Thursday, 31 August 2017

Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Conspiracy Theories · New blog on the kid : Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist

Back when I was arguing at, I was more than once attacked verbally by one "J. Strauss" who systematically went about reducing what I actually said to a conspiracy theory and who then proceeded to rip apart that conspiracy theory.

This left me at a double disadvantage:

  • 1) it took attention away from the line of argument I was actually pursuing.
  • 2) his ripping apart of what he conceived as a conspiracy theory of mine (or pretended to do so) was not water tight, so I argued what conspiracies would after all actually be possible. This may have given some (and if he was not dishonest and theatrical did leave him) with the impression I was into the conspiracy theory in question.

I am - with some caution - into the conspiracy theories of Lyndon LaRouche and of Henry Makow.

I am not in, but also not against, the moon landing conspiracy theory.

It so happens, whether by chance, by algorithms of quora (very probable), by prayer by someone praying for me to be "healed from" conspiracy theories (I am not considering "delusion" as a medical symptom, unless you believe you are God - this is not adressed to Our Lord - or you believe you are a poached egg, I believe the opposite view is part of a medical conspiracy, which is trying to dominate the world by chosing certain ideologies and memes to stamp as "delusions", and I believe it is heresy to accept that kind of definition) (not improbable either and not diminished by probability of previous, since efficacy of prayer and of natural or mechanical circumstances are not rivals, but concur through God's providence to same events), or even by a conspiracy of some computer admin (less probable, but far from impossible), I DID get across the moon landing conspiracy and a supposed debunking of it.

Here is a link to the debunking:

Clavius : Scale

Now, I will copy paste quotes from two arguments of theirs, the first of which I agree with (there was no LARGE conspiracy, arguably), the second of which I disagree with (the equipment being good does not equate the moon landings were actually made).

I will comment on each in detail.

Against large scale
The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.

My agreement

I find it very improbable that thousands of people were in a scam and no one actually lost interest or was clumsy.

Against small scale
At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.


In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

My disagreement
The reply presupposes that the conspiracy theory is adequately analysed by a claim the only motive for a scam is lacking equipment for a moon landing.

Let's give a few alternatives.

1 "they had no equipment for landing"
disposed of. With a small scale, minimal scenario, the contractors needed to be producing good equipment.

2 "they had no equipment for passing Allen Belt"
I have heard this has been debunked by a study in how much radiation the Allen Belt would involve and what screening the back then equipment would provide.

I have not yet seen the study.

3 "actual lack of equipment was not the issue at all"
Here we come to some interesting alternatives:

a) secret geocentrics or not, they wanted to prove heliocentrism
This touches on one motive very common among Moon Truthers, these being also Geocentrics.

I believe that as a motive for a Geocentric to be Moon Truther, this is inadequate. Why? Because the Moon Landing and seeing Earth turn around its axis from Moon does not prove heliocentrism true. If the Heliocentrics can say that the ordinary view, shared by billions according to God's providence, can be a misleading and parallactic one, seeing sth else move because of real movement being in observer or in his point of observation, obviously a real landing on the Moon, a real film of Earth turning around its axis taken from Moon in time lapse, is not a proof of this, since we as Geocentrics can say that the view shared only by some very few was a parallactic one.

If you photograph the Eiffel Tower from a chopper flying around it, you will see a film of an Eiffel tower turning around its own axis. This means that such a film is NOT proof the Eiffel Tower is not fixed in the ground, and similarily a film with Earth turning, taken from the moon is NOT proof Earth is turning.

This is why a solid refutation of all Moon Truther claims, if available, would not shock me in the least : it is no argument against Geocentrism, which I am defending - as here I am defending it, and me, from the charge of depending on Moon Trutherism.

But as an explanation on why NASA would have faked a landing, this starts to gain some ground.

Since films of Earthy turning on own axis, taken from moon, have been so good at promoting the idea that Earth is turning on its axis, NASA would have had a motive for faking the landings, even if thinking landings could not be made.

Also - if landings were made, this could have been a motive for actually making them. But if for some reason NASA did not dare, well, then NASA could have faked them too.

b) they wanted to prove Newtonian physics, spec. gravitation
One of my earlier reactions against Heliocentrism back 15 years ago involved the observation that certain parts of Newton cannot be proven exclusively from Earth.

Continuation of uniform movement has not really been proven even by Moon Landing and the rest of the space program.

