German Islamic scholar exposes critical defect in Islam standard model

[costard]

I find it somewhat amusing that we're prepared (and expected) to debate the existence of an historically important human, but the idea of proposing the same of a "spirit", "ghost" or "god" is anathema, seen as unjustly condemning a populace's belief system. And far, far more likely to result in unwelcome outcomes for the participants.

The original article seems to be nothing more than a statement of the bleeding obvious - that the record is unlikely to truly portray the reality. At the fundament, this is a statement about the inability of a language, any language, to accurately model the universe.

[howardb]

Stalins O: I'm known to be trolling on the BFC forums am I? Good luck with proving me as a troll. It's also a long time since I was enlightened on this forum. One time, a long time ago that was a daily occurence.

I'm sick and tired of people hi-jacking and de-railing threads posting supposedly funny one-liners at the expense of a given few users, and then again Kettler in particular. Kettler haven't asked for my defence and I'm sorry for dragging him into this, but I've watched it for years and I think it's low and cowardice behaviour towards one man. I never could stand bullies myself. I'm tired of ignorant people behaving like they have the authority to decide what should and what shouldn't be discussed. I'm tired of people dismissing debates because they don't find it interesting. If you don't like the tone or setting of a debate either; a) stay away or make your own thread where you can dictate the agenda.

The irony is that in the process of pointing out that people should stop de-railing/hi-jacking threads I'm guilty of doing the exact thing myself. For this I apologize, but I'm fed up with this behaviour and I feel I have to speak my mind. Besides there's no discussion about the topic at hand anyway.

You say you find the article outrageous. Well good for you! Serously, good for you. I like people with opinions, even differing, contrary to many others. Then tell us in a well reasoned and rational manner why you think that is. Don't just post an ignorant one-liner saying "this is an outrage by someone uninmportant". Maybe that kind of argumentation has served you well in the past, but it doesn't impress me the least.

My post isn't about this article in particular. It's about people ridiculing people with conflicting opinions. It's about thread hi-jackings and de-railings. It's about agenda setting. It's about people posting simple one-liners to complex topics and it's about ignorant people who believes they have monopoly on facts. It is however not directed at you in particular as I don't find you neither worse then better than many others.

In fact I'd probably stayed out of this discussion entirely, like I've increasingly found myself doing over the last few years. This time I felt I had to speak my mind. As I see it the debating climate is at a rock bottom as it is this forum, so it can't get any worse. The best thing that could happen would be a betterment of this climate, so I have nothing to loose and all to gain. It's about principles for me and not about religion or what some german scholar thinks about Islam.

Lastly you say if I disagree with your conclusion - on the topic - I should tell you why. What conclusion are you refering to exactly? If you're talking about your one-liner where you say the discussion is outrageous by an unimportant scholar, I don't regard that as a conclusion. Maybe you're talking about where you say the author is high on cactus juice is your conclusion? It has no rationale, argument or reason as I see it whatsoever. If only it where funny at least.

Costard: I for one doesn't expect you to discuss anything. I do, however, expect you to stay out of discussions you don't really have an opnion on or doesn't want to discuss. Just let stupid threads die, but don't de-rail or hi-jack them and no I'm not saying you did. This is just a general statement.

Some threads are meant for fun and some aren't. You don't really need a trained eye to spot which is which.

[costard]

howardb

I find it nigh on impossible to dictate the terms of any discussion or debate - the moment I do, it ceases to be such and becomes a monologue.

I have a preference for reading a single sentence that highlights the absurdity or demonstrable falsehood of a proposition or viewpoint; I don't regard the need to reference every statement or fact as intellectually sophisticated, rather, it is condescending and ignorant of the fact that we all inhabit the same universe and experience pretty much the same things therein: attribution of cause to effect differs with the understanding and intellectual capability, the mechanisms for perception are necessarily extremely similar.

On the subject of bullying - I agree with you that it is a reprehensible behaviour, one that ought not be tolerated. However, I do regard a robust exchange of ideas and experiences as necessarily containing some element of emotion, and the conflict arising from these leads to change and even resolution. Also, teasing, snideness, sarcasm, schadenfreud(sp?) - all these are mechanisms by which we manage to express the limitations of our and others' understanding. To pretend otherwise is to exclude yourself from the everyday intercourse of minds.

