Re: Hammond's SPOG SCIENTIFICALLY falsefied

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by George Hammond, Oct 11, 2005.

  1. On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:07:55 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:


    >[Dave]
    >i hate to have to point out the obvious, especially if it defends 'spog'...
    >but the way he made that 'prediction' it is impossible to prove it false.
    >of course you may also never be able to prove it true either, but you
    >definately can't prove it false.



    [Hammond]
    Whaddaru talking about?

    You make the 10 second video clip (as described below and posted
    MANY TIMES), and then you assemble 10 adults (all over age 18)
    and 10 children ages 5-8 years old to watch it (simultaneously... all
    20 of them)... on a single t.v. set.

    Then you ask the kids... did you see the movie?... answer: "No...
    it just looked like a blank screen".

    Then you ask the adults... did you see the movie?....answer: " YES...
    it was a movie of the Kentucky Derby and horse #77 won
    the race".

    OK.... that's PROOF POSITIVE.... what the hell are you
    talking about "impossible to prove".... you're a screwball.


    --------------original post-----------------------
    [Hammond]
    It is a TESTABLE prediciton.

    thousands of people have asked me to post a
    TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
    Proof of God)

    Well, here it is, I predict that:

    IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
    WHICH IS VISIBLE TO AN ADULT, BUT
    WILL BE INVISBLE TO A KID.

    that is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
    such a thing has NEVER been done before!

    [Hammond]
    .... here's how the video is to be made:

    In fact, it is known (Riedel 1966) that a
    1/15 of a second flash CAN be seen by and adult, but
    not by the kid..... in fact you have to increase the
    lenght of the flash to 1/10 of a second before the kid can
    see it.

    This is why the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of adults
    is known to be 15 frames/sec, but for a 7 year old it
    is known to be 10 frames/second (Riedel 1966).

    OK... this tells you that if you make a "movie" out of
    a series of brief flashes (1 or 2 video frames) which
    are too short to be Seen by a kid, but long enough to be
    seen by an adult.... voila...you have made a (crude)
    movie that is VISBLE to an adult, but is INVISIBLE
    to a child.


    For instance, using ordinary 30 frames/second video,
    I predict that the following video clip will be a movie
    that will be VISIBLE to an adult, and INVISIBE to a
    kid of 5 years old:


    01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------repeat10times------>

    (NOTE: this is 1-second of a standard video, to make
    the movie clip simply repeat it ten times to make a 10
    second vido clip)

    NOTE:

    ----->|...|<------ = 1/30 of a second (one frame)

    ----->|19|20|<----- = 1/15 of a second (2 frames)

    ----->|...|...|...|...|<------ = 1/7.5 of a second (4 frames)

    The numbered frames are frames from an actual REAL MOVIE video, while
    the |...| frames are BLANK (light gray) frames.

    Remember, 2 frames is 2(1/30) = 1/15 of a second, so the ADULT
    should see the numbered frames. The 4 repeated |...| frames take
    1/7.5 seconds, so the kid can see those, but he cannot see the double
    numbered frames.

    So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
    to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
    kid............ and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
    INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
    which less fully GROWN people CAN'T SEE.


    [Hammond]
    SO.... I have just made a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG... and
    anyone is free to get out his video editor on his desktop computer
    and TEST IT. Until then,

    PUT Up OR SHUT UP!


    ========================================
    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, Oct 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Hammond's SPOG SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEABLE

    On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, George Hammond
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:07:55 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>[Dave]
    >>i hate to have to point out the obvious, especially if it defends 'spog'...
    >>but the way he made that 'prediction' it is impossible to prove it false.
    >>of course you may also never be able to prove it true either, but you
    >>definately can't prove it false.