Newtonian gravitation, heaviness being equal to substantiality - a thing I consider blasphemous - has however some support if the heaviness of the astronauts was attracted to the heaviness of the subjacent Moon and this kept them from falling down to Earth as the locus of heavy things.

While the acceptance of Moon Landing and Space Program as factual has not involved a full fledged acceptance of Newtonian view, it has involved some modifications, and only by claiming Moon Fake could I return to a completely Aristotelic theory of gravity, of Earth as centre of all heavy things.

So, suppose some Geocentric in the years previous to launching of rocket and landing (fake or real) had claimed somewhere (even in a mental hospital) "Heliocentrism in the modern form builds on Newtonian gravitation, but our experience on Earth uniformly supports Aristotelic gravitation" (which it does), someone eager (in a Masonic way) to vindicate Galileo and Newton against Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas could have come up with an idea of faking a moon landing in which astronauts' positions are maintained at least 362 600 km above Earth* without falling down, as a proof that heavy bodies like those of the astronauts are attracted to nearest body which is much heavier rather than to Earth, and being afraid of being wrong and not just risking lives but exposure by a real try, might have preferred a fake success.

This is not what I believe, I have other ideas on how to avoid the blasphemy of identifying heaviness and substantiality, lightness and absence of substance, namely considering heaviness to be a quality of nucleic matter and lightness of the much more massive surrounding etheric matter. So, I have not accepted taking lightness as absence of susbtance.

But while I do not believe Moon Landing is necessarily false, I find a belief such as my previous one, if expressed anywhere everso discreet, could have promoted a faked refutation. By people at NASA who could not foresee how one successor of such, namely me, would get around the intellectual challenge.

Some people really are in deep hatred of all aspects of Catholicism, including Scholasticism, and top men at NASA are likelier to be Anti-Scholastics than Pro-Scholastics or even Thomists.

c) they wanted to hide some other Moon Landing
In Space Trilogy, C. S. Lewis speculates about a landing of men not on Moon, but first on Mars, then on Venus. In the final part, there is a kind of note of spiritual powers - of evil - being at the moon.

What if a real moon landing has already happened by witchcraft, or in ways where landing place was likely to reveal spiritual powers, this is known to a few, and this needed "debunking" in advance of any leak, even if a fake debunking, by arranging an alternative, heavily promoted and popularised, view of what a Moon Landing really would look like.

d) they had the equipment but didn't trust it
And so they faked a landing rather than did a real one they could have made.

So, of the possible motives 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, the Clavius team have exposed motive 1 as incompatible with a very small conspiracy.

They are free to provide - and I will also promote, if remaining in freedom - their refutations, if any, of possible motives 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. So far and on that page, they have not done so yet.

There is another, somewhat disturbing, aspect of the refutatation of a big conspiracy, as given by Clavius:

No evidence of threat.
Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work. See the discussion of Occam's Razor to understand why we must then dismiss theories than involve death threats.

No posthumous revelations.
Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.

No Boy Scouts.
Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.

There is another threat than death, which will take care of very many, and be more chilling than death to many : psychiatry.

If Moon Truthers are widely promoted as being "delusional", one man who really was involved, really knew of a fake, really tried to spill the beans, back in the 70's when psychiatry was stronger (it's trying to regain some strength, I am afraid) could have been stamped as "delusional" about his past activities.

I was born in Vienna, when my mother was "written at" Södertelge. In my earlier passports, it was marked "födelseort : Wien, födelsehemort : Södertälje" and these were translated as place of birth, administrative place of birth. In my latest one, Södertelge is suddenly my place of birth "tout court". Will someone try to stamp me as delusional for claiming to be born in Vienna?

At a process I was at, I mentioned "slutstycke" and "osäkra", things denoting parts of gun and making it ready to shoot, when talking of how I had dealt with hand gun of a policeman. It was questioned how I could know about these things. The answer is, I did military service at the back then regiment Lv4. The medical papers from my service there had somehow disappeared, because it was said by some doctor, "no, he can't have done that, we would have the medical papers" - when will I be stamped as delusional, if it has not already happened, for saying I did military service?

Psychiatry is a very terrible means of silencing opposition, since it is very uncomfortable, discomforts both immediate and by trauma can be protracted over years, and on top of that the victim is discredited.

So, how do we know there was no threat and no one did try to spill the beans?

To this latter one could reply that I have no right to just theorise such a thing, otherwise anyone could make such an abstract claim.