John K is a prolific contributor to these boards and does come in for a fair bit of flak from his habit of posting articles that are not mainstream: I don't believe he takes the shooting down of these personally (feel free to contradict me here John) - it isn't his head he's putting up above the butts. It is quite possible that he derives pleasure from the failure of someone to meet him in anything other than an emotional argument but I haven't seen one of these for a while. It is also possible that he is indeed a seeker of truth and regards the continuing contributors to these boards as some sort of exploitable resource for the analysis and proofing of the arguments he proposes. Good luck to him - "for what it is worth" is precisely what he, and everyone else here, gets.

Good to see you back in the game.

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

Surely you jest? If a single cartoon in a Danish newspaper can cause massive worldwide protests by Islamic fundamentalists and lead to death threats, doesn't that, in and of itself, suggest something about the deep insecurity of those so reacting? How much greater, then, a backlash would it be reasonable to expect when one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, Muhammad's actual historical existence, is seriously questioned by an Islamic scholar, an insider? I didn't make the comparison to Bushby's THE BIBLE FRAUD lightly, precisely because I see the dire predicament it poses to Christianity to be neatly paralleled here.

Claiming something is doesn't make it so, no matter how much you may wish it. If you can prove, to modern historical standards, that Muhammad was an actual historical personage, as multiply attested by independent contemporary sources, then let's see it. I have NO dog in this fight, seeing as how the information came to me out of the blue only recently, and I'd never encountered anything contrarian on the matter of his existence before.

Sergei,

You left out an important qualifier regarding your sweeping claim: IYNSVHO. Your fundamental premise seems to be that because I bring up things from time to time that you and others disagree strenuously with/can't believe in/don't want to accept, that I am somehow irrational and can't be intelligently debated. Your first mistake is in automatically assuming that everything I put forward is dreck, when I have, time and again, presented material from highly credible people attesting to the truth of these topics. I have, for example, shown that work done by the Office of Naval Research confirms Cold Fusion/Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

I have also shown you that no less a personage than the Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Hill-Norton GCB, Chief of the Defence Staff, 1971-73 and chairman of the NATO Military Committee 1974-1977 has said of UFOs in the Foreword to Good's UNEARTHLY DISCLOSURE

(Fair Use) "Indeed, it seems to me that the position of even a few years ago is now reversed, and that anyone who does not believe it should be required to show why they do not, rather than the reverse." That was 2001!

This is further buttressed by the public statements of former Army Command Sergeant Major Bob Dean, now retired, who once worked in the uppermost echelon of NATO intel at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe). Interviews here.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/bob_dean.html

In case you haven't realized it, YOU are now the minority position holder, not me.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc999.htm

Further, a Gallup poll on UFOs found that belief in their existence ROSE with level of education of American adults polled. Shall let you find that one for yourself.

Turning now to the Jesus question, are you aware that nothing less than the divinity of Jesus was decided, at the Council of Nicaea--by majority vote? Do you realize that those doing the voting were under permanent house arrest at the meeting site until they'd agreed to a single common religious doctrine and position, this by direct order of Emperor Constantine, who, contrary to religious myth, wasn't a Christian until just before he died? Indeed, he may've been too weak to stop his own baptism. You may not know early Church history, but I do. After the Council came up with the "accepted doctrine," all else was declared heresy. This includes the Nag Hamadi Writings, one of DOZENS of writings and gospels about Jesus pitched out by the Council of Nicaea, which also happened to have a bunch of woman haters, such as Origen, on it who completely gutted the role of women in the Church. This is precisely why the Catholic Church is so freaked out by the DA VINCI CODE and similar matters, for they would utterly undermine the murderous male dominance. Said "murderous" is detailed here. There's also that "small" matter of the Crusades, which still rankles in the Middle East.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/witches.shtml

If you go back and read the earliest known texts, it is quite clear that not only were women among the followers of Jesus, but some, such as the massively maligned Mary Magdalene, outranked even the Apostles. Rather smashes the claim for a male monopoly on the priesthood, doesn't it?

By the way, if you happen to subscribe to the "findings" of the Council of Nicaea, guess what? You just signed up for the paranormal, too, since the Nicene Creed says, "And I believe in all things seen and unseen" (alt. "visible and invisible")

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

Speaking of the Council of Nicaea, if you want a fascinating, fun look at what the Church's doctrine could've wound up being, find yourself a copy of the game Credo (Latin for "I believe), in which competing factions vie to get their tenets into the final version of the Nicene Creed.

