
>at a good light source such as a 100watt bulb as the speed goes above
>1/500sec. 1/2000 sec can still be seen.
>
>This is an experiment that _anyone_ can do, one that actually works,
>and is __PROOF__ that you are a moron.
>
>And children can do it too. I had a Brownie 128 camera as a kid that I
>did this with, it worked fine then, it works now.

[Hammond]
Hey... it actually sounds like you have half a phucking brain in your
head.

I'm impressed.

Keep playing with that camera... and after a few hours you will
discover WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ALREADY DISCOVERED....

that it takes 1/15 of a second to see and recognize a PICTURE.

Now bear in mind 1/15 of a sec is for an IQ=100 person.
If your IQ is 130, the time will dfrop to 1/24 of a sec.

Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.

(the "flicker fusion" frequency is KNOWN to be 60 Hz, while
the "picture fusion frequency" is only 15 Hs).


So keep clicking your phuckin shutter.... and you'll eventually
REDISCOVER all that data they've already published a million times
in the literature... you know, the stuff I'm talking about.

Maybe you could "reinvent the wheel" for us while you're at it!

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

On 11 Oct 2005 01:57:02 -0700, "Nosterill" <>
wrote:

>George Hammond wrote:
>><snip>
>> Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
>> but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.
>
>Oh yes I can!

Single flash projector Tachyscope testing has proved you wrong years
ago.... to say nothing of decades of subliminal movie testing data.

Go ahead, open up your 35 mm camera, set it on 1/100 of a sec,
point it at a road sign, look thru it and snap the shutter, you won't
see anything but a flash of daylight.

Move it down to 1/15 of a sec and you'll see the sign.

Somebody already tried this.... get back to us.


========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

On 11 Oct 2005 06:29:13 -0700, "Mark Martin" <>
wrote:

>George Hammond wrote:
>> On 11 Oct 2005 01:57:02 -0700, "Nosterill" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >George Hammond wrote:
>> >><snip>
>> >> Oh sure... you can see a "flash of light" at 1/100 of a sec...
>> >> but you can't "recognize any pictures" at that speed.
>> >
>> >Oh yes I can!
>>
>> Single flash projector Tachyscope testing has proved you wrong years
>> ago.... to say nothing of decades of subliminal movie testing data.
>>
>> Go ahead, open up your 35 mm camera, set it on 1/100 of a sec,
>> point it at a road sign, look thru it and snap the shutter, you won't
>> see anything but a flash of daylight.
>>
>> Move it down to 1/15 of a sec and you'll see the sign.
>
> I used to be a theater projection operator. Movie film, after just a
>few projector passes, accumulates a well distributed collection of dust
>particles. No two frames have exactly, or even nearly exactly, the same
>distribution of dust. Have you actually gone to the movies? Running at
>24 fps, the field of dust specks can be seen plainly for every single
>frame. Having been in a position to observe the dust pattern on a given
>physical film print repeatedly, I can say with confidence that the dust
>on individual frames can be registered & resolved even to the point of
>becoming intimately familiar with them. By the end of a one week run, I
>used to anticipate specific dust specks on specific frames reliably. Go
>watch an old movie on TV that's digitized from a dirty film print.

[Hammond]
Look... there's something you're not taking into account.
the human PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency" is HIGHLY
IQ DEPENDENT.

In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:

IQ = 5 PFF + 25

or solving for PFF:

PFF = IQ/5 -5

OK... for a person with an average IQ (100) his PFF
will be:

PFF = 100/5 - 5 = 15 frames/sec

which is the population average PFF.

Which is WHY silent movies were all shot at 16 fps
(they only bumped it to 24 when talkies came out
to keep the SOUND TRACK from warbling)

but for a person with an IQ of 140, then
his PFF will be:

PFF= 140/5 - 5 = 23 frames/sec

So... assuming the movie is running at 24 frames/sec... it is
entirely possible that YOU might be able to see individual
dust frames..... but the average person CANNOT!

You sound pretty bright to me, theatre projector operators
would have to be reasonjably bright. It's entirely possible
that you do have an IQ of 140.... many research physicists
have measured IQ's in excess of 160.

Ever had your IQ tested?



>
> And so-called subliminal imaging REQUIRES that the image be both
>registerable and resolvable at 1/24 of a second. If a sign saying "buy
>popcorn" weren't perceptible, then it WOULDN'T WORK. No one would be
>able to read it to begin with.

> EVERY frame of a motion picture is
>plainly visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)
as individual frames. this has been known since the time of
Thomas Edison.



> The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
>motion.

[Hammond]
Same difference.



>
> And as for continuity of motion, the frame refresh rate can be
>dropped to even below 15 fps. There are cheap, low end digital movie
>cameras on the shelves at this moment which shoot at only 10 fps. I've
>seen experimental video shot at only 5 fps, in which motion tolerably
>approximates continuity.

[Hammond]
sure, sure, sure... I know all about it. the averager AVI or MPEG
on a computer is only running at 12 frames/sec because they are
compressed to cut the file size. this is common knowledge.