But on the one hand, I am not so much claiming as - so far - giving a possibility. It is Clavius who are set on saying Moon Landings are not a fraud, Moon Truthers are wrong. If they rely on a huge negative, it is perhaps for them to have better proof than just "I haven't heard of anyone trying to spill the beans, at least".

On the other hand, now I will make a claim of one man perhaps trying to spill the beans. There was, but I no longer find it, a youtube clip of a man confronting Armstrong with "you know you didn't go to the moon, you are lying, repent".

I wonder if the clip went down and he went to mental hospital? ***

Well, sorry, our time has the technical capacity of faking the film footages, and also of faking a consensus of no spilled beans, by locking up someone who is trying to do so.

While I am not a Moon Truther per se, I cannot any more just claim they are lunatics who are claiming the impossible.

Even if joining a witch hunt against conspiracy theorists about the moon would land me with, not restored credibility, but being a little less "discredited" in the eyes of people like "J. Strauss", whatever his real name may be. He is anyway lead singer of The Morlocks - and is Anticatholic. Or was last time I checked, which is a while ago.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Raymond Nonnatus

* = 225309.1943 miles ** Link to description of The Morlocks, caution, material unsuitable for children and for teens on one of the disc covers. Click here or don't. Or here: (same warning applies). Or wiki. *** Supposing he was not an ex insider, but just a very fanatic Moon Truther pestering one of the guys he considered as bearing false witness to the world, even then such a handling of him would not be justified on my view - at all.

Update: some people seem to amuse themselves by trying to stamp me as generally bad at verifying and falsifying information. I was today - 1.IX, next day from previous - given an information about French President Macron being homosexual, living a double life. As you may know, there has been similar information about Michelle Obama being a tranny. Well, there is a reason I did not used that one before seeing the actress who had said so had died in ways suggesting murder - and even then I cautioned. The reason is not I am for Obama, it is because I am against baseless rumours.

A denunciation which is followed by possibly mysterious death of person denouncing is a base - if the death was really a murder.

And a self denunciation by a defector is a base - if there are no other reasons to doubt Schnoebelen, like his being published, presumably with ordinary and exclusive contract, by Chick Publications. And vague about who ordained him ("Old Roman Catholic" is probably "Old Catholic", but a misnomer if so).

Well, a google in "Macron homosex" is actually giving as first hit a ... denial.

It seems this denial came handy as getting published after he was elected and had to deal with citizens, while the original rumour having been published in same paper before election found an update but no actual denial, when he was competing for among other things homosexual votes (some might have been favourable to Marine, since she is against Islamic degree of homophobia). But that is a far cry from him actually being one sodomite, as was verbally proposed this morning.

Now, Gala has published the denial so Gala has cleared Macron. Perhaps those who try to stamp me as bad at judging reliability would like to take this as occasion of a denial (with proof) by me, and perhaps, instead of going on such rumours, they would like to actually argue over any particular point where they think my judgement has been poor? Or are they of less integrity than Gala?/HGL

Monday, 28 August 2017

Une Amira Reda est impatiente de faire de la pub

Qui ça?

Amira Reda. Clicquez le lien.

Pub pour quelle chose?

Pour de la plomberie. Clicquez le lien.

Et la preuve?

Sous le message avant, je trouve ceci (attention, je ne lis pas l'arabe, si le message est en quoi que ce soit terroriste, ce n'est pas me faute, je vais prévenir la police):

Les chances sont pourtant que le message est en quelque relation avec la plomberie aussi./HGL

Friday, 25 August 2017


I was researching whether Chernobyl disaster happened in response to the Assisi prayer meeting.

No, it happened 26 of April, 13 days after "John Paul II" went to visit a synagogue in Rome, on 13 of April, 1986. In Ukraine - where Chernobyl is - many belong to a Church using the Julian Calendar. 20:th and 21:st Centuries, the difference between the calendars was 13 days. So, the Julian date for Chernobyl disaster matches the Gregorian date of the synagogue visit.

But does this mean that there was no bad thing around the Prayer Meeting?

It was held in Assisi, 27 of October.

It is a city deeply connected to St Francis of Assisi. On the 4th of October - his feast - we have the last sign of life from Kazuko Toyonaga. In Helsinki, she wrote her parents she had arrived there from Stockholm that morning.

