Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00070)

Hi Cass,
Yes, this is it.   Thanks.   But I also found it also in the Theosophical 
Glossary as you will see in my latest response to yannanu's bad mouthing ABC and 
me. :-)   
Leon

In a message dated 5/1/06 1:52:59 AM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:


> Is this it?
> 
> Cass
> Again, here are more extracts from another letter written by the same 
> authority.  This time it is in answer to some objections laid before the Teachers.  
> They are based upon extremely scientific, and as
> 
> 
> 166                    THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> 
> 
> futile, reasonings about the advisability of trying to reconcile the 
> Esoteric theories with the speculations of Modern Science, and were written by a 
> young Theosophist as a warning against the “Secret Doctrineâ€Å¨ and in 
> reference to the same subject.  He had declared that if there were such companion 
> Earths “they must be only a wee bit less material than our globe.â€Å¨ How 
> then was it that they could not be seen? The answer was:—
> “. . . . Were psychic and spiritual teachings more fully understood, it 
> would become next to impossible to even imagine such an incongruity.  Unless 
> less trouble is taken to reconcile the irreconcileable—that is to say, the 
> metaphysical and spiritual sciences with physical or natural philosophy, ‘
> natural’ being a synonym to them (men of science) of that matter which 
> falls under the perception of their corporeal senses—no progress can be 
> really achieved.  Our Globe, as taught from the first is at the bottom of the arc 
> of descent, where the matter of our perceptions exhibits itself in its 
> grossest form. . . . . . .  Hence it only stands to reason that the globes which 
> overshadow our Earth must be on different and superior planes.  In short, as 
> Globes, they are in CO-ADUNITION but not IN CONSUBSTANTIALITY WITH OUR EARTH 
> and thus pertain to quite another state of consciousness.  Our planet (like all 
> those we see) is adapted to the peculiar state of its human stock,
> that state which enables us to see with our naked eye the sidereal bodies 
> which are co-essential with our terrene plane and substance, just as their 
> respective inhabitants, the Jovians, Martians and others can perceive our little 
> world: because our planes of consciousness, differing as they do in degree 
> but being the same in kind, are on the same layer of differentiated matter. . . 
> . . What I wrote was ‘The minor Pralaya concerns only our little STRINGS 
> OF GLOBES.’ (We called chains ‘Strings in those days of lip-confusion.) 
> . . . ‘To such a string our Earth belongs.’ This ought to have shown 
> plainly that the other planets were also ‘strings’ or CHAINS. . . If he 
> (meaning the objector) would perceive even the dim silhouette of one of such â
> €˜planets’ on the higher planes, he has to first throw off even the thin 
> clouds of the astral matter that stands between him and the next plane. . . 
> . .â€Å¨
> It becomes patent why we could not perceive, even with the help of the best 
> earthly telescopes, that which is outside our world of matter.  Those alone, 
> whom we call adepts, who know how to direct their mental vision and to 
> transfer their consciousness—physical and psychic both—
> 
> 
>             PRICELESS ADVICE, NEGLECTED.            167
> 
> 
> to other planes of being, are able to speak with authority on such 
> subjects.  And they tell us plainly:
> “Lead the life necessary for the acquisition of such knowledge and 
> powers, and Wisdom will come to you naturally.  Whenever your are able to attune 
> your consciousness to any of the seven chords of ‘Universal Consciousness,’
>  those chords that run along the sounding-board of Kosmos, vibrating from 
> one Eternity to another; when you have studied thoroughly ‘the music of the 
> Spheres,’ then only will you become quite free to share your knowledge 
> with those with whom it is safe to do so.  Meanwhile, be prudent.  Do not give 
> out the great Truths that are the inheritance of the future Races, to our 
> present generation.  Do not attempt to unveil the secret of being and non-being 
> to those unable to see the hidden meaning of Apollo’s HEPTACHORD—the 
> lyre of the radiant god, in each of the seven strings of which dwelleth the 
> Spirit, Soul and Astral body of the Kosmos, whose shell only has now fallen into 
> the hands of Modern Science. . . . . . Be prudent, we say, prudent and
> wise, and above all take care what those who learn from you believe in; lest 
> by deceiving themselves they deceive others . . . . for such is the fate of 
> every truth with which men are, as yet, unfamiliar. . . . .  Let rather the 
> planetary chains and other super- and sub-cosmic mysteries remain a dreamland 
> for those who can neither see, nor yet believe that others can. . . .â€Å¨
> It is to be regretted that few of us have followed the wise advice; and that 
> many a priceless pearl, many a jewel of wisdom, has been cast to an enemy 
> unable to understand its value and who has turned round and rent us.