Summing up, you have a patriarchal religion, whose key tenets were decided by a religious committee under house arrest at sword point, long after the founder left this plane, which systematically suppressed the vital role of women in its own founding and global spread, later slaughtered women and any who believed in their role in spirituality (viz, the Cathars), rejects female priests as an excommunicable offense, represses women, hates sexuality, stifles its own sex drive, only to have it emerge as seminaries which are homosexual hotbeds and pederasty protected at the very highest levels of the Church. It is the very antithesis of what its supposed founder preached, and in order to spread its peculiar, perverse version of spirituality and utter dominance (check symbolism behind papal tiara), this group has stolen, on a vast scale, "pagan" beliefs and symbology predating it by millennia, little things like Christmas, the Virgin Birth, Easter, Halloween, etc. Oh, and lying is fine, if it advances the interests of the Church.

I have now provided you with several sets of data relevant to various topics I've discussed. I shall be most interested to see how, or if, you respond.

costard,

Please bear this ever in mind: "Common sense isn't." Some here would rather look at the emperor's butt cheeks flapping in the wind than admit the patently obvious fact of his nakedness. Some here need to understand that if they have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me, then their position is very weak to begin with. It gets old, but absent proper board moderation, the slanging comes with the turf, for I won't let the bullies run the GDF. What's sad is that these same people can, and are, polite, rational and helpful elsewhere.

howardb,

Speaking as the topic starter, I don't consider what you're doing to be either hijacking or derailment, so no apology needed! Rather, I think what you're trying to do is have a serious discussion about a topic of potentially global impact. I suspect the only reason it hasn't really "gone super critical" yet is that it is intellectual in nature, rather than an easily seized upon visual image. Put the same information on a T-shirt or billboard, show that on CNN, and you're likely to see the matter explode overnight.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wilhammer]

"Claiming something is doesn't make it so, no matter how much you may wish it. If you can prove, to modern historical standards, that Muhammad was an actual historical personage, as multiply attested by independent contemporary sources, then let's see it."

These standards don't normally apply to you, do they?

[Wilhammer]

"Given our worldwide membership."

What does this mean?

We do not have a worldwide audience, and as to Forums with significant impact, this one is about as 'globally significant' as a comment stream on YouTube.

[Wicky]

I didn't make the comparison to Bushby's THE BIBLE FRAUD lightly,

What triggered the reaction to Kettler's latest conspiracy was his (as usual) uncritical acceptance and puffing up of Bushby's fanciful book.

"Many of his (Bushby's) sources are -- oh my, too bad! -- "preserved in rare archival manuiscripts and difficult-to-find reference books." I wonder why. Among these sources are such items as the "Myvyean Manuscript" [18] in the British Museum. For some reason the only actual reference to this document anywhere online comes from references to Bushby. And little wonder why. Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" won the Gold Star of his life with this one -- he lives in the UK, and was able to contact the British Museum about this. His report:

I wrote to the British Library (who now house the manuscript collection that used to be kept at the British Museum) about this "Myvyean manuscript" and the official reply from Michael St.John-McAlister, the Curator of the Dept. of Manuscripts is this:

"I am afraid that I can find no reference to such a manuscript in our collections. We receive many similar enquiries relating to subject matter such as this and I have to say many of them are hoaxes or refer to non-existent manuscripts."

So much for Bushby as a credible source on alleged mystery documents."

http://www.tektonics.org/af/bushby01.html

This is why it is nigh on impossible to have a rational discussion because his world view is determined by any old nonsense that he can trawl up from self-referring conspiracy websites and post here faster than can be shown doubtful or simply false. Then when thus confronted he'll slap another layer of unrelated conspiratorial links on top as if they prove the validity of his original premise or recycled discovery.

Hence such wonderful enlightening and profound threads centred around panther turreted UFOs, reptoid presidents, nazi tanks on mars, atomic V2 silos, non-existent 911 spectrographic analysis etc. that surely demonstrate more kettler's amount of freetime to google than any rational component to his arguments. Any oddball belief and factoid he will take onboard to defend for pages and pages in spite of fundamental counter evidence and logic to the contrary - Like how a V2 can exit a smaller diameter 'silo' exit hole than the actual missile... So out of kindness to his "intellectually superior" shortcomings, the mocking comes as a shorthand reply instead of falling completely to his bait, to save the forum from complete 300+ reply meltdown. Which he seems to seek perversely for stimulation and as a distraction from his self-declared ailments and problems.