On 1:st of November or rather the night to it a corpse later identified as hers was found close to where Kim Wall's body was recently found. 1:st of November is All Saints. But previous night is by some considered as Samhain, as Halloween, in a Pagan sense. This find was then 4 to 5 das after the prayer meeting, she was found in Copenhagen.

Obviously, the second Assisi meeting was followed by the Srebrenica massacre. The third Assisi prayer meeting was after 9-11, and we are still not seeing peace in Afghanistan, there has been another war in Iraq, followed by a Civil War in Iraq, and wars have flamed up after that too.

I somehow don't think God approved of the gestures of Wojtyla. Something tells me that, if you look at concurring facts.

And don't blame Saint Francis, on his feast the Japanese tourist was alive, was also away from both Sweden and Denmark. And wrote her parents.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
King St. Louis IX of France

PS, before I forget, here is my source for dates in the case of the Japanese tourist:


Index XVII ENG : Pentecost to Assumption 2017

Part of /Partie d'Index Indicum (pars indicis indicum huius bloggi)


Bonum Festum Pentecostes · Bonum Festum Corporis Christi · Bonum festum Sancti Ioannis Baptistae · Bonum Festum Sanctae Magdalenae ... · Bonum Festum Sancti Laurentii · Spero heri habuisse bonum festum Assumptionis


Making Index Posts is Not Too Hard / Faire des messages index n'est pas trop dur

What Religions are Historically Reliable?

Signed · Sometimes One is Thankful for Some Good · To Belle Plain

"It's the kind of thing heretics do"

Advice to a Pregnant Girl (quora) · You Call That "Child Marriage", Jane?

Quoran Questions - Mainly Middle Ages and Catholicism

Dina Ali, Updated with Parween Alhinto

Regularly Having to Remove Spam Comments · I am NOT into Illuminati, NOR into Spammers

Trump and Scalise

Why is Google Not Making My Blog Post Searchable?

Is John Horvath Just about the Young?

Can One Wish Happy Birthday to People who Died?

Not Supporting Canada Herein

Norway and Poland

The Parents of Charlie Gard were Going to Take him to US, with Own Money · Charlie Gard, again · Happy 4th Mr. President · After Protesting - Again - to the French Ambassador about Charlie Gard, I owe Rob Skiba an Apology. · Charlie Gard died, I read.

Chesterton Spot On!

Russian Readers Leading, Again!

Boubakeur and taqqiya? Perhaps not ...?

You can't rely on this in Paris

One Good Thing with Fundie Muslims

Answering Ken Cole

Chesterton Adresses Canadian Literary Society (Link)

Roosevelt and Nimrod · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Read Today About GT

Half Medieval Outfit / Vêtu moitié médiéval

Index XVII FR : Pentécôte à Assomption 2017

Part of /Partie d'Index Indicum (pars indicis indicum huius bloggi)


Bonum Festum Pentecostes · Bonum Festum Corporis Christi · Bonum festum Sancti Ioannis Baptistae · Bonum Festum Sanctae Magdalenae ... · Bonum Festum Sancti Laurentii · Spero heri habuisse bonum festum Assumptionis


Donc de Rugby ...

Making Index Posts is Not Too Hard / Faire des messages index n'est pas trop dur

Les Sénateurs Communistes : Barbares Meurtriers d'Idéologues (lien) · Je viens de signer la pétition : plus un centime pour le Planning Familial · Elle a rencontré son Juge

Chrétiens en Inde

Une série contre l'évolutionnisme sur trois autres blogs : Répliques Assorties : Formation de la terre (quora) · Croyez vous dans la théorie de l'évolution? (moi, non, quora) · gm b1 lou : Je viens de lire Darwin, par Christian CLOT et Fabio BONO · Correspondance de Hans Georg Lundahl : âge du monde avec Gabriel Audisio

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Comment savons-nous le Moyen Âge? · New blog on the kid : Refaire le péché d'Adam n'est pas une brillante idée · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Comment savons-nous l'histoire primordiale?

"Je suis pas du tout créationniste"

New blog on the kid : Parfois il y a d'occasions d'avoir stimulance intellectuelle même en français · Répliques Assorties : Les âmes ou non des étoiles et des planètes · En quora sur l'héliocentrisme · Existe-t-il une expérience ou une observation prouvant que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil ?