The point is you can't see a photo flashed FASTER then 1/yourPFF


>
>-Mark Martin

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:01:21 +0000, George Hammond wrote:

> [Hammond]
> Look... there's something you're not taking into account.
> the human PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency" is HIGHLY
> IQ DEPENDENT.
>
> In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:
>
> IQ = 5 PFF + 25
>
> or solving for PFF:
>
> PFF = IQ/5 -5
>

Interesting, that implies Hammond has a PFF = -5
It's no wonder the turkey sees proof of god.

J. Horta

"J. Horta" <> wrote in message
news...
| On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:01:21 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
|
| > [Hammond]
| > Look... there's something you're not taking into account.
| > the human PFF (Picture Fusion Frequency" is HIGHLY
| > IQ DEPENDENT.
| >
| > In fact, the relation between IQ and PFF is given by:
| >
| > IQ = 5 PFF + 25
| >
| > or solving for PFF:
| >
| > PFF = IQ/5 -5
| >
|
| Interesting, that implies Hammond has a PFF = -5
| It's no wonder the turkey sees proof of god.
|
*plonk*
Androcles

Androcles

On 11 Oct 2005 20:18:14 -0700, "Mark Martin" <>
wrote:

>George Hammond wrote:
>
>> Ever had your IQ tested?
>
> Yes: 127. But it's much worse than that. When theater film runs at
>24 fps, that's just the refresh rate. When a single frame is projected
>onto the screen it must stand still. The strip of film must undergo
>intermittent advancement. It is moved into the light gate, exposed to
>the light source, then advanced & replaced by the next frame. In order
>to avoid the blurr of the advancing frame, the projector has a shutter
>between the gate & the lamphouse, the light source.
>
> Just slightly before the frame is to advance, the shutter eclipses
>the lamphouse. While the light is cut off, the frame then advances.
>Once the next frame is in place, the shutter opens and allows the
>current frame to be seen. Each frame is visible, really, for only 1/48
>second. Anything which is visible for exactly one frame, for example a
>dust particle, is registered for only 1/48 second.

[Hammond]
WRONG. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S WRONG!

The SAME FRAME is "shuttered" 2 or three times by the "propellor
shaped shutter" in the projector.... therefore your "dust particles"
are visible for 1/24 of a second, NOT merely 1/48 of a second.



>
> And it's not just objects such as dust. In a fast paced action movie
>there are sequences of shots which may last only a few frames each, and
>events within a shot may occupy not more than one or two frames. The
>muzzle flash of a gun sometimes is only a single frame, yet everyone
>sees it. In Star Wars movies there are many such single frame events
>which are clearly seen. But not only that, but sometimes the visual
>effects aren't executed perfectly, yielding mistakes which are visible,
>but last but a single frame. In the original 1980 release print of The
>Empire Strikes Back there's a shot of Darth Vader standing with his
>glowing light saber. The glow effect was added in post production by an
>effects technician. But as it turns out there's a mistake. The exact
>last frame of the shot is "naked"; the glow effect is not present,
>revealing a plain prop blade. But this individual frame is clearly
>visible. Same thing in the 1st remake of King Kong. There's a shot
>looking straight up between the twin towers as Kong falls from directly
>above. But- the exact first frame of the shot has no Kong in it. He
>appears in midair 1/24 second into the shot. But all of these things
>are really visible for only 1/48 second.

[Hammond]
No they are not. The "double shuttering" shows the SAME FRAME
TWICE IN A ROW...... the FILM only advances at 1/24 of a second,
the shutter "double shutters" the SAME FRAME twice (in some projectors
three times).

You don't seem to realize that "flicker fusion frequency" and
"puicture fusion frequency" are TWO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA,
and are TOTALLY UNRELATED to each other.



>>
>> >
>> > And so-called subliminal imaging REQUIRES that the image be both
>> >registerable and resolvable at 1/24 of a second. If a sign saying "buy
>> >popcorn" weren't perceptible, then it WOULDN'T WORK. No one would be
>> >able to read it to begin with.
>>
>> > EVERY frame of a motion picture is
>> >plainly visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG......... an average IQ person (IQ=100) can consciously see
only 15 different frames per second, no matter HOW MANY frames are
actually flashed in front of him. There are video cameras that whill
display 500,000 frames/second.... the person can only see 15 frames
per second however.... his brain simply "averages" each 33,333 frames
into a "single picture". You'r enot going to sit there and tell me
that a person can SEE 500,000 frames per second are you?
THAT'S RIDICULOUS!

>>
>> [Hammond]
>> WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)
>> as individual frames. this has been known since the time of
>> Thomas Edison.
>
> The reason that subliminal advertising was made illegal is that it
>tended to work. In order for it to work, a viewer must be able to read
>the message, and do so in only 1/48 second. Every frame is visible.

[Hammond]
WRONG.... A "SINGLE FRAME" of a movie is visible for 1/24 of
a second.........it doesn't matter how many times you "chop" it with a
"shutter" to reduce "flicker". You're confused.