[Wilhammer]

In other words, the dogpile is his therapy.

-----------

"Like how a V2 can exit a smaller diameter 'silo' exit hole than the actual missile..."

Kettler is going to want to reply to this as his admitting he was wrong, which he did, but it took two threads and lots of dubious research he threw at us we refuted to prove it.

However, he still believes the following, despite tons of proof against it;

PzKW Is on the Moon

Antarctic UFO Bases. Nazi ones.

Nazi UFOs in WW2 and afterwards

9/11 UFOS and missiles, along with prechambered preplanned destruction.

Greys in the White house

The Martian Man Face

Nazi Atomic Bomb Tested

Japanese Atomic Bomb Tested

[Stalins Organ]

You say you find the article outrageous. Well good for you! Serously, good for you. I like people with opinions, even differing, contrary to many others. Then tell us in a well reasoned and rational manner why you think that is.

I did - I said there are numerous sources on the existance of mohammed - did you miss that bit?

Don't just post an ignorant one-liner saying "this is an outrage by someone uninmportant". Maybe that kind of argumentation has served you well in the past, but it doesn't impress me the least

I would be more impressed with you not being impressed if you showed signs of reading my whole post and not just the bits you want to be unimpressed with.

[JonS]

... it is nigh on impossible to have a rational discussion because his world view is determined by any old nonsense that he can trawl up from self-referring conspiracy websites and post here faster than can be shown doubtful or simply false. Then when thus confronted he'll slap another layer of unrelated conspiratorial links on top as if they prove the validity of his original premise or recycled discovery.

Hence such wonderful enlightening and profound threads centred around panther turreted UFOs, reptoid presidents, nazi tanks on mars, atomic V2 silos, non-existent 911 spectrographic analysis etc. that surely demonstrate more kettler's amount of freetime to google than any rational component to his arguments. Any oddball belief and factoid he will take onboard to defend for pages and pages in spite of fundamental counter evidence and logic to the contrary - Like how a V2 can exit a smaller diameter 'silo' exit hole than the actual missile... So out of kindness to his "intellectually superior" shortcomings, the mocking comes as a shorthand reply instead of falling completely to his bait, to save the forum from complete 300+ reply meltdown. Which he seems to seek perversely for stimulation and as a distraction from his self-declared ailments and problems ...

... and, in addition, John's conceit is quite breathtaking. For example, not only is he smarter than the rest of us combined, he is also - by his own claim - the only one who knows how to use Google properly. And who can forget the earthquake sensitivity?*

Kettler is childishly credulous. Kettler is gullible. Kettler is rude. Kettler is a liar. Kettler is abusive. Kettler is condescending. Kettler is intellectually lazy. Kettler is a troll.

These things have all been shown and proven, repeatedly over the past 8+ years, to the point where "Kettlerian" is now a pejorative adjective with a widely understood meaning. That did not happen because of a single thing that anyone else wrote, it is all down to his own work. Why anyone thinks Kettler deserves to have any slack whatsoever cut him baffles me.

Regards

Jon

* BTW, my challenge regarding my own superior 'earthquake sensitivity' still stands uncontested, several years after it was first made.

[Wilhammer]

I need to return to my shorthand for Anti-Kettlerianism - LPCP

[John Kettler]

Wilhammer,

We have forum members from all over the world. Simple enough to understand.

Wicky,

You actually made a substantive post?! Congratulations! Shall have to look into what's said and get back to you. BTW, if you're going to post claims about me, please be sure you can back them. The first you listed is flat wrong. Twice. First, it should read "Mars." Second, it should read "reduced size items that look like PzKPfw Is." The original claim was presented by The Enterprise Mission at the Pasadena Conference. I reported on what was said and offered my own treadhead perspectives on the purported visual evidence.

JonS,

You really are quite determined to hang yourself by your own words and be banned, aren't you? You exist here solely as a result of great kindness from BFC, but you insist on continuing to do that which got you warned in the first place. You wouldn't tolerate for a minute being attacked the way you're attacking me here, yet because it's the Internet and because this forum isn't anywhere nearly as tightly moderated as it once was, you feel you can do what's flatly forbidden. Be it on your head!