.... Dialogue imaginé sur mon discours de carbone 14

Half Medieval Outfit / Vêtu moitié médiéval

Pour ne pas oublier, même si c'est après:

Promovoir une Croyance, Pourquoi?

Et enfin:

Nanterre U

Grey Pride - ça existe

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Stats Again

5 Aug 2017 11:00 – 12 Aug 2017 10:00, 3121 :

Russia 936 : 91 1 56 199 3 134 1 1 1 231 1 1 108 108

United States 720 : 1 44 118 3 6 60 5 5 10 55 4 1 1 1 2 2 4 7 6 8 8 11 200 4 9 6 4 24 6 30 3 72

France 488 : 216 35 11 26 2 2 2 27 5 3 4 75 1 6 9 7 57

United Kingdom 434 : 419 4 10 1

Germany 157 : 4 1 9 2 5 1 1 1 6 6 2 2 1 1 38 77

Ukraine 111 : 2 24 38 1 4 6 9 1 26

Italy 53 : 26 8 6 1 8 4 Brazil 38 : 3 8 2 1 1 1 8 3 1 1 2 7 Ireland 32 : 4 4 6 12 4 2 United Arab Emirates 27 : 18 1 7 1 Greece 26, Spain 16 : 1 3 1 1 8 2 China 15: 7 8 Poland 14, Sweden 11 : 4 2 1 1 3

Netherlands 8 : 1 2 5 India 1 1 Vietnam 2 1 Turkmenistan 1 Romania 2 Czechia 1 Portugal 1 1 Thailand 1 1 Hungary 1 Australia 2 1 Japan 3 Nicaragua1 Slovakia1 Singapore 1 Taiwan 1 Chile 1 Canada 6 Norway 1 Switzerland 3

14 Jul 2017 – 12 Aug 2017 Month, when nothing on week:

Russia 20 1 (21), China 12 (33), United States 1 3 6 (43), Germany 9 (52), Czechia 3 (55), Ukraine 2 (57), France 1 1 (59), Brazil 1 (60).

More, a separate day, 15 Aug 2017 14:00 – 16 Aug 2017 13:00, 400:

Russia 125: 1 2 1 8 112 1

United Kingdom 78

Ukraine 62: 8 2 1 3 10 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 4 9 5 1

France 57: 26 6 9 1 15

United States 36: 5 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 7

Ireland 1 Indonesia 1 China 1 1 United Arab Emirates 1 Switzerland 1 3 1 Venezuela 1 3 Romania 2 1 1 Hungary 2 Japan 2 2 Lithuania 2 Poland 4 Sweden 2 Netherlands 2 3 Spain 1 Philippines 1 1 1 Brazil 1 2

Week+day, medium visitors : 440.125/day : not exhaustive, since some top tens of visitors are not.

16 Aug 2017 14:00 – 23 Aug 2017 13:00, 5149 :

Russia 2149 : 56 52 22 38 73 105 247 3 107 100 304 24 51 417 51 51 2 97 153 196

United States 1191 : 53 32 5 525 81 26 8 7 21 1 4 12 56 4 2 1 1 2 6 5 6 13 130 12 13 13 8 35 2 13 1 1 92

France 418 : 176 1 24 8 1 3 1 7 2 5 2 6 2 4 45 1 7 6 2 5 1 109

Poland 260 : 1 1 4 72 1 1 179 1

United Kingdom 257 : 228 7 15 1 4 1 1

Ukraine 230 : 12 14 5 77 2 3 1 59 2 2 1 3 49

Germany 128 : 7 18 6 15 10 7 11 13 10 4 15 12

Italy 81 : 78 3Japan 75 : 14 61 Indonesia 69 : 1 8 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 6 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1

Spain 30 : 8 19 2 1 Belgium 26 : 3 18 2 2 1 Brazil 26 : 1 1 10 8 4 1 1 Latvia 23 : 5 8 1 7 2 Ireland 23 : 10 6 7 Philippines 21 : 5 1 1 14 Vietnam 20 : 5 1 10 1 1 2

Iraq 19, China 19 : 8 3 2 6 Switzerland 15 : 1 2 12

Kuwait 9 Romania 4 4 Sweden 4 1 1 1 Turkey 1 6 Argentina 1 3 1 Netherlands 1 1 3 Hungary 3 1 Belarus 4 Egypt 2 1 Portugal 3 Australia 3 United Arab Emirates 1 1

1 each: Lithuania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Mexico, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Jordan, India, Angola, Sri Lanka.