    >
    >
    >[Hammond]
    >Whaddaru talking about?
    >
    >You make the 10 second video clip (as described below and posted
    >MANY TIMES), and then you assemble 10 adults (all over age 18)
    >and 10 children ages 5-8 years old to watch it (simultaneously... all
    >20 of them)... on a single t.v. set.
    >
    >Then you ask the kids... did you see the movie?... answer: "No...
    >it just looked like a blank screen".
    >
    >Then you ask the adults... did you see the movie?....answer: " YES...
    >it was a movie of the Kentucky Derby and horse #77 won
    >the race".
    >
    >OK.... that's PROOF POSITIVE.... what the hell are you
    >talking about "impossible to prove".... you're a screwball.
    >
    >
    >--------------original post-----------------------
    >[Hammond]
    >It is a TESTABLE prediciton.
    >
    >thousands of people have asked me to post a
    >TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
    >Proof of God)
    >
    >Well, here it is, I predict that:
    >
    > IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
    > WHICH IS VISIBLE TO AN ADULT, BUT
    > WILL BE INVISBLE TO A KID.
    >
    >that is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
    >such a thing has NEVER been done before!
    >
    >[Hammond]
    >... here's how the video is to be made:
    >
    >In fact, it is known (Riedel 1966) that a
    >1/15 of a second flash CAN be seen by and adult, but
    >not by the kid..... in fact you have to increase the
    >lenght of the flash to 1/10 of a second before the kid can
    >see it.
    >
    >This is why the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of adults
    >is known to be 15 frames/sec, but for a 7 year old it
    >is known to be 10 frames/second (Riedel 1966).
    >
    >OK... this tells you that if you make a "movie" out of
    >a series of brief flashes (1 or 2 video frames) which
    >are too short to be Seen by a kid, but long enough to be
    >seen by an adult.... voila...you have made a (crude)
    >movie that is VISBLE to an adult, but is INVISIBLE
    >to a child.
    >
    >
    >For instance, using ordinary 30 frames/second video,
    >I predict that the following video clip will be a movie
    >that will be VISIBLE to an adult, and INVISIBE to a
    >kid of 5 years old:
    >
    >
    >01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------repeat10times------>
    >
    >(NOTE: this is 1-second of a standard video, to make
    >the movie clip simply repeat it ten times to make a 10
    >second vido clip)
    >
    > NOTE:
    >
    >----->|...|<------ = 1/30 of a second (one frame)
    >
    >----->|19|20|<----- = 1/15 of a second (2 frames)
    >
    >----->|...|...|...|...|<------ = 1/7.5 of a second (4 frames)
    >
    >The numbered frames are frames from an actual REAL MOVIE video, while
    >the |...| frames are BLANK (light gray) frames.
    >
    >Remember, 2 frames is 2(1/30) = 1/15 of a second, so the ADULT
    >should see the numbered frames. The 4 repeated |...| frames take
    >1/7.5 seconds, so the kid can see those, but he cannot see the double
    >numbered frames.
    >
    >So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
    >to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
    >kid............ and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
    >INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
    >which less fully GROWN people CAN'T SEE.
    >
    >
    >[Hammond]
    >SO.... I have just made a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG... and
    >anyone is free to get out his video editor on his desktop computer
    >and TEST IT. Until then,
    >
    > PUT Up OR SHUT UP!
    >
    >
    >========================================
    > 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, Oct 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Hammond

    Dave Guest

    "George Hammond" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:07:55 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>[Dave]
    >>i hate to have to point out the obvious, especially if it defends
    >>'spog'...
    >>but the way he made that 'prediction' it is impossible to prove it false.
    >>of course you may also never be able to prove it true either, but you
    >>definately can't prove it false.

    >
    >
    > [Hammond]
    > Whaddaru talking about?
    >


    <rant snipped>

    READ WHAT I SAID! I AM SUPPORTING YOU(darn it)! i said that the statement
    you made is 'impossible to prove false', which means that it is impossible
    to to prove it can't be done, which means that even though i don't know how
    to do it there is no way i could prove that someone somewhere somehow
    couldn't do it.
    Dave, Oct 11, 2005
    #3
  4. On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:50:27 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:

    >
    >"George Hammond" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:07:55 -0000, "Dave" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>[Dave]
    >>>i hate to have to point out the obvious, especially if it defends
    >>>'spog'...
    >>>but the way he made that 'prediction' it is impossible to prove it false.
    >>>of course you may also never be able to prove it true either, but you
    >>>definately can't prove it false.

    >>
    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> Whaddaru talking about?
    >>

    >
    ><rant snipped>
    >
    >READ WHAT I SAID! I AM SUPPORTING YOU(darn it)! i said that the statement
    >you made is 'impossible to prove false', which means that it is impossible
    >to to prove it can't be done, which means that even though i don't know how
    >to do it there is no way i could prove that someone somewhere somehow
    >couldn't do it.