Wilhammer,

I now have three words or phrases regarding me, one of which is a social movement: Kettlerian, Kettleresque and Anti-Kettlerianism. Quite an achievement for anyone!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Affentitten]

Howardb,

I’m going to take your attack personally, since I was one of the people that posted a one-line response higher up, albeit in response to someone else’s comment rather than JK’s. Some points:

1) I like Kettler. I have said so on a number of occasions and welcome the diversity he represents here. I don’t want to spend the whole time debating Panzer variants. Also, because I am an Aussie rather than a Kiwi, I strive to play the ball and not the man, so if I am arguing with Kettler it’s usually about what he’s said, rather than “Ha ha! You’re a nutter!”

2) But lambasting people of not having a rational debate with JK is extremely unfair. Because those standards need to apply both ways. When John brings something fringe up it doesn’t matter how repeatedly and thoroughly it can be debunked with reputable and overwhelming evidence, he will still stick to his guns or dismiss it with some sort of counter-conspiracy questioning the validity of this evidence. Often his response will be a link-fest of similarly fringe material or self-referencing matter. When and if people do follow those links, they often discover the linked material does not even reflect what JK says it does. When this is pointed out, the common response is “Sorry, I was sick/tired. I made a mistake about the date.” It doesn’t take long for people to think “Hell, why should I spend another half an hour of my life rebutting JK’s post AGAIN?”

3) If you’re looking for serious, informed and well-cited debate about matters of theology, why are you here on this forum? That’s not its mission statement. Many people come here for recreational chatter and not for university-level peer review.

[Bugged]

Many here would evolve as intellectual human beings if they took the time to discuss topics in a rational manner.

Is it even possible to discuss irrational topics (as demonstrated in a great majority of his posts) in a rational manner? I second what Affentitten posted above.

How come Kettler bothers with this board is beyond me.

Indeed. My guess is that when you find the answer to your question, you won't be so quick to jump to JK's defense.

[Wilhammer]

"Wilhammer,

I now have three words or phrases regarding me, one of which is a social movement: Kettlerian, Kettleresque and Anti-Kettlerianism. Quite an achievement for anyone!"

Social movement indeed - you really are full of yourself.

All for your ego.

You earned it.

You do realize these are derisive labels?

[Stalins Organ]

I don’t want to spend the whole time debating Panzer variants. Also, because I am an Aussie rather than a Kiwi, I strive to play the ball and not the man,

Yep - you strive really hard to ensure the man can't possibly play the ball.

hugs and XXX's

Mike, the kiwi

[John Kettler]

Bugged,

I have two principal online haunts: the BFC Forums and Earth Boppin, with most of my attention there on Earth Groans. I have been coming here since February 2001 and have talked to all kinds of people, from all over the world, about all kinds of things. I find the range of perspectives extremely useful, but there has been a precipitous drop, I think, in the quality of discussions ever since the Mods practically abandoned the GDF, allowing the board bullies to practically take over and rule by intimidation, name calling and innuendo. I'm not perfect, far from it, but my default discussion mode isn't flinging poo squarely in someone's face while calling him names. I do make mistakes, and my oft poor memory, mental focus and crazy sleep cycle only compound the difficulties of communicating highly controversial (to them) concepts to highly reactive, actively resistant, sometimes vicious interlocutors. This, though, is a forum for civil discourse, within specified bounds, and I intend to continue to have such conversations, on everything from aa to zymurgy, whether those who despise me like it or not. Nor, in my view, does the board equivalent of screaming, yelling, name calling and worse constitute such civil discourse. I just got through demonstrating that my deriders are now in the minority on the UFO matter, and I can point to polls that show much the same regarding the American views on 9/11, the JFK assassination and more. Yet, somehow, I'm the crazy?

Wilhammer,

What I think is hilarious is that in order to hate me, people have had to acknowledge me with these unique words and phrases. Apparently, I'm such a dire threat to some here that they can't or won't simply ignore me. That, in and of itself, is most revealing--about them and their issues!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wilhammer]

Bugged,

What I think is hilarious is that in order to hate me, people have had to acknowledge me with these unique words and phrases. Apparently, I'm such a dire threat to some here that they can't or won't simply ignore me. That, in and of itself, is most revealing--about them and their issues!

