A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, what a fraud you are. Amazing that you think your puny intelligence, when you haven't even read the chapter, gives you the right to be so disrespectful. You are no different than NA was. Bait and switch. I could care less what you think of me, you will not have the last word. I refuse to answer any of your posts from here on in, so don't even try to talk to me. You are despicable for faking interest only to attack my character when you couldn't get it, as if your intelligence is the end all. You suck.

LOL, what a fit throwing infant you are peacegirl. He asked you honest questions in good faith, you respond with non-sequiturs and dishonest weasels and he got sick of it and disengaged.

I really wish I could help you get millions of people to read the book, because many of them would have questions that you can't answer and I wonder if you would blow up at all of them too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, what a fit throwing infant you are peacegirl. He asked you honest questions in good faith, you respond with non-sequiturs and dishonest weasels and he got sick of it and disengaged.

And I answered every one of his posts. That's not even the point. I don't deserve to be suddenly attacked as if his knowledge on this matter is the last word. This is total arrogance. He was just waiting for me not to answer his questions in the way that he expected, so he concluded wrongly. He thought that he was justified in calling me a dingbat. Don't you see how premature this is? Regardless of whether he thought I was right or wrong, no one deserves to be treated this way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I really wish I could help you get millions of people to read the book, because many of them would have questions that you can't answer and I wonder if you would blow up at all of them too.

I would not blow up at anyone as long as it's a respectful conversation. As far as me being the only one responsible for enlightening people to this mistaken idea, I can't be. I hope that true investigators will take the lead. I'm not going to be here forever, and I don't want to be in this position (I have other things in life I want to do). I am just a messenger. You can take it or leave it, but let me make something crystal clear. Whether this knowledge is brought to light now, or 100 years from now, the truth will eventually reveal itself. When people look back they will see the bias, which I could not penetrate for the life of me. People thought they were being objective but they weren't. I can't blame them; man's will is not free.

As far as telling me, after being accused unfairly, of being a fit throwing infant, is totally out of line LadyShea. It's plain old bullying. It's normal to want to strike back at someone who is striking you first, remember? No one here has a deep understanding of this model coming from the position you all grew up with. I see this so clearly. It's understandable, based on your background, that you put all your faith in the claims of science, but it doesn't make your position any more correct. You have failed to understand why the image, in the efferent account, does not get reflected, although light travels. So when Spacemonkey keeps asking me about the location of the photons as if somehow this model violates the laws of physics, he just shows me how little he understands, even though he thinks he does and is quite verbal about his misgivings. The only difference between Spacemonkey and Entreri is that he has never disrespected me in quite the way that Entreri has done in one single post. Like I said, this guy reminds of NA when he suddenly switched from asking questions to being on the warpath. It never stopped. That is exactly why I have no interest in ever responding to Entreri again. He totally blew it.

[LadyShea]

I would not blow up at anyone as long as it's a respectful conversation, but I hope to let go of being responsible for sharing this information.

You are going to get disrespect if you can't address simple questions without being dishonest. Artemis started out respectfully, you responded to him disrespectfully (because that's what weaseling is). You are your own problem.

I hope that true investigators will take the lead.

Seeing as how you can't even get one person to accept that Lessans was anything but a kook with a manifesto, I don't see that happening. But good luck with that!

[LadyShea]

You have failed to understand why the image, in the efferent account, does not get reflected, although light travels.

We already understand that images do not get reflected, and nobody ever said that images get reflected in the first place! Why are you trying to get us to "understand" that something doesn't happen when nobody ever though it did happen?

[LadyShea]

And I answered every one of his posts

You responded to them with your weaseling and non-sequiturs, but you didn't answer any of his questions

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He thought that he was justified in calling me a dingbat

You act like a dingbat You weasel away so hard it makes you look like you can't comprehend simple questions in plain English.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are going to get disrespect if you can't address simple questions without being dishonest. Artemis started out respectfully, you responded to him disrespectfully (because that's what weaseling is). You are your own problem.

Seeing as how you can't even get one person to accept that Lessans was anything but a kook with a manifesto, I don't see that happening. But good luck with that!

I really don't care at this point what he thinks. People who are respectful don't suddenly become disrespectful, as if he created a phony time limit that I have to abide by, or else. Who the hell is he? He's no one special; he's just someone who is in the same groove as all of you are believing he is actually being objective. I don't need that kind of person attacking me on a dime. If this is typical of the people who are listening in, I don't want it. It's a total waste of my time and I'm not willing to put myself in a position that puts me on the defensive and makes me feel sick. This is not what I want for my life even though I have three GENUINE discoveries in my possession.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You act like a dingbat You weasel away so hard it makes you look like you can't comprehend simple questions in plain English.