15 days, 8670, medium per day : 578. (Medium for last week : 735.57)./HGL

PS, top six countries : Russia 3210, 214/day, US 1947, 129.8/day, France 963, 64.2/day, UK 769, 51.27/day, Ukraine 403, 26.87/day, Germany 285, 19/day./HGL

PS, Russia sank from 307 per day that week to 23 last 24 h. United States meanwhile sank from 170 to 107. UK from 37 to 11. Ukraine from 33 to 9. Germany from 18 to 10. And France from 60 to 27. Overall readers are 248 on 24 Aug 2017 12:00 – 25 Aug 2017 11:001 compared to 736 per day that week.

United States 107 : 1 10 1 1 7 3 3 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 21 2 3 2 1 3 1 25.

France 27 : 2 6 3 1 5 1 1 2 4 1 1.

Russia 23 : 1 3 1 11 1 1 2 3.

Ireland 20 : 1 12 7.

United Kingdom 11 : 2 8 1.

Germany 10 : 2 1 3 1 1 2.

Ukraine 9 : 1 1 3 4 and Netherlands 7

4 each : Poland 4 China 2 1 1 Indonesia 1 1 1 1

3 each : Brazil 2 1 and Spain 3

2 each : Romania 2 Canada 2 and Italy 1 1

1 each : Belgium, Taiwan, Pakistan, Egypt, Thailand, Australia, Bangladesh, Chile, Japan, Slovenia.

And here are the ones 27 Aug 2017 10:00 – 28 Aug 2017 09:00, 487 in total :

Russia 192 : 3 1 51 2 18 1 64 51 1

United States 70 : 1 1 1 1 5 13 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 10 1 5 3 1 3 8

United Kingdom 53 : 1 52

Brazil 45 : 1 4 1 6 1 3 1 15 1 1 1 2 1 7

Ukraine 29 : 1 17 2 2 2 1 1 2 1

South Korea 28 : 1 5 15 7

Poland 23 : 1 22

France 12 : 1 5 2 3 1

Other 35 : Canada 2 China 1 1 Germany 1 1 Malaysia 1 Netherlands 1 1 2 United Arab Emirates 1 India 1 Switzerland 1 1 1 1 Japan 1 Egypt 3 Denmark 1 Turkmenistan 1 1 Palestine 1 Thailand 1 Bulgaria 1 India 1 Italy 2 Spain 1 Greece 1 Mexico 1 1 Ghana 1.

Tuesday, 22 August 2017

Monday, 21 August 2017

Promovoir une Croyance, Pourquoi?

Une dame que je sais dès aujourd'hui juive vient de me poser la question pourquoi je promeus une croyance.

Elle n'était pas gênée de prendre le point de vue de l'éducation nationale.

Ni de prendre le point de vue des états communistes d'avant 1990.

La religion pourrait bien-sûr être choisie après 18 ans. Et les jeunes qui meurent avant? On n'en a pas parlé.

Qu'entre-temps on est beaucoup moins de 18 quand on peut entendre parler dans l'éducation nationale des millions d'années ou de l'évolution de toutes les espèces à partir d'une seule, ce n'est rien : il n'y a pas de paragraphe qui dit explicitement que l'éducation nationale est anti-biblique, et donc on n'aurait pas à l'appeler telle parce que de fait il y a dedans des contenus obligatoires qui le sont.

Dites-moi un seul élève de l'éducation nationale qui a en toute sériosité pas une seule fois entendu dire en des cours des sciences dites exactes que la terre a 4 virgule 5 milliards d'années (ou avant, c'était une autre chiffre, mais aussi incompatible avec la chronologie biblique)?

Donc, l'éducation nationale est anti-biblique dans la doctrine. Et alors je n'aurais pas à prendre la défense? N’y a-t-il pas de quoi? (Samuel, 17:29)

Si l'éducation nationale fait tellement de fric sur le dos des imposables en déclarant implicitement mais très clairement que la Bible a tort, je ne pourrais pas écrire, et même faire du fric en écrivant, que c'est l'éducation nationale qui a tort?

Si les ministères promeuvent une croyance, pourquoi ne ferais-je pareil, juste une meilleure?

On m'a dit - cette dame m'a dit - que je pouvais écrire sur ma coûture. Oui, mais j'ai beaucoup moins à dire dessus!