> “‘Let us imagine’ wrote the same Master to his two ‘lay chelas,â
> €™ as he called the author of ‘Esoteric Buddhism’ and another 
> gentleman, his co-student for some time—‘let us imagine THAT OUR EARTH IS ONE OF 
> A GROUP OF SEVEN PLANETS OR MAN-BEARING WORLDS. . . . . . (The SEVEN planets 
> are the sacred planets of antiquity, and are all septenary.) Now the 
> life-impulse reaches A, or rather that which is destined to become A, and which so 
> far is but cosmic dust (a “laya centreâ€Å¨) . . etc.â€Å¨â€™
> 
> 
> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: The below response to a letter from a scientist 
> attacking both me and my ABC
> theory as well as HPB, might be of interest...
> 
> Is there anyone out there who can furnish the reference and quote where HPB
> used the phrase "coadunate but not consubstantial" to describe the seven 
> fold
> fields of human and/or cosmic consciousness?   Unfortunately, all my 
> reference
> books are in storage and Dallas is not currently at his computer to help.
> 
> Leon
> 
> ==========================================================
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I guess your equilibrium is so disturbed that you can't handle it any 
> more.  
> Seems like you will do anything to stretch a statement or word out of
> context, and use any ad hominem technique, or debunker's specious methods to 
> attack
> my ABC theory -- and me to boot. :-)
> 
> I understand it, though, since I realize your whole identity depends upon
> your belief in the infallibility of the scientific method and its 
> materialistic
> beliefs.  
> 
> Consequently, I'm sorry my ABC theory pushes your buttons and gives you so
> much angst... But nothing you say, using these ad hominem methods, will be 
> able
> to cut through the truths that it is based on, nor the logic of its 
> deductive
> and inductive reasoning.  
> 
> BTW, to show you how far you are willing to go in distorting what I say, in
> order to denigrate me and attack my ideas -- I never did "admit" that I was
> clairvoyant -- since I joking said you couldn't know whether or not I got my
> knowledge that way.   So, lighten up pal.   No one intends to take you to 
> court to
> prove the falsity of your assertions about my veracity or claims that I 
> posed
> as a scientist under your definition of one.   My science is pure
> metaphysical science -- that may include your science when it correctly 
> solves all the
> paradoxes and anomalies induced by its materialism -- but ABC supersedes and
> doesn't depend on it.   If that's my arrogance, as a metaphysical scientist, 
> then
> so be it.   And nothing you can say to denigrate that position will make any
> difference one way or the other -- since, while you depend on authority -- 
> you
> are no authority to me or to anyone else who understands what I am talking
> about, and sees the sheer simplicity of it as a valid explanation of the 
> true
> reality that includes both consciousness and matter and their 
> interconnections.
> 
> Judging by all that you have said, maybe you should look into your own heart
> and ethics before you criticize anyone who presents a theory in all 
> sincerity
> in open forum, ready to be shot down by anyone with a logical alternative, a
> reasonable counter argument, or an indication of a flaw in my logic or 
> reason. 
> And, so far I've taken the shots when they came, and answered them to my own
> satisfaction, if not theirs. :-) At least none of them has stooped to the
> methods you have used lately, and we still talk to each other.  
> 
> So, in my eyes, it's you who has been posing as a scientist, judging by the
> methods you used so far -- which are flimsy at best -- to present any such
> counter argument.   All you have to hang your hat on is flat out denials or,
> specious attempts to prove me a liar, if not a flat out fantasist who has 
> something
> to gain by this.   When you can come up with a reasonable comment related to
> the theory itself -- which stands on its own merits -- then I'll listen to
> you, and we can have a reasonable discussion without letting our emotions or
> unfounded beliefs get in the way.