    [Hammond]
    Cripes..... my appologies Dave.... Judas' priest.... people are
    making such outrageous statments.... it's hard to tell who's on what
    side of what issue!

    OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:

    It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!

    That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    adults and TRY IT!

    NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    research on the SPOG.

    Basically, the fact that you can make a movie that is INVISIBLE to
    some people, and VISIBLE to others (based purely on growth)
    PROVES that there is an "invible world" that actually exists...
    and therefore it proves that ther is a "God".

    Now, I have posted the simple way to MAKE such a video
    movie.... and I will post it here again. All it calls for is a simple
    desktop computer viedo editor and a couple of hours of farting
    around to make the movie:

    ------------original post--------------------------

    [Hammond]
    Thousands of people have asked me to post a
    TESTABLE PREDICITON of the SPOG (scientific
    Proof of God)

    Well, here it is, I predict that:

    IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A VIDEO MOVIE
    WHICH IS VISIBLE TO ADULTS, BUT
    WILL BE INVISBLE TO KIDS.

    That is a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG, since
    such a thing has NEVER been done before!

    [Hammond]
    .... here's how the video is to be made:

    In fact, it is known (Riedel 1966) that a
    1/15 of a second flash CAN be seen by and adult, but
    not by the kid..... in fact you have to increase the
    lenght of the flash to 1/10 of a second before the kid can
    see it.

    This is why the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of adults
    is known to be 15 frames/sec, but for a 7 year old it
    is known to be 10 frames/second (Riedel 1966).

    OK... this tells you that if you make a "movie" out of
    a series of brief flashes (1 or 2 video frames) which
    are too short to be Seen by a kid, but long enough to be
    seen by an adult.... voila...you have made a (crude)
    movie that is VISBLE to an adult, but is INVISIBLE
    to a child.


    For instance, using ordinary 30 frames/second video,
    I predict that the following video clip will be a movie
    that will be VISIBLE to an adult, and INVISIBE to a
    kid of 5 years old:


    01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------repeat10times------>

    (NOTE: this is 1-second of a standard video, to make
    the movie clip simply repeat it ten times to make a 10
    second vido clip)

    NOTE:

    ----->|...|<------ = 1/30 of a second (one frame)

    ----->|19|20|<----- = 1/15 of a second (2 frames)

    ----->|...|...|...|...|<------ = 1/7.5 of a second (4 frames)

    The numbered frames are frames from an actual REAL MOVIE video, while
    the |...| frames are BLANK (light gray) frames.

    Remember, 2 frames is 2(1/30) = 1/15 of a second, so the ADULT
    should see the numbered frames. The 4 repeated |...| frames take
    1/7.5 seconds, so the kid can see those, but he cannot see the double
    numbered frames.

    So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
    to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
    kid............ and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
    INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
    which less fully GROWN people CAN'T SEE.


    [Hammond]
    SO.... I have just made a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG... and
    anyone is free to get out his video editor on his desktop computer
    and TEST 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, Oct 12, 2005
    #4
  5. George Hammond, <> wrote:

    > OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
    >
    > It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    > a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    > adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    > to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
    >
    > That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    > PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    > adults and TRY IT!
    >
    > NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    > the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    > research on the SPOG.


    Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for? Someone to beat you to it and
    take the unending fame that goes with it, not to mention the millions of
    dollars in patent rights, etc. etc.?

    --
    Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.
    Mahatana Dick, Oct 12, 2005
    #5
  6. On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:28:50 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    <> wrote:

    >George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >
    >> OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
    >>
    >> It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    >> a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    >> adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    >> to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
    >>
    >> That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    >> PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    >> adults and TRY IT!
    >>
    >> NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    >> the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    >> research on the SPOG.

    >



    >Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?


    [Hammond]
    I don't have to do it.
    As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    to do is make an ESSILY TESTABLE PREDITION that will
    prove the theory.

    THOUSANDS of my critics have been screaming...

    MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON

    WELL......... I JUST DID.....

    SO YOU'VE GOT NOTHING LEFT TO CRITICIZE...