LadyShea, I've had enough of you too. I have never called you names or even hinted that you are a dingbat or any other name for that matter. You think someone who knows nothing about this discovery and how Lessans came to his conclusions (he didn't even read the chapter), has anything of value to say? You know as little as he does, but having another participant agreeing with you obviously gives you a false sense of confidence. That's what people do when they aren't sure; they elicit other people to prop them up.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I've had enough of you too. I have never called you names

You have insulted me in various ways since day one, so you are free to fuck off with that innocent victim bullshit.

[LadyShea]

It's a total waste of my time and I'm not willing to put myself in a position that puts me on the defensive and makes me feel sick. This is not what I want for my life even though I have three GENUINE discoveries in my possession.

You've put yourself in that position for years, and keep coming back!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you grasp this concept more fully, you, Spacemonkey, LadyShea, Dragar, Angakuk, thedoc, Davidm and others will think it's magic when it is anything but.

It sure sounds like magic, because you don't explain it more fully. You don't explain anything. You can't even explain how mirrors work - you explained it using light, which isn't (according to you) how we see. Why should reflected light from a mirror change what we see? Silence from you.

Why don't you explain what you mean, rather than spewing out meaningless phrases like 'reflected image' and 'optical range' and 'distance is irrelevant' - perfectly good phrases that mean something completely different to the way you are apparently using them.

And I think it is magic, because you can't explain it more fully. That's why you can't explain how mirrors work in your own daft concepts, instead referring back to our explanation - not yours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We already understand that images do not get reflected, and nobody ever said that images get reflected in the first place! Why are you trying to get us to "understand" that something doesn't happen when nobody ever though it did happen?

Come on LadyShea, own up. Will the real weasel please stand up? Telling me that nobody ever said images get reflected is playing semantic games with me. You know exactly what I mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It sure sounds like magic, because you don't explain it more fully. You don't explain anything. You can't even explain how mirrors work - you explained it using light, which isn't (according to you) how we see. Why should reflected light from a mirror change what we see? Silence from you.

Why don't you explain what you mean, rather than spewing out meaningless phrases like 'reflected image' and 'optical range' and 'distance is irrelevant' - perfectly good phrases that mean something completely different to the way you are apparently using them.

And I think it is magic, because you can't explain it more fully. That's why you can't explain how mirrors work in your own daft concepts, instead referring back to our explanation - not yours.

Look here, you, along with everyone else, has taken the attitude that Lessans was a crackpot. That immediately puts me at a disadvantage because you are not being objective. You cannot expect to understand my explanation if you keep judging this knowledge on the basis of what you have been taught. This has everything to do with what has been accepted as fact by science. I gave the explanation of how mirrors work as if this somehow disproves his claim. Light travels, so the reflection of light doesn't negate or disprove this phenomenon at all, yet you think it does. You said I should refer back to your definition. I cannot refer back to a definition that isn't useful, or doesn't even make sense in light of this new knowledge. It would be like putting a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work. This in no way indicates his observations were flawed. These are not daft concepts Dragar. Just remember that Gregor Mendel was rejected by the leading authority of his time because he believed the very core of his findings were flawed. He was wrong, as history recorded, and so are you.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look Dragar, you, along with everyone else, has taken the attitude that Lessans was a crackpot. That immediately puts me at a disadvantage because you are not being objective.

Of course I'm being objective. I objectively believe he was a crackpot.

You cannot expect to understand my explanation if you keep judging this knowledge on the basis of what you have been taught.

You told me that you haven't changed anything about the rules of physics. I'm judging it based on that. Are you now saying that your silly theory does change the rules of physics?

Light travels, so the reflection of light doesn't negate or disprove this phenomenon at all, yet you think it does.

I didn't say that. I said that your explanation makes no sense in the context of your own silly ideas about vision. Why should light reflecting from a mirror change how we see? There's no reason for it to...unless you believe that light striking the retina is precisely what seeing is. But you don't believe that. So your explanation (our explanation!) makes no sense.

So how do mirrors work?

Just remember that Gregor Mendel was rejected by the leading authority because he believed the very core of his findings were flawed. He was wrong though, and so are you.

Remember that timecube guy was rejected by the internet because everyone thought the core of his website was flawed! He was a crackpot, and so are you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have insulted me in various ways since day one, so you are free to fuck off with that innocent victim bullshit.