> 
> Therefore, whatever you say below, based on your complete ignorance of the
> ABC theory or the Secret Doctrine's metaphysics it is based on (that I never
> denied) -- which I don't believe you have ever studied in any depth, if at 
> all --
> coupled with your total lack of imagination and inability to follow a 
> logical
> progression starting from fundamental principles (which I also doubt you 
> know
> anything about) is nothing but sheer ravings ... Not worth my time or energy
> any more to argue with or even consider.  
> 
> So stop this endless hounding, and fulfill your recent promise, and stop
> sending me personal e-mail's that are nothing more than furious attempts to 
> prove
> my theory wrong using ad hominem and other spurious methods of attacking my
> veracity and credibility.  
> 
> In any event, I hope you feel better now that you've vented your spleen.   
> If
> I hear from you one more time with this kind of letter, everything you've
> written so far under the Mind and Brain subject line will be sent to the 
> forum --
> including this letter.
> 
> However, if you wish to discuss this theory honorably and reasonably in open
> forum, I will continue to answer your public posts, and deal with any 
> counter
> arguments you put forth like a gentleman and/or a scientist -- even if you
> have a grudge against a theory that disturbs your psyche by shattering all 
> your
> pet beliefs.   Science, as it stands today, is no religion to me and never 
> has
> been.  
> 
> And, in spite of what you say using negative evidence of no account,
> Blavatsky did use the phrase "coadunate but not consubstantial" to describe 
> the seven
> fold nature of the fields of consciousness that cloth the individual human 
> as
> well as the universal consciousness.   And, I can prove it (although I 
> haven't
> got the exact reference yet for the reason's described in a previous 
> letter).
>   When I do however, I will forward it to you.  
> 
> In any event, I stand on anything I said below to answer your spurious
> denials of the ABC theory, Blavatsky's metaphysics, and my veracity and 
> ethics.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/30/06 7:34:21 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> > Leon,
> >  ï¿Å¨
> >  So you admit that you are not aï¿Å¨physicist or a mathematician. You also
> > admit that your ideas, they are not a theory, are based on your powers of
> > clairvoyance. That's the whole point. You have been posing as a scientist 
> with
> > claims to have advanced beyond the present state of science. What would be 
> more
> > honest would be for you to simply state what data you get from 
> clairvoyance,
> > rather than making up things that are not true, like the M theory claim or 
> your
> > quote from Blavatsky about coadunate fields. Plain lyingï¿Å¨of that 
> sortï¿Å¨will
> > only get you into trouble if anyone else bothers to check what you say. 
> Your
> > published articles are ï¿Å¨riddled with such untruths. For example, you cla
> imed
> > that almost all of modern physics came from the secret doctrine and gave
> > quotes as sources. When I pointed out to you that the quotes hardly 
> supported your
> > claims. You then said that the words around the quotes made it all clear,
> > Well I checked those words and even copied them over for you to see and 
> again
> > you were just plain lying. I do not suffer liars and that is what you have
> > been doing. You may think you have bamboozled your public. But from what I 
> see
> > any decent scientist like Stuart Hameroff finds that 'the sheer level of
> > detail cannot be true'. Imposter is a strong word, but one that is 
> deserving. I
> > must mention that such a statement is only libelousï¿Å¨if untrue. I will 
> be happy
> > to prove that it a court of law.