    YOU WANNA PROVE ME WRONG..... YOU GO DO THE TEST...

    and Ive explained a million times how to EASILY make the
    move:

    [Hammond]
    .... here's how the video is to be made:

    In fact, it is known (Riedel 1966) that a
    1/15 of a second flash CAN be seen by and adult, but
    not by the kid..... in fact you have to increase the
    lenght of the flash to 1/10 of a second before the kid can
    see it.

    This is why the PFF (picture fusion frequency) of adults
    is known to be 15 frames/sec, but for a 7 year old it
    is known to be 10 frames/second (Riedel 1966).

    OK... this tells you that if you make a "movie" out of
    a series of brief flashes (1 or 2 video frames) which
    are too short to be Seen by a kid, but long enough to be
    seen by an adult.... voila...you have made a (crude)
    movie that is VISBLE to an adult, but is INVISIBLE
    to a child.


    For instance, using ordinary 30 frames/second video,
    I predict that the following video clip will be a movie
    that will be VISIBLE to an adult, and INVISIBE to a
    kid of 5 years old:


    01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------repeat10times------>

    (NOTE: this is 1-second of a standard video, to make
    the movie clip simply repeat it ten times to make a 10
    second vido clip)

    NOTE:

    ----->|...|<------ = 1/30 of a second (one frame)

    ----->|19|20|<----- = 1/15 of a second (2 frames)

    ----->|...|...|...|...|<------ = 1/7.5 of a second (4 frames)

    The numbered frames are frames from an actual REAL MOVIE video, while
    the |...| frames are BLANK (light gray) frames.

    Remember, 2 frames is 2(1/30) = 1/15 of a second, so the ADULT
    should see the numbered frames. The 4 repeated |...| frames take
    1/7.5 seconds, so the kid can see those, but he cannot see the double
    numbered frames.

    So it is clear to me that the above sequence will be a VISIBLE MOVIE
    to an adult...... but will be an INVISIBLE MOVIE to a 5 year old
    kid............ and this constitutes a PROOF that there is an
    INVISBLE WORLD which more fully GROWN people can SEE, but
    which less fully GROWN people CAN'T SEE.


    [Hammond]
    SO.... I have just made a TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG... and
    anyone is free to get out his video editor on his desktop computer
    and TEST IT. Until then,

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP!







    Someone to beat you to it and
    >take the unending fame that goes with it, not to mention the millions of
    >dollars in patent rights, etc. etc.?


    ========================================
    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, Oct 12, 2005
    #6
  7. George Hammond, <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:28:50 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
    >>>
    >>> It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    >>> a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    >>> adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    >>> to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
    >>>
    >>> That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    >>> PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    >>> adults and TRY IT!
    >>>
    >>> NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    >>> the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    >>> research on the SPOG.

    >>

    >
    >
    >> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?

    >
    > [Hammond]
    > I don't have to do it.
    > As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    > to do is make an ESSILY TESTABLE PREDITION that will
    > prove the theory.


    The only reason you won't do it is because you know that it won't work; or
    at least you suspect it.

    > THOUSANDS of my critics have been screaming...
    >
    > MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    > MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    > MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    > MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICITON
    >
    > WELL......... I JUST DID.....
    >
    > SO YOU'VE GOT NOTHING LEFT TO CRITICIZE...


    Would like to take bets on that, NetNutter? Nobody wants you to "MAKE AN
    ESSILY [sic] TESTABLE PREDICITON [sic]" - from what I've been reading,
    people have been telling you to prove it yourself, yet you continue to
    delude yourself into believing that your fuckwitted PREDICITON [sic] is
    proof enough, and not just 'proof' for your fuckwitted non-theory, but proof
    of the existence of God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    > YOU WANNA PROVE ME WRONG..... YOU GO DO THE TEST...


    There is no need to do the test. You were already given a large amount of
    counter-argument, evidence and logic as to why it will not work. You snipped
    it, in its entirety and started yelling, "ESSILY [sic] TESTABLE PREDICITON
    [sic] of the SPOG! ESSILY [sic] TESTABLE PREDICITON [sic] of the SPOG!
    ESSILY [sic] TESTABLE PREDICITON [sic] of the SPOG!"