Saying I act like a dingbat is just as bad as saying I am a dingbat LadyShea. I know I am free to leave, but before I do I will express my perception of what I've been up against. I have been the recipient of many false accusations of lying and dishonesty. I do not have a victim mentality or I would have been long gone. The name calling and the false accusations have been tough, but I remained. This has only given me more determination to get this knowledge into the right hands. I came back because I wasn't sure how to go about marketing on a shoestring budget, and I still don't. The .pdf file that I was going to put online needs to be encrypted so it's going to involve more work. Even though this has felt like wasted time, there is always something to be gained by every experience, online or off, even if it's to know what not to do in the future.

[davidm]

:dingbat:



dingbat smilie needed ITT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course I'm being objective. I objectively believe he was a crackpot.

You told me that you haven't changed anything about the rules of physics. I'm judging it based on that. Are you now saying that your silly theory does change the rules of physics?

I didn't say that. I said that your explanation makes no sense in the context of your own silly ideas about vision. Why should light reflecting from a mirror change how we see? There's no reason for it to...unless you believe that light striking the retina is precisely what seeing is. But you don't believe that. So your explanation (our explanation!) makes no sense.

So how do mirrors work?

Remember that timecube guy was rejected by the internet because everyone thought the core of his website was flawed! He was a crackpot, and so are you!

Do you really think I'm going to argue with you Dragar? I did not say that light being reflected from a mirror changes how we see. In fact, I said that light always strikes the retina, but the mirror example doesn't give us further clues as to what is really going on. I don't think you even understood the difference between light being a condition of sight, and light being a cause of sight, nor do I think you understood why the properties of light don't change, just the function because light serves to reveal the external world, not reflect it by bringing the external world to our eyes through space and time. This is 100% fallacious. I know you don't agree, but it's really okay. I'm not depending on you for validation of these difficult concepts. Vindication for my father will come in God's timing. I am at peace.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have insulted me in various ways since day one, so you are free to fuck off with that innocent victim bullshit.

What you call insults doesn't even meet the definition. Don't even compare my defensiveness to the name calling that I've been dealt. And for what? What did I do to deserve this ridicule other than the fact that people, thinking he was wrong, gave them the justification to laugh and belittle me? Any kind of discrimination on the basis of what a person knows, his race, his religion, his gender preference, doesn't belong in any serious conversation. Where does this discrimination differ from blacks being called the N word except in scope? Because you don't think people are as smart as you, or they don't think as scientifically as you, gives you this right? Laughing at others people's ideas puts you on a false pedestal of superiority which obviously gives you a high until it wears off upon which time you need another hit of adulation. Sorry, but I need to vent. I also believe in free thought LadyShea, but the way this forum is run prevents that very thing. This thread has become lulz, I know that. It is being used for entertainment purposes only, so I think I'm going to bow out. You will have evolved in a major way when you no longer need to put others down (regardless of whether they're wrong or right about their ideas) in order to feel good about yourself. I'm not just pointing the finger at you; others in here have been a lot worse.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I didn't say that. I said that your explanation makes no sense in the context of your own silly ideas about vision. Why should light reflecting from a mirror change how we see? There's no reason for it to...unless you believe that light striking the retina is precisely what seeing is. But you don't believe that. So your explanation (our explanation!) makes no sense.

It's probably worth noting, again, fwiw, that she has changed her position on this. It is Lessans who believed that light did not need to strike the retina: That's precisely why he argued, inanely of course, that the eye was not a sense organ. He said that if the sun were turned on at noon people on earth would see it instantly, because they would see the photons at the sun, not on the retina. Then, the great genius averred, we would not be able to see our neighbor for some eight minutes until the photons from the sun were at the neighbor. He believed that the photons needed to be only at a location, in order for the eyes to see those photons from a different location. He specifically said that nothing impinged upon the eye. Peacegirl later went in and edited the Lessans next to write nothing impinged upon the eye, other than light. But we already proved that was her own dishonest insertion, from having had access to earlier versions of the text in which the clause "other than light" did not appear. In just the same way she changed Lessans' idiotic "molecules" of light to "photons."

The upshot, as I've explained, is that peacegirl is now arguing a "model" (lol) that is different from Lessans' "model." (lol). Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

Peacegirl, who is a grown woman, is probably the only person above age 3 on planet earth who has never understood how a mirror works. It is plain from her response to this question that she googled up the answer and copy-pasted it. It never occurred to her to check out whether the standard explanation of how a mirror works lines up with either her "model" (lol) or Lessans' "model." (lol) It doesn't, of course. Her googled-up explanation of how a mirror works comports with our (correct) definition of light and sight, and contradicts both her father's lolmodel and her own separate lolmodel.