>
> In the late '70s Douglas Trumbull patented a process called
>"ShowScan". All it basically amounts to is increasing the frame rate. A
>movie is photographed & projected at 72 fps. The motivation was the
>observation that a higher frame rate = more information, causing the
>motion to appear vastly more real than the standard 24 fps. If people
>weren't able to register the extra frames, if they were only redundant,
>then the technique wouldn't work. As it turns out, the system does
>work, and is in use at theme parks today.

[Hammond]
Look... you're behind the times. there are video cameras with a built
in palyback screen that can shoot and display video at 500,000 frames
per second........... are you going to tell me that a person can
consciously see 500,000 frames a second... don't be stupid.




>
>>
>>
>> > The fusion rate has only to do with continuity of
>> >motion.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Same difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And as for continuity of motion, the frame refresh rate can be
>> >dropped to even below 15 fps. There are cheap, low end digital movie
>> >cameras on the shelves at this moment which shoot at only 10 fps. I've
>> >seen experimental video shot at only 5 fps, in which motion tolerably
>> >approximates continuity.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> sure, sure, sure... I know all about it. the averager AVI or MPEG
>> on a computer is only running at 12 frames/sec because they are
>> compressed to cut the file size. this is common knowledge.
>>
>> The point is you can't see a photo flashed FASTER then 1/yourPFF
>
> Maybe. But most people then must have a pretty high rate. Kids play
>with strobe lamps all the time. What's the duration of a xenon flash?
>It's extremely fast. But in a pitch black room you can fire off a
>single strobe flash, and an image of the stuff in the room is
>registered.

[Hammond]
they won't see any "stuff" unless the strobe flash is longer than 1/15
of a second for adults.... in fact LONGER flashes are needed fo
kids... more like 1/10 of a second.


>
>-Mark Martin

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

George Hammond, <> wrote:

> OK... for a person with an average IQ (100) his PFF
> will be:
>
> PFF = 100/5 - 5 = 15 frames/sec

ahem...

> WRONG. the average human can oly see 15 frames/sec (or less)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Detect the contradiction, you head****ed moron.

--
Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.

Mahatana Dick

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:18:11 +0545, Mahatana Dick
<> wrote:

>George Hammond, <> wrote:
>
>> OK... for a person with an average IQ (100) his PFF
>> will be:
>>
>> PFF = 100/5 - 5 = 15 frames/sec
>
>ahem...
>
>> WRONG. the average human can only see 15 frames/sec (or less)
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Detect the contradiction, you head****ed moron.

[Hammond]

There is no contradiction P-H-U-C-K-W-I-T !!!!

Just because someone is watching a video made at 500,000 frames
per second DOES N0T MEAN that he can SEE 500,000 frames per second.

In fact since he can only SEE 15 frames per second, he is seeing
every 50000/15=33,333 frames as a SINGLE CONSCIOUS IMAGE.

P-H-U-C-K-W-I-T !!!!!!!!!

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

George Hammond, <> wrote:

> There is no contradiction P-H-U-C-K-W-I-T !!!!

Sure there is. See...?

> Einstein made an EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION

Why were you trying to drag Einstein into the discussion? Only yesterday
you claimed he was a half-wit. See...

news:
> [Hammond]
> Anyone who would use the word "epistomological" is a halfwit. Tell
> me, can you imagine Einstein using a word like "epistomological"?

"He says to himself: "there we have the naked formulation of a metaphysical
prejudice, empty of content, a prejudice, moreover, the conquest of which
constitutes the major /epistemological/ achievement of physicists within the
last quarter-century."

"I can hardly think of anything more stimulating as the basis for discussion
in an /epistemological/ seminar than this brief essay by Reichenbach (best
taken together with Robertson's essay)."

"The essays by Lenzen and Northrop both aim to treat my occasional
utterances of /epistemological/ content systematically."

"Everything said therein appears to me convincing and correct. Northrop uses
these utterances as point of departure for a comparative critique of the
major /epistemological/ systems. "

"The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for
/epistemological/ systematic that far."

"He accepts gratefully the /epistemological/ conceptual analysis; but the
external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do
not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of
his conceptual world by the adherence to an /epistemological/ system."

Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), The Library of Living
Philosophers Series; Cambridge University Press, 1949.

Quode vide: http://www.westegg.com/einstein/

--
Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.

Mahatana Dick

> they won't see any "stuff" unless the strobe flash is longer than 1/15
> of a second for adults.... in fact LONGER flashes are needed fo
> kids... more like 1/10 of a second.

OK. Read the wikipedia article on Xenon flash lamp. It contains the
following information: "Discharge durations for common flashlamps are in the
microsecond to a few milliseconds range and can have repetition rates of
hundreds of hertz." Xenon flash lamps are used in all sorts of applications
where a strobe light effect is needed. My dad used them to photograph insect
behavior without cooking them. So You should be able to do your experiment
without all the messy video stuff. Just test to see if kids and adults are
able to see different things in a dark room while changing the flash rate
and the flash duration of a Xenon flash lamp strobe light. I think that you
will find that your theory does not hold up. But even if it did, how would
that prove anything about god?

odin