    > PUT UP OR SHUT UP!


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You can't put up and you won't shut up, you
    fucking NetNutter, so why should any sane person?

    --
    Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.
    Mahatana Dick, Oct 12, 2005
    #7
  8. On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:36:25 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    <> wrote:

    >George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:28:50 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
    >>>>
    >>>> It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    >>>> a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    >>>> adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    >>>> to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
    >>>>
    >>>> That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    >>>> PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    >>>> adults and TRY IT!
    >>>>
    >>>> NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    >>>> the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    >>>> research on the SPOG.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?

    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> I don't have to do it.
    >> As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    >> to do is make an EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION that will
    >> prove the theory.

    >


    >The only reason you won't do it is because you know that it won't work; or
    >at least you suspect it.



    [Hammond]
    I have every (experimental and theoretical) reason to believe that it
    WILL work. For instance Riedel proved in 1966 that the PFF
    of a 7 year old is only 10 frames/sec, while the PFF of an adult is 15
    frames/sec....... that is a 33% difference..... and IS SUFFICIENT in
    my opinion to render a specially constructed video INVISIBLE to the
    kid, but VISIBLE to the adult.


    >
    >> THOUSANDS of my critics have been screaming...
    >>
    >> MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICTION!
    >> MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICTION!
    >> MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICTION!
    >> MAKE A TESTABLE PREDICTION!
    >>
    >> WELL......... I JUST DID.....
    >>
    >> SO YOU'VE GOT NOTHING LEFT TO CRITICIZE...

    >
    >Would like to take bets on that, NetNutter? Nobody wants you to "MAKE AN
    >EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION " - from what I've been reading,


    [Hammond]
    sure talk is cheap.... they can talk the talk, but they can't walk the
    walk.

    >people have been telling you to prove it yourself, yet you continue to
    >delude yourself into believing that your fuckwitted PREDCITON is
    >proof enough, and not just 'proof' for your fuckwitted non-theory, but proof
    >of the existence of God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


    [Hammond]
    they asked for a "TESTABLE PREDICTION" and I gave it to them.
    end of argument.




    >
    >> YOU WANNA PROVE ME WRONG..... YOU GO DO THE TEST...

    >
    >There is no need to do the test. You were already given a large amount of
    >counter-argument, evidence and logic as to why it will not work.


    [Hammond]
    WRONG.

    1. (Riedel 1966) experimentally PROVED there is a 33% difference
    in the PFF between a 7 year old and a 15 year old. That is
    SUFFICNET EVIDENCE that it will work.

    2. NO ONE has, or can, cite any counter evidence. You're just a
    mealy mouth liar, that's all.

    > You snipped
    >it, in its entirety and started yelling, "EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION
    > of the SPOG! EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!
    >EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!"


    [Hammond]
    Hey... SORRY, but the fact that THERE IS a SIMPLE AND DRAMATIC
    experimental test of the SPOG is a pain in the ass for you! Scream
    about it all you like. The fact that I have made an EASILY TESTABLE
    PREDICTION OF THE SPOG isn't going to go away just because you want it
    to go away.

    >
    >> PUT UP OR SHUT UP!


    ========================================
    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, Oct 12, 2005
    #8
  9. George Hammond, <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:36:25 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:28:50 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    >>>>> a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    >>>>> adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    >>>>> to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    >>>>> PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    >>>>> adults and TRY IT!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    >>>>> the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    >>>>> research on the SPOG.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?
    >>>
    >>> [Hammond]
    >>> I don't have to do it.
    >>> As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    >>> to do is make an EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION that will
    >>> prove the theory.

    >>

    >
    >> The only reason you won't do it is because you know that it won't
    >> work; or at least you suspect it.

    >
    >
    > [Hammond]
    > I have every (experimental and theoretical) reason to believe that it
    > WILL work.


    Earlier you claimed to be a "theoritician" [sic] and disclaimed, by
    implication, all erxperiments. See...?

    >> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?

    >
    > [Hammond]
    > I don't have to do it.
    > As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    > to do is make an ESSILY TESTABLE PREDITION that will
    > prove the theory.


    So, which is it? You've done the experiments therefore your prediction isn't
    a prediction, or you've not done the experiments and you're a liar?

