|
|
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9d4402d1a4v9rrogo8nqqk4ppjudcubvg3@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:43:56 +1100, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Carole"
> <hubbca2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:kt4fv1lcdvtds7emlp2cdaojfl9bvs86bk@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:47:57 -0000, in sci.geo.earthquakes, Skywise
> >> <into@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Carole" <hubbca2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >news:43f5635d$0$17080$5a62ac22
> >> >@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> >> >
> >> >> There is a patent which probably proves scientifically that the
earth
> >is
> >> >> hollow.
> >> >> US Patent 1096102: The Hollow Earth Theory
> >> >
> >> >I just downloaded the patent, which was granted in 1914.
> >> >
> >> >That patent is for a globe of a hollow earth designed and decorated
> >> >"according to the theory of the inventor" that opens up on hinges
> >> >and has a light bulb in the center.
> >> >
> >> >Since you cannot patent a theory, he patented the physical design
> >> >of a globe with a light bulb in it and the ornamental design of said
> >> >globe.
> >> >
> >> >This patent probably would never be granted today. It likely could
> >> >be contested in a court of law to be false and unenforceable. I
> >> >would argue the device is not useful. What use is a hollow globe
> >> >with a light bulb inside? Besides, it is obvious the design is
> >> >meant to circumvent patent laws against patenting a theory.
> >> >
> >> >Most assuredly, the patent contains NOTHING to describe nor support
> >> >any thoery of any kind, whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Brian,
> >> Thus you see how "Kook Theories" get a hold of nitwits. These idiots
> >> see such patents as official support of a theory which has no real
> >> support, when it is only a model or art work of some sort.
> >>
> >> read exactly what Carole wrote...
> >> "There is a patent which probably proves scientifically that the
> >> earth is hollow."
> >>
> >> Then the Light from the Lamp of Knowledge allows you to see how
> >> Kook-science works.
> >>
> >
> >Maybe I'll just have to get the book and read up on what its all about.
>
> And the Mark becomes a Rube. The hook is swallowed.
Actually, I found the book is online as it is now public domain.
Its at http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/jei/
But it doesn't say anything more than in a lot of other books, and I can't
seem to see where the patent fits in.
I can't see that it mentions it.
Might have to contact Nexus to see where the connection is.
But you know, its no use discounting the theory just because its "kooky" or
"loony". That just shows your bias and tendency to go for the conditioned
response and that proves nothing.
Scientific evidence is required and I'm sorry that the following aren't
necessarily satisfactory responses for rejecting the theory.
1. If the earth was hollow, the secret would have gotten out by now. Is that
right? How long did it take for people to twig onto the Pearl Harbor NOT
being a surprise attack, especially when they teach this DISINFORMATION to
every school kid from the age of 5.
2. If it was hollow, it would be on the 6 o'clock news. Nup, the mass media
is used for propaganda and disinformation.
3. Scientific measurements of earth's mass discount the possibility. The
reason this one isn't valid is because I've read that the way they calculate
things isn't all that dependable, physics has been corrupted to stop people
finding out about alternative forms of energy and anti-gravity devices, and
to keep the people dumbed down.
See www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk">http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk
Suppressed history of an alternative physics and the conspiracy against
Einstein
"I have researched relativity theory and written a book called 'The
Relationship between Light and Gravity Volume 1' available from Amazon. The
book deals with my maths investigation of orthodox physics. This website
goes beyond the book. There is now no need to look at the maths of orthodox
physics to show it to be wrong, because its history can be shown to be a
myth."
See
4. If there were hollows at the poles aeroplanes would have noticed them.
No, there is fog over the holes, plus a gradual descent into the holes which
wouldn't be apparently even if you were directly over the holes. Aeroplanes
don't fly directly over the holes because their compasses go erratic too
close too the poles.
5. NASA would have taken pictures of the holes? Who knows what NASA would
do, maybe pictures from space are vetted before the public sees them.
>
> >Sure as hell won't get any sense from idiots like you, the only way you
know
> >how to explain things is by putting down anybody you consider to be
"loons".
>
> The Kooks may be loons but you are a galah...
And you've spent all your time learning from textbooks that have been
doctored, and that includes "history" books.
Carole
www.conspiracee.com">http://www.conspiracee.com
>
>
> --
> Ak'toh'di
|
|