> >  ï¿Å¨
> >  Richard
> >  ï¿Å¨
> >  ï¿Å¨
> >  ï¿Å¨
> >  ï¿Å¨
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> > To: yanniru@netscape.net
> > Sent: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:11:10 EDT
> > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: channelling raises certain questions
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > "Imposter" (sic) is a pretty strong and possibly libelous word.ï¿Å¨ No 
> wonder
> > you don't want your answers to my public posts exposed in the Mind and 
> Brain
> > forum where this subject thread belongs.ï¿Å¨ So, why don't you just let it 
> go and
> > admit that you haven't the faintest understanding of what I am talking
> > about?ï¿Å¨ This is not the first time you have misinterpreted what I said 
> with
> > respect to what I meant.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > I'm sorry that my view of actual reality doesn't conform with your
> > conclusions.ï¿Å¨ Does the thought of non material and/or abstract aspects 
> of reality
> > disturb your equilibrium?ï¿Å¨ Or, is it that you just can't tolerate any 
> ideas that
> > contradict or conflict with your complete acceptance of everything physics
> > tells you through its symbolic mathematics that only partially explains 
> the
> > physical/material aspects of reality, and that doesn't have any inking 
> about how
> > consciousness enters their equations as a separate aspect of universal
> > reality beyond all metric space and time, or how it links with their 
> concept of
> > matter?ï¿Å¨
> >
> > In any event, it's about time to end your attempts to debunk my theory 
> using
> > assertive denials, ad hominem remarks, false accusations, and spurious
> > references and out of context quotes that don't prove anything except your 
> lack of
> > understanding, courtesy, as well as imagination and logical reasoning
> > without your mathematical crutches.
> >
> > BTW, since I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician, how could I ever get
> > published in a peer reviewed Journal, let alone win a Nobel prize?ï¿Å¨ I'm
> > content to leave that to the professional scientists who will eventually 
> base their
> > proven theories of cosmogenesis and consciousness on my ABC model.ï¿Å¨ 
> Forgive
> > me for my arrogance in being so certain of that.ï¿Å¨ For all you know, I 
> may
> > have based it on my powers of clairvoyance which has nothing to do with 
> material
> > science, and which my theory proves is entirely possible.ï¿Å¨ Or, maybe I
> > really do think like Einstein. We did study the same metaphysical books, 
> didn't
> > we?
> > see: Einstein and the Secret Doctrine
> > http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
> >
> > As for my off the top of the head remark about M-branes, which was Written
> > allegorically for theosophist, not for scientists or string physicists -- 
> even
> > though I knew that their M-branes were contrived aspects of pre cosmic 
> space
> > that had no explanation of their origin or link with consciousness.ï¿Å¨ 
> However
> > I did relate them to my spherical coenergetic fields, since I know that
> > their continuous surfaces are the true M-branes that the string theorist's
> > mathematics say exists.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > At least my bubbles within bubbles-like "Membranes" do connect with
> > consciousness as a universal given, and also links it dynamically with 
> matter in all
> > its coenergetic stages of existence (if only theoretically without
> > mathematical proof).ï¿Å¨ If you can't understand or tolerate that 
> emotionally, and it
> > disturbs your scientific mentality please forgive me for triggering your 
> angst.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Leon
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/27/06 9:38:41 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Leon,
> > ï¿Å¨
> > You are am imposter. If you have done all you claim, you would have 
> received
> > the Nobel Prize by now. I quote some of your more preposterous claims 
> below.
> > The most preposterous is that you think you know the structure of the M
> > superstring theory.
> > ï¿Å¨
> > ï¿Å¨
> > ï¿Å¨ http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0001&L=quantum-mind&;
> P=4970
> > The theory of ABC, is in the same stage of early development as Einstein's
> > theory was before his mathematical and observational proof -- (which 
> didn't
> > come in until almost 30 years after he delivered his first paper)...
> > However,
> > ABC takes Einstein's relativity theories, as well as all later quantum
> > electrodynamics and multidimensional radiative electricity theories one 
> step
> > beyond, and links them directly to the First Cause of the universe's
> > dynamic expansion from abstract noumenal space to multidimensional
> > phenomenal
> > space-in which consciousness and matter are its dual phenomenological
> > aspects.
> > ï¿Å¨
> > ï¿Å¨
> > http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-4-3-supplement.pdf
> > ï¿Å¨
> > ï¿Å¨
> > In fact, the theories of relativity, photoelectricity, quanta, and even
> > Superstring - with its multidimensional [3+7] hyperspaces and M-branes
> > [coadunate. but not consubstantial spherical fields] which almost 
> identically emulates
> > the "wheels within wheels" teachings in the Secret Doctrine--
> > ï¿Å¨
> > ï¿Å¨
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> > To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> > Sent: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:33:46 EDT
> > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: channelling raises certain questions
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/21/06 8:33:13 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> >
> >
> > Leon,
> > ï¿Å¨
> > I have nothing personal in my criticsim of your theory. It's just that as
> > far as I can see it is an empty theory that is inconsistent with known 
> physics.