Et l'éducation nationale pourrait pas se contenter de promouvoir des savoirs utiles, comme les langues ou la proficience maths?

Ah, elle veut donner une "éducation", pas juste une instruction? Moi aussi. Et une meilleure.

Et, contrairement à l'éducation nationale, je ne cible pas le jeunesse exclusivement, avec les parents et grands frères et sœurs en collatéral, j'écris pour tout public. Ce qu'un lycéen a lu sur mon blog, ou un collégien, ses parents, si intéressés, peuvent le lire aussi, et s'ils sont nuls en internet, on peut leur faire une impression sur papier. C'est même là mon projet d'avoir un revenu.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Sainte Jeanne Françoise
Frémiot de Chantal

Bonne fête, Chantal Goya!

Saturday, 19 August 2017

"Charlottesville a Marxist Attack" (Link to Video)

Charlottesville a Marxist Attack
Bond Robin

I have reservations about what he said about "new Polish government" - unless I misheard - but I am of course more in favour of the one which crashed in a plane./HGL

Friday, 18 August 2017

Mauvaise foi ...

X disait ne pas vouloir noter mes blogs parce qu'il ne voulait pas me fliquer.

Y ne pouvait pas utiliser internet davantage d'une heure.

Le cyber où je suis, j'essayais de me déconnecter de quora, et le problème est 504 - gateway timeout. Donc je ne peux pas me déconnecter. Et je sais que la session peut continuer d'être ouverte, après mon temps fini. Espérons que ce ne sera pas abusé.

Entretemps, je constate avoir eu pas mal de lecteurs en Russie une semaine qui finissait la semaine dernière, encore en train de faire les statistiques./HGL

PS, il y a déjà le problème à cause du 504 que je ne peux pas comme prévu remettre mes réponses de quora sur un blog./HGL

Wednesday, 16 August 2017

Certains n'osent pas commenter?

Peut-être le blogueur dont le profile s'appelle "blogger" a prétendu que j'enlève des commentaires que je n'aime pas.

J'ai effectivement enlevé pas mal des siens, allons voir pourquoi:

Par contre, quand il s'agit des commentaires propres au sujet d'un message, je communique, sous les messages d'autres, comme ici:

Ou sous mes propres messages:

Et quand je fait un off topic pour me promovoir moi-même, je demande des excuses ou suis au moins poli:

Chicky Mama n'a pas enlevé mon commentaire, parce que, j'imagine, j'ai été poli.

Non, si certains n'osent pas commenter sous mes messages (tant que je reste libre et ayant accès à mes blogs), ce serait plutôt par peur de me donner l'occasion de les réfuter encore plus complètement, j'imagine./HGL

Spero heri habuisse bonum festum Assumptionis

lectores Christifidelibus.

Ego minus bonum habui festum, et non potui accedere cauponam cybernaticam./HGL

Friday, 11 August 2017

.... Dialogue imaginé sur mon discours de carbone 14

J'ai un autre blog avec des dialogues réels en français et d'autres choses en réponses à d'autres, voici un dialogue imaginaire avec des lecteurs./HGL

... À moins de supposer que d'autres méthodes nous permettent de mesurer d'autres périodes encore plus longues, genre des millions d'années, il n'y a pas de raison réelle de supposer que carbone 14 nous permette de mesurer jusqu'il y a 40 000 ans. En âge réelle, bien entendu. La date carbonique 40 000 ans avant le présent peut très bien se référer à une date réelle d'il y a 5000 ans.

À savoir le Déluge, survenu en 2957 avant Jésus-Christ, 4974 avant le présent ...

(Interposition d'un lecteur doué pour les maths:)

"Mais ça c'est une erreur d'un facteur de 8! C'est une erreur assez importante, quand même!"

Cher lecteur, juste d'un facteur de 8? C'est modeste par rapport à une autre erreur à la base. On suppose que le taux atmosphérique était à l'origine environs 100 % du taux actuel. Bon, le taux de carbone 14 dans l'atmosphère, relatif au taux beaucoup plus grand de carbone 12. Les pourcentages sont du taux relatif actuel, pas en relation direct avec carbone 12 (car le taux est de moins d'un % d'un % d'un % actuellement). S'il était réellement de 2 %, c'est une erreur d'un facteur de ... voulez-vous m'aider?

(Même lecteur):

"Un facteur de 50! Pourquoi pas le même facteur?"