Her biggest problem is that her new lolmodel, which differs from her father's lolmodel, instantiates a logical contradiction. Lessans' lolmodel, while empirically wrong, and void of any explanatory mechanism even in the hypothetical case that it might be right, was not actually logically contradictory. Peacegirl's lolmodel IS logically contradictory.

She is saying that the light is instantly at the retina even though it takes light eight minutes to get there after the sun is turned on at noon!

This is a logical contradiction, plain and simple, and therefore CANNOT be correct. It's a priori false. It is like saying there are married bachelors or square circles.

What makes her so contemptible, of course, is that she MUST know this. But she doesn't care. She just soldiers on dishonestly spouting logically contradictory nonsense because … who knows why? One thing we know about her is she can NEVER admit even the tiniest error, so when she paints herself into a corner defending a logically contradictory claim, why, that claim must be right anyway, contra the laws of logic, because peacegirl is infallible!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you really think I'm going to argue with you Dragar? I did not say that light being reflected from a mirror changes how we see. In fact, I said that light always strikes the retina, but the mirror example doesn't give us further clues as to what is really going on.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking you to explain: how do mirrors work? Don't explain it with light and angles and images, because that's not how we see according to you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's probably worth noting, again, fwiw, that she has changed her position on this. It is Lessans who believed that light did not need to strike the retina: That's precisely why he argued, inanely of course, that the eye was not a sense organ. He said that if the sun were turned on at noon people on earth would see it instantly, because they would see the photons at the sun, not on the retina. Then, the great genius averred, we would not be able to see our neighbor for some eight minutes until the photons from the sun were at the neighbor. He believed that the photons needed to be only at a location, in order for the eyes to see those photons from a different location.

No David, you're 100% wrong. He never implied that the light wouldn't be at the retina, but you don't get the concept at all, not even a little bit, so you conclude that this is what he meant.

Originally Posted by davidm

He specifically said that nothing impinged upon the eye. Peacegirl later went in and edited the Lessans next to write nothing impinged upon the eye, other than light. But we already proved that was her own dishonest insertion, from having had access to earlier versions of the text in which the clause "other than light" did not appear. In just the same way she changed Lessans' idiotic "molecules" of light to "photons."

I explained to you (have you forgotten already?) that this was in one of his books. I'm sure he didn't feel the need to include this in every book because it's obvious that light has to strike the retina. But because light hasn't reached Earth, you falsely conclude there is a gap from A to B, which is the very model of sight he is disputing. You have no more understood his explanation than the man in the moon. As far as the word "molecules", everyone knows he was not a physicist; that's not how he came to his accurate conclusions. Why has it taken so long? Because no one in the field could have seen this. For you to keep condemning him because of this one word shows how desperate you are to discredit him in any you can.

Originally Posted by davidm

The upshot, as I've explained, is that peacegirl is now arguing a "model" (lol) that is different from Lessans' "model." (lol). Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

You are wrong David. This is totally fabricated. This is exactly the kind of thing I've had to deal with since day one.

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, who is a grown woman, is probably the only person above age 3 on planet earth who has never understood how a mirror works. It is plain from her response to this question that she googled up the answer and copy-pasted it. It never occurred to her to check out whether the standard explanation of how a mirror works lines up with either her "model" (lol) or Lessans' "model." (lol) It doesn't, of course. Her googled-up explanation of how a mirror works comports with our (correct) definition of light and sight, and contradicts both her father's lolmodel and her own separate lolmodel.

Of course it lines up David because light strikes the eye, but the mirror example doesn't prove the direction we see; it's a logical conclusion that light strikes the eye (which it does), enters the brain through the optic nerve, which is then decoded into normal sight. This theory has graduated into fact which is why there is such a backlash. In fact, the mirror example actually meets the requirements of efferent vision. The object is present and the viewer is present. It's a closed system. Photons travel, I've never denied that, but the image does not. If a mirror was out in space and we were able to see the Sun's reflection in the mirror, we would be looking at the image of the Sun in real time. Going back to the previous example, if the objects in the room suddenly disappeared, we would get no image in the mirror. Why? Because we do not get an image from light alone. Please don't tell me its because the light is traveling too fast. That makes no sense at all. To repeat: just because a mirror reflects light doesn't prove that the eyes are a sense organ. He needed to give the Sun example in order to distinguish between the afferent and efferent accounts in relation to what we think we're seeing.

Originally Posted by davidm

Her biggest problem is that her new lolmodel, which differs from her father's lolmodel, instantiates a logical contradiction. Lessans' lolmodel, while empirically wrong, and void of any explanatory mechanism even in the hypothetical case that it might be right, was not actually logically contradictory. Peacegirl's lolmodel IS logically contradictory.