> > ï¿Å¨
> > For example, below you say thatï¿Å¨"no one has found a logical flaw in my
> > theory which seems to connect, in a perfect chain of cause and effect, the 
> empty
> > zero-point of absolute space with consciousness and all the infinite 
> aspects
> > of matterï¿Å¨" . Well I fail to see any logic at all. Just giving 
> something a
> > name does not say anything at all about it.
> >
> >
> > [LM]
> > If you don't accept the original propositions, how could you follow the
> > logic?ï¿Å¨ Besides, what does that statement have to do with logic?ï¿Å¨ 
> (Which is
> > actually in the explanation of how those "coenergetic" fields radiate, 
> involve and
> > ultimately evolve into our space time continuum, one logical step after 
> the
> > other, out of the primal singularity.)ï¿Å¨ I can't help it if you cant 
> imagine
> > an "empty point of absolute space" or "the infinite aspects of matter" let
> > alone "consciousness" (awareness, perception, will) as the a priori 
> function of
> > such an unknowable point of primal space that has no attributes nor 
> ontology
> > or epistemology to speak of.ï¿Å¨ï¿Å¨
> >
> > So, if you want to understand the logic of ABC you'll just have to take 
> that
> > as starting point, surround the zero-point "singularity" with its spinergy
> > or infinite angular momentum, and follow the logical causative chain of 
> its
> > radiation and inflation, subsequent fractal involution, and contraction, 
> after
> > breaking symmetry, into our material space time continuum (with all its
> > particles. atoms and myriad's of molecular forms) -- along with the 
> evolution of
> > mankind on Earth (with its fully developed perceptual mind, memory and 
> self
> > consciousness)... While, throughout it all, never violating any natural 
> laws or
> > proven theories of physics such as conservation, QED, relativity,
> > electrodynamics, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, etc., etc., and fully 
> explaining the
> > basis of psi phenomena, karma, reincarnation, time dilation in ASC, OBE, 
> NDE,
> > dreams, and all other paradoxes and anomalies of modern science, including
> > explaining the root cause of the DNA code, etc. ... All of which science 
> hasn't
> > got even the faintest idea of a handle on.
> >
> > If you have any questions about any of this from here on out, please ask a
> > specific question and I'll attempt to answer it as best I can.ï¿Å¨ Or, if 
> you
> > have any suggestions as to how I might better describe these physically 
> linked
> > metaphysical processes, please state them.ï¿Å¨ Other than that, outright 
> denials,
> > or vague assertions based on irrelevant materialistic physics -- without
> > logical counter arguments explaining the same hard problems as ABC -- will 
> get
> > us nowhere.
> >
> > ï¿Å¨
> > Then when you do describe some aspect of your so named fields, usually it
> > conflicts with physics. For example down below you go on to say "ï¿Å¨a 
> unified
> > positive and negative force that is nothing but pure gravity itself (the
> > fundamental root of all the other strong and electroweak forces, including 
> different
> > levels of electromagnetism [with a common electrodynamics] on each level 
> or
> > frequency". Well, in physics gravity split off from the GUT force and then
> > the GUT force split into the Strong force and the Electroweak force which 
> in
> > turn split into the EM force and the Weak force. So gravity is separate 
> from
> > all other forces, not the fundamental root.
> >
> > [LM]
> > Sorry, but in my view, in spite of what may be assumed (which according to
> > Jud doesn't exist) by "physics" ( which also doesn't exist :-) -- Gravity 
> can
> > only be the initial G-force that radiates from the zero-point spinergy in
> > opposite angular directions ( acounting for its attraction and repulsion) 
> and by
> > fractally involving through all the coenergetic fields' frequency-energy
> > phase orders (i.e., different degrees of substantiality) down to the
> > quantum-metric space time continuum, where the electroweak and strong 
> forces take over
> > -- is the force that not only holds them all together, but also accounts 
> for
> > their attraction to each other and to their central zero-points due to its
> > opposite polarity.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > ï¿Å¨
> > So you have your physics all mixed up. Actually it's just your semantics. 