    > the PFF of an adult is 15 frames/sec.


    Or less, yes?

    >> people have been telling you to prove it yourself, yet you continue
    >> to delude yourself into believing that your fuckwitted PREDCITON is
    >> proof enough, and not just 'proof' for your fuckwitted non-theory,
    >> but proof of the existence of God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    >
    > [Hammond]
    > they asked for a "TESTABLE PREDICTION" and I gave it to them.
    > end of argument.


    Well, no. There's still the matter of your your fuckwitted non-theory being
    a your fuckwitted non-theory.

    > 2. NO ONE has, or can, cite any counter evidence. You're just a
    > mealy mouth liar, that's all.


    You mean no one can cite anything at all that you will accept unless it is
    in 100% accord with your delusions, yes?

    >> You snipped
    >> it, in its entirety and started yelling, "EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION
    >> of the SPOG! EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!
    >> EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!"

    >
    > [Hammond]
    > Hey... SORRY, but the fact that THERE IS a SIMPLE AND DRAMATIC
    > experimental test of the SPOG is a pain in the ass for you!


    Well, if it's so simple, hop to it. What are you waiting for?

    --
    Pierre Salinger Memorial HL&S, September 2005.
    Mahatana Dick, Oct 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Re: Hammond's SPOG SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEABLE

    On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:32:29 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    <> wrote:

    >George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:36:25 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:28:50 +0545, Mahatana Dick
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> George Hammond, <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> OK... all I'm sayinjg is this:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is possible to make a video movie, when played on
    >>>>>> a t.v. in front of 10 kids (all less than 7) and 10
    >>>>>> adults (all over 18)..... the movie will be INVISIBLE
    >>>>>> to the kids, but clearly VISIBLE to the adults!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's exactly what I'm saying, and obviously such a thing is
    >>>>>> PROVEABLE.... since it's easy enough to find 10 kids and 10
    >>>>>> adults and TRY IT!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> NOW, such a thing has never been done before in the history of
    >>>>>> the world...... but I say it can be done.... as a reslut of my
    >>>>>> research on the SPOG.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?
    >>>>
    >>>> [Hammond]
    >>>> I don't have to do it.
    >>>> As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    >>>> to do is make an EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION that will
    >>>> prove the theory.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> The only reason you won't do it is because you know that it won't
    >>> work; or at least you suspect it.

    >>
    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> I have every (experimental and theoretical) reason to believe that it
    >> WILL work.

    >



    >Earlier you claimed to be a "theoretician"


    [Hammond]
    Got two degrees in physics to prove it.


    > and disclaimed, by
    >implication, all erxperiments. See...?


    [Hammond]
    You mis-spelled "experiments" phuckwit.


    >
    >>> Go on then, do it. What are you waiting for?

    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> I don't have to do it.
    >> As a theoritician and the discovererof the SPOG all I have
    >> to do is make an ESSILY TESTABLE PREDITION that will
    >> prove the theory.

    >


    >So, which is it? You've done the experiments therefore your prediction isn't
    >a prediction, or you've not done the experiments and you're a liar?


    [Hammond]
    Neither phuckwit.

    All a theory has to do is MAKE AN EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION, and
    then the charge of "NON-FALSIFIABILITY" is DESTROYED.

    the SPOG is now "CLEARLY FALSIFIABLE" therefore

    THE SPOG IS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY



    >
    >> the PFF of an adult is 15 frames/sec.

    >
    >Or less, yes?


    [Hammond]
    15 fps is the population AVERAGE.

    Actually the relation:

    PFF = IQ/5 - 5

    has been experimentally shown to hold (Lehrl, et al)


    >
    >>> people have been telling you to prove it yourself, yet you continue
    >>> to delude yourself into believing that your fuckwitted PREDCITON is
    >>> proof enough, and not just 'proof' for your fuckwitted non-theory,
    >>> but proof of the existence of God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> they asked for a "TESTABLE PREDICTION" and I gave it to them.
    >> end of argument.

    >
    >Well, no. There's still the matter of your your fuckwitted non-theory being
    >a your fuckwitted non-theory.


    [Hammond]
    But you're a "PHUCKWIT".