You are well aware that if Lessans believed that photons don't strike the eye, he would be looked at like a crackpot, which you're making him out to be for your own insecure reasons. He never said that, and we were never offering contradictory explanations.

Originally Posted by davidm

She is saying that the light is instantly at the retina even though it takes light eight minutes to get there after the sun is turned on at noon!

The light IS at the eye not because the properties of light have changed; but because the function has changed. That means light is at the retina because the visual landscape that we're viewing is a mirror image of what we're seeing. The light is revealing the external world; it is not reflecting the partial spectrum. You will never be able to understand the mechanism if you keep thinking in terms of traveling photons having to reach Earth. You have completely failed to grasp any of this. You are stuck in a big fat groove which keeps repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating like a broken record.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is a logical contradiction, plain and simple, and therefore CANNOT be correct. It's a priori false. It is like saying there are married bachelors or square circles.

No logical contradictions here. Unfortunately for you, you will have to reevaluate your worldview and make adjustments in order to avoid cognitive/dissonance once this knowledge is validated by science. I know this irks you to no end.

Originally Posted by davidm

What makes her so contemptible, of course, is that she MUST know this. But she doesn't care. She just soldiers on dishonestly spouting logically contradictory nonsense because … who knows why? One thing we know about her is she can NEVER admit even the tiniest error, so when she paints herself into a corner defending a logically contradictory claim, why, that claim must be right anyway, contra the laws of logic, because peacegirl is infallible!

That's not true either. People, David is the poster child of what I've been up against. He is an imposter. He is making stuff up just so he can look squeaky clean. Talk about dishonesty. David is no different than a clever prosecutor. There is nothing contradictory between what my father said and what I have said. I have not painted myself into a corner. Maybe someone will come along in the future and be able to explain this better than I could. P. S. One day I will upload where it says, other than light, in his book "View From The Mountain Top." And once again I will be vindicated.

[Artemis Entreri]

I want to apologize, not to peacegirl, but to ladyshea and the others posting on this thread.
I'm sorry throwing any fuel, however small, on PG's victim mentality and giving her something to destract from actually answering questions. I should have known she'd blow up like.

Hopefully, she actually did put me on ignore and wont use this post to further distract.
Sorry about that guys.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, the photons bouncing off the mirror meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Why do photons bouncing off a mirror meet the requirements, and not bouncing off an ordinary wall?

Why are the requirements what they are at all? It seems the requirements are just things you have picked to match the way things would be if we see how we say - via light. We can work that out - we can explain why mirrors work. You can't. It doesn't matter if Lessans is wrong - his ideas are useless.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Come on LadyShea, own up. Will the real weasel please stand up? Telling me that nobody ever said images get reflected is playing semantic games with me. You know exactly what I mean.

Actually I don't know what you mean, because you keep resorting back to reflected/traveling images no matter how many times you are corrected, which indicates you don't understand our position. It's not semantics at all, your phrasing changes the meaning of the claims of standard model of sight into something else entirely...something silly that nobody believes. That is a strawman.

One more time for the record, our actual position is that light is reflected. That's it. It's very simple...not complex or anything, so why do you refuse to use this simple phrase? Weren't you just complaining about making things too complex when I called you childlike? Why are you adding unnecessary ideas about images and information to the simplicity of light reflecting?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying I act like a dingbat is just as bad as saying I am a dingbat LadyShea.

If the shoe fits

I know I am free to leave, but before I do I will express my perception of what I've been up against.

Like you're leaving at all.

I have been the recipient of many false accusations of lying and dishonesty.

No you haven't, you are being dishonest right now by even saying so. Multiple flip flops, lies, and many, many, many dishonest weasels have been exposed.

I do not have a victim mentality or I would have been long gone.

You thrive on victimhood, that's what a martyr complex is.

The name calling and the false accusations have been tough, but I remained.

Yes, you have, Brave Soldier

This has only given me more determination to get this knowledge into the right hands.

:chemofist:

I came back because I wasn't sure how to go about marketing on a shoestring budget, and I still don't.

Yep, marketing is difficult. A true grassroots effort would start with your immediate family and frineds, but you don't want to go there

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not arguing, I'm asking you to explain: how do mirrors work? Don't explain it with light and angles and images, because that's not how we see according to you!

I already explained this. Light travels from the object to the mirror which then bounces off and strikes the eye. This has caused much of the confusion because you cannot analyze it this way. That's why no one has figured this out in the field of physics. Although it's a logical conclusion, it's wrong.