Aurino,

>>>"Considering your persistence with Harv... the statement above sounds puzzling." "...the fact is no one here is more knowledgeable about the subject, except perhaps yourself."

Thank you.

The ideas Stafford claims to have proven are not much newer than philosophy itself, and not everyone seems to be aware of this. Importantly, it's probably instinctive to convert the "eureka!" moment of one's first genuine appreciation of a philosophical stance into a strong allegiance to whomever introduced him or her to said philosophy... especially when that 'whomever' attaches a bunch of numbers and screams "looky what I discovered!"

Harv and I had gotten into a discussion of this very philosophy in our last few threads, but he's stepped away for awhile.

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/18949.shtml?base=60

"I think... some readers might fuse their realization of the meaning of the philosophical position itself with Stafford's work, and come away with the mistaken notion that the philosophical stance is Stafford's own idea" etc.

Circumstantial evidence is not always the weakest argument, especially when no objective expert will validate the "direct" evidence. One does not need to be a mathematician to see that everything -- except for Dick's own horn blowing and the occasional anonymous supporter -- indicates Stafford is a farce.

Yanniru kicked his a$$, plain and simple. Stafford stepped away for awhile to modify his "theory" into something that will better respond to Yanniru's criticism. He's probably been "regrouping" like this for forty years.

-LH

• I do not agree at all...not even close - kantolfir2 - July 11, 2002 - 06:00 UTC
• Feynman on philosophers - aurino - July 12, 2002 - 14:00 UTC