    >
    >> 2. NO ONE has, or can, cite any counter evidence. You're just a
    >> mealy mouth liar, that's all.

    >


    >You mean no one can cite anything at all that you will accept unless it is
    >in 100% accord with your delusions, yes?



    [Hammond]
    No Phuckwit.......... I don't accept any evidence unless it
    has been published in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

    and all of the evidence published in the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC
    LITERATURE SUPPORTS THE SPOG.

    The comments of INTERNET PHUCKWITS is irrelevant.


    >
    >>> You snipped
    >>> it, in its entirety and started yelling, "EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION
    >>> of the SPOG! EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!
    >>> EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of the SPOG!"

    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> Hey... SORRY, but the fact that THERE IS a SIMPLE AND DRAMATIC
    >> experimental test of the SPOG is a pain in the ass for you!

    >



    >Well, if it's so simple, hop to it. What are you waiting for?


    [Hammond]
    Einstein made an EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION of Genaral Relativity.

    He said that it would bend starlight TWICE AS MUCH as Newtonian
    gravity predicted. YOU DON'T EXPECT EINSTEIN TO GO OUT AND MEASURE
    STARLIGHT DO YOU PHUCKWIT?

    EDDINGTON MADE THE MEASUREMENTS AND EINSTEIN'S THEORY WAS PROVEN, A
    HEADLIBNE PRODUCING EVENT IN 1920.


    SAME WITH HAMMOND'S SPOG. HAMMOND HAS MADE AN

    EASILY TESTABLE PREDICTION OF THE SPOG


    NOW WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR SOME GREASY HANDED EXPERIMENTALIST
    WITH DIRTY FINGERNAILS TO DO THE EXPERIMENT.

    LIKE EINSTEIN, I DON'T GET MY HADS DIRTY, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

    YAWN...
    ========================================
    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, Oct 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Re: Hammond's SPOG SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEABLE

    On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:14:55 +0200, "erik" <> wrote:

    >"George Hammond" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:49:37 GMT, George Hammond
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:46:00 +0200, "erik" <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"George Hammond" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> This is a research question.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I want to make a video which will be "invisble to kids" but
    >>>>> "visible to adults".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Theory says this is possible because the PFF
    >>>>> (picture fusion frequency) of adults is around 15 frames/sec,
    >>>>> while the PFF of a 7 year old kid is only 10 frames/sec.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OK, I can't use AVI, or MPEG or any kind of
    >>>>> "computer video" system because they are too slow
    >>>>> and tend to compress frame/rates unpreditably....
    >>>>> I have to use good old fashioned VHS tape and
    >>>>> play it on a VCR.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> QUESTION:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How can I most simply EDIT a VHS tape?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What I want to do is take "any ole" average VHS
    >>>>> movie tape, and simply REPLACE some frames on
    >>>>> it, and then play it on my VCR.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How can I most EASILY do this?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Specifically, if I have a regular VHS video movie,
    >>>>> I wish REPLACE every 3rd,4th,5th,6th
    >>>>> frame of the video with "blank" frames
    >>>>> (say colored light gray)... so the tape will
    >>>>> look like this:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 01|02|...|...|...|...|07|08|...|...|...|...|13|14|...|...|...|...|19|20|...|..|...|...|25|26|...|...|...|...|-------etc,etc,etc------>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> the |...| frames have been REPLACED in the original video
    >>>>> with these new "blank" (light gray) frames.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> HOW CAN I DO THIS.... what type of equipment, computers, VCR's
    >>>>> etc do I need to do this?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Could a run of the mill commercial video lab alter a VHS tape
    >>>>> for me in this specific way?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks in advance, George Hammond
    >>>
    >>>>I think that trying the "computer" way is worth a shot. You can
    >>>>write
    >>>>an AviSynth script that would blank the frames and then encode the
    >>>>result to mpeg. I think you can even force I frames to be at the
    >>>>significant frames.
    >>>>
    >>>>Erik.
    >>>
    >>>[Hammond]
    >>> Erik.... thanks for responding. I am a physicist, who discovered
    >>>this idea, but I know beans about practical video stuff. This idea
    >>>has been widely discussed on the physics newsgroups, but none of
    >>>them
    >>>know anything about practical video matters.
    >>> If it works, it may point the way to making "childproof X-rated
    >>>entertainment".... think about it... the amount of programming
    >>>effected on public t.v. would be enormous. Big bucks!
    >>> Of course the idea I'm proposing here is just a "simple
    >>> experiment"
    >>>to try and find out something about the phenomenon.
    >>>
    >>> The problem with AVI, MPEG and other "computer" video systems is
    >>>that most people (including me) are using old 200, or 400 mc CPU
    >>>computers with run of the mill graphics cards... and they are just
    >>>too
    >>>slow.... they "compress" the frame rates unpredictably.... AVI only
    >>>runs at 12 frames/sec on my computer for instance. This will
    >>>OBLITERATE the effect which depends on running at
    >>>TRUE 30 FRAMES/SEC VIDEO SPEED (like t.v.) !
    >>>
    >>>As I see it, the only way I can GUARANTEE that the video is actually
    >>>running at "true 30 frames/sec" speed is to do the experiment using
    >>>VHS video on a VCR.
    >>>
    >>>CORRECT ME IF I'M WR0NG ABOUT THIS....!!
    >>>
    >>>Isn't there some way to "edit" a vido on a computer, and then load
    >>>it
    >>>on to a VHS tape?
    >>>
    >>>You do see what the problem is, right? I have to be SURE the vido
    >>>that I produce is actually running at 30 frames/sec...!
    >>>
    >>>George Hammond