> To
> > make things worse you introduce unknown semantics like "energy phase order
> > of the coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic fields. "
> >
> > [LM]
> > Admittedly.ï¿Å¨ But, how else would you describe a dynamicï¿Å¨ property of 
> a
> > phenomenal field that physics doesn't even recognize as existing, and 
> which has a
> > frequency-energy spectrum at least one order higher or lower than its
> > adjacent polar fields?ï¿Å¨ Wouldn't you call each such field a different 
> phase of
> > fundamental space?ï¿Å¨ Wouldn't those fractally involved fields, being 
> inside each
> > other in the same overall space be considered "coadunate"?ï¿Å¨ And, 
> wouldn't their
> > differences in frequency energy phase order make them "not 
> consubstantial"?ï¿Å¨
> > Besides those quotes (n context) being attributed to Blavatsky, how 
> specific
> > do I have to get.
> > ï¿Å¨
> >
> > So I do not argue with your inspiration. I argue with what you do with it.
> > You make unjustified claims and incorrect identifications with known 
> physics.
> > For example, a spherical field cannot be empty. So work on that particular
> > inspiration to determine if its truly spherical or empty.
> >
> > [LM]
> > I never said the field was empty (especially, since all such fields have
> > fields within fields within fields, etc. -- within them).ï¿Å¨ What I did 
> say was
> > that the zero-point centers of those fields are empty (of energy or 
> form)...ï¿Å¨
> > Since, such energy is entirely separate from it in its surrounding 
> spinergy or
> > G-force -- which is pure nonlinear abstract motion that doesn't become
> > actualized into the linear motion of coenergetic fields until it initially
> > radiates into analogous, fractally involved coenergetic fields.ï¿Å¨ I hope 
> that clears
> > up my weird semantics a bit. :-)
> >
> > ï¿Å¨
> > You can no longer say that no one has ever found a flaw in your logic. I
> > think your logic is quite flawed. And it is certainly not based on 
> Blavatsky.
> >
> > [LM]
> > That's just hand waving.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > Well, I challenge you to find a missing link of cause and effect or a 
> false
> > syllogism, and point it or them out.ï¿Å¨ Maybe you will be the first one 
> to find
> > such a flaw, which might help me revise the theory if I have to.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > As for Blavatsky... She outlined the entire metaphysics underlying
> > Einstein's theories that inspired me to find a scientific correlation that 
> would be
> > consistent with all proven aspects of modern relativity, QED, QFT, string,
> > holographic paradigm, multiverse, and other currently isolated theories of 
> modern
> > and post modern science -- and that would link them all with the 
> zero-point
> > of pure consciousness.ï¿Å¨ï¿Å¨ So far, none of them, separately, have come 
> even
> > close.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > So, unless you have readï¿Å¨ the Secret Doctrine from cover to cover and
> > studied it for as many years as I have, and compared it with the Book of 
> Dzyan, the
> > Vedas, the I-Ching, and the world of Hermes, and many other ancient occult
> > philosophers, not to mention the modern scientists such as Einstein, 
> Millikan,
> > Bohm, Pauli, Iskakov, and others who appear to have used such metaphysics 
> as
> > the basis of their visionary ideas, you could never know whether or not 
> the
> > ABC theory is based on Blavatsky -- whose writings accurately reflect 
> those
> > ancient masters who were close enough to the beginning to know how the 
> triple
> > headed Universe of consciousness, mind and matter really works.ï¿Å¨
> >
> > But until an experiment can be derive that will scientifically prove the 
> ABC
> > model is the overall basis of a final GUTOE, I suppose we'll just have to
> > consider it another philosophical speculation, and I'll have to contend 
> with
> > continued disbelief and arbitrary denials based on irrelevant scientific
> > theories that, themselves, in any combination, can't answer the questions 
> with
> 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]