Regards,

John Kettler

I don't hate you - I laugh at you. It is derision - mockery at the monkey in the cage that flings poop.

That I fear you is your delusion, not anything I experience.

Again, so pompous, so self absorbed, so utterly ridiculous.

[Affentitten]

I just got through demonstrating that my deriders are now in the minority on the UFO matter, and I can point to polls that show much the same regarding the American views on 9/11, the JFK assassination and more. Yet, somehow, I'm the crazy?

Regards,

John Kettler

You're citing the mass opinion of "the American public" as an arbiter of rational thought??!!

[JonS]

I wasn't aware that scientific enquiry was now a popularity contest.

When did this happen?

[Affentitten]

More 'truth' from American public opinion polls:

Harris Poll

64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November).

More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).

44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).

36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).

[John Kettler]

Here's the quote I was looking for on lying to benefit the Church. Bishop Eusebius said "It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the Church might be promoted."

While not addressing that quote directly, this Christian site does get into dissecting the actual original statements underlying numerous controversial religious quotes, rather than the later distortion and misattributions. The level of scholarship seems impressive.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic_quotes.html

In looking into some of THE BIBLE FRAUD stuff, I find almost mind-numbing levels of repetition, but very little in the way of substantive analyses. This is the most detailed one I've find so far, and it is far from being disinterested. Nor does it help that my memory's not the greatest and that I haven't read the book in question in something like a year plus.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic_bible_fraud.html

In looking at the reviews, I saw that the U.S. Amazon site has a slew of reviews up, whereas the British version has one. This surprises me, given the high quality of readership found in Blighty and the much greater familiarity many there have with the various historical issues raised.

Here is a set of reviews, one written by Gwenn Wycoff of PERCEPTIONS magazine fame. I know her personally, and she is one sharp woman.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_5a.htm

As a former intelligence analyst and a one-time history major in college, I'm always find it a red flag when critical records which should be there aren't, be they pre-Pearl Harbor intercepts of Japanese naval transmissions, operation reports for the 3rd Brigade, the 1/7 and 2/7 Cavalry at LZ ALBANY, or old Talmudic texts the Church ordered destroyed. Always makes me wonder: "Who's hiding what, and why?" Also: "Given that critical evidence has been suppressed or withheld, what're they selling me instead?"

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

Why am I not surprised you know Gwenn Wycoff, the eminent Biblical scholar, who claims to come from " ...another planet, in another star system, in the fifth dimension, she lived as a man named Anton, a leader of his people and the son of a queen... and how her whole strange trip got started in 1970 when she was abducted by an alien race called the Orange while driving her red Spitfire."

I suspect Timothy Leary waved her off on her trip....

Here is a set of reviews, one written by Gwenn Wycoff of PERCEPTIONS magazine fame. I know her personally, and she is one sharp woman.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_5a.htm

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

While I agree that, even compared to me, her views are out there, she is one of the most together, organized, no BS people you'll ever meet. She's forgotten more trust law and tax cases than most attorneys ever knew, is a brilliant administrator, a superb executive secretary, an accomplished Shen healer, knows the Constitution forwards and backwards, is terrific to talk to and is kind and generous. She can and will bust you on your unresolved issues. I've worked with her for many years on fiduciary matters after first meeting her and her business partner Frank in the late 1990s at the Granada Forum. It looked for a time as though I might wind up working at PERCEPTIONS, but the funding fell apart, so that never happened. As for her claimed background and experiences, I direct you to the famous "Heaven and Earth" quote from Hamlet. If there's one thing I know to a certainty, it's that there's infinitely more going on here, by more groups and power centers, than even most SF and fantasy writers can get their heads around, let alone the average Earthling. See, for example, Findhorn. That upset a lot of apple carts!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sergei]

While I agree that, even compared to me, her views are out there, she is one of the most together, organized, no BS people you'll ever meet.

I just wet myself. Really, John, it's statements like that one that make it so darn impossible to communicate with you in a meaningful way. Your appraisal of someone as "no BS" person bears no merit here, in fact it's a clear sign that to normal people she's a wackjob. If you really paid attention, you'd have learned that much already and not bother with such exercises in futility.