    >>
    >> [Hammond]
    >> PS:
    >>
    >> What about these new graphical "video editing" programs I see
    >> advertised online in which al lyou have to do is "cut and paste" or
    >> "drag and drop" individual frames in the video editor to make an
    >> "edited" version of a vieotape or video file. Seems to me that
    >> "writing a script" is kind of an old fashioned approach given the
    >> proliferation of these new graphical interface video editing
    >> programs
    >> that are floating around? Some of them are even freeware.
    >>
    >> George
    >>

    >
    > My idea is to prepare the file AVI or MPEG on a computer with a
    >proper framerate and then play it on a DVD top set player. There are
    >models that can play DIVX/XVID or ISO MPEGs from CD-R or DVD-ROM. The
    >DVD player makes sure the framerate is correct.


    [Hammond]
    Would this involve burning a CD or DVD ?

    > As for available tools, I suggested AviSynth, because it's what I
    >use.


    [Hammond]
    Is AviSynth difficult to learn to use ? Do you have to know how to
    write script ?


    > I am not a big fan of click-and-drag-and-drop kind of programs.
    >But there are sure other ways to build the video the way you need it.


    [Hammond]
    Right... I'm looking for the shortest distance beetwen here and there.

    By the way... what would a video lab charge me to edit a VHS
    tape as I've described? It may be easier to find investors than
    it is to find freelance technical experts.

    > How to transfer the video to VHS tape, video card with TV output?
    >Or record it on CD, play it on DVD player and record it on tape.


    [Hammond]
    Oh... so we're talking either:

    1. Video card with t.v. output.
    2. CD or DVD burner.

    looks like too much equipment.

    > As for the idea, I think it will flicker and won't be good for the
    >eyes.


    [Hammond]
    No doubt.... the BIG QUESTION is whether it will be VISIBLE
    to adults and INVISBLE to kids.

    Flicker can be dealt with later.

    > Not mentioning you'll have to do something with the sound, too


    [Hammond]
    That's been mentioned... will have to be addressed later.
    What we are looking for is a "proof of concept" experiment.

    E.g. Can you make a video that is VISIBLE to adults, but INVISIBLE to
    kids, based on the fact that short (intermittant) frame sequences are
    invisble (subliminal) to kids whereas they are visible to adults.

    >:) Anyway, have fun!
    >Erik.


    [Hammond]
    Likewise I'm sure.

    ========================================
    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
    ===========================
    fwd: from Erik, Oct 13, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Hammond

    Re: Hammond's TESTABLE SPOG PREDICTION

    George Hammond, Oct 11, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    463
    T Wake
    Oct 11, 2005
  2. moonsotti

    choosing the camera scientifically

    moonsotti, Feb 7, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    270
    professorpaul
    Feb 8, 2007
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    662
    TrimmerNZ
    Jun 2, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page