Ah, excellente question! En fait, il s'agit d'ajouter 38 000 ans en années postiches. On enlève pour le taux d'origine la moitié, et avec ces 50 % juste on a 5730 ans de plus. On enlève la moitié de ça, restent 25 % à la deuxième dimidiation, ce sont 11 mille 460 ans ajoutés. Troisième dimidiation, on est à 17 mille 190 ans de plus pour 12,5 % (ici on a un facteur de 8, mais les années se décalent de 4,456 uniquement). On dimidie le taux encore une fois, à 6,25 % le facteur erroné est de 16 fois dans la supposition, les années ajoutées sont 22 mille 920, on est à 27 mille 894 avant le présent au lieu des réelles années 4974.

Si le taux est de 6,25 %, on se trompe donc de 16 fois en le supposant 100 %, et la mesure d'âge calculée à partir de ça est de 5,6 fois.

Prochaine dimidiation, un taux de 3,125 %, l'erreur sur le taux d'origine est d'un facteur de 32, l'erreur sur l'âge sur un très modeste ...

"... facteur de 6,76!"

... facteur de 6,8. Et la prochaine dimidiation, un facteur de 64 pour le taux d'origine; à savoir 1,5625 %. Et l'erreur sur l'âge est de presque 8.

"Bon, l'erreur dans l'âge est alors modeste pour ce même âge par rapport à l'erreur d'origine, mais alors celui-ci est encore plus important!"


"Vous n'allez pas me dire qu'ils sont capables de se tromper d'un facteur de 64!"


"Mais ils ont leurs mesures!"

Oui, sur le taux restant, un peu plus que 0,79 %. Ce qui ne précise pas combien du décalage est dû à un faible taux d'origine, et combien à la décomposition radioactive du taux d'origine.

"Donc, un échantillon de 50 % restants pouvait être d'hier et avoir un faible taux d'origine?"

En certains cas, genre mollusques, oui, en général, non.

"Ah, alors le taux d'origine doit être de 100 % - normalement."

Pour un taux restant de 80 %, oui. C'est il y a moins de 2000 ans, c'est bien datable. Pour un taux restant de 50 % (hormis les cas spéciaux, genre mollusques) plutôt non. Genre, réellement il y a 5730 ans, c'est avant le Déluge. Ça se daterait quasi à 40 mille ou 50 mille ou 60 mille ans avant le présent. Si ça date carboniquement à 5730 ans avant nous, la date réelle est probablement de 4 mille ans et quelque avant nous, des siècles entre Babel et Abraham. Et le taux d'origine d'un peu plus que 80 % du taux actuel.

(Autre lecteur:)

"Mais alors vous présumez que le taux atmosphérique soit monté régulièrement, qu'il n'y a pas eu d'importantes hausses ou rechutes?"

En effet, même à part l'optimum, il y a des raisons pourquoi une seule montée semble plus logique que plusieurs, à part vacillations mineurs.


L'atmosphère en elle-même est un échantillon. Son taux baisse par décomposition radioactive, normalement constante, parfois peut-être hâtée par radioactivité accrue. Son taux monte par la production du nouveau carbone, proportionnelle à l'atmosphère qui est exposée aux rayons cosmiques, et à leur intensité.

"Mais s'ils étaient très intenses?"

S'ils étaient trop intenses, on mourrait. On peut bien supposer qu'à un moment ou même une période donnée, même prolongée, ils étaient vingt fois plus intenses qu'avec notre taux constant (ou à peu près) depuis 2000 ans et davantage.

"Mais pourquoi? Vingt fois plus de radiation paraît pas très sain ..."

Vingt fois plus de radiation cosmique n'est que deux fois la radiation totale par terre, car le taux moyen de la radiation totale sur la Terre est dix fois plus grand que le taux de radiation cosmique à une hauteur moyenne.

"Et vous supposez que la production du nouveau carbone est linéairement proportionnelle à l'intensité de la radiation?"

Je le suppose en effet. Elle pourrait à priori être proportionnelle au carrée ou à la racine de la radiation, il y a des rapports qui le sont ... reste à vérifier, mais je ne vois pas pourquoi, j'ai supposé comme théorie de départ que non.

(Premier lecteur, mal à l'aise:)

"Je vois que rien peut vous convaincre que vous avez tort!"

Plutôt qu'il n'y a ce qui soit apete à le faire dans cette question.

(à suivre?)

Thursday, 10 August 2017