…Because George Noory is a moron deceiver.
George Noory, makin’ money off the dead
George Noory boasted that his goal, is, “to solve the mysteries of our time.” I don’t think so. Tonight (11/10/2011) and this morning, this evil moron is once again indulging his hankering for time travel babble. He is letting an idiot waste the world’s time with disgustingly stupid childish lies about time travel with Barrack Obama. Stupid. So stupid. But, George is getting paid, and perhaps the time travelling liar is too, so what do they care? And did anyone hear how this Andrew D. Basiago’s explanation as to why children were used and that absurd holographic nonsense? Or how about how he and his team had to avoid “the predators on Mars”… AT AGE FOUR. OR IS IT AGE FIVE? Oh wait, he was repairing tv’s at age for and it’ was at age 19 that he was sent up to Mars, I see now. Did you know he was even given a suicide pill in case he was cornered by the predators, but, NOT A GUN? Not an adrenaline shot? Not a grenade? How stupid!!! I wonder if Andrew is a skeptic who later plans on exposing George as a gullible moron. Update: Major Ed Dames (another delusional liar) was called by George during the show, because Andrew claimed the Ed was his teacher for the Mars colonization project, or um, was it the time travel one. But so George asked, and Ed said that Andrew was delusional and to stop emailing him and to go start a cult or something, oh but Ed said he did distinctly remember seeing ELVIS, yes ELVIS and Lady Gaga at his um, ok I missed that part but if he saw them both together there must have been some time travel thing going on. So this is what George Noory the Universalist Catholic wants us all to spend our time listening to. Awesomely dumb crazy people who get to plug their stupid websites or books to millions of people, and drain these gullible idiots of their money. So this is George’s concern for the poor and the economy and this is his way of making people smile. Sick.
But about yesterday night, (11/09/2011). So I’m listening to radio show host George Noory taking a call from a beautiful-voiced woman named Michelle telling her story about how someone unknown recorded a video using her cellphone of some being looking at her and her kids and hieroglyphics appearing on the video… does he ask her to send the video in or to upload it to YouTube and give the address? Nope, he instead lets the idiot guest comment on it who says, it may have to do with her past life and possibly menstruation and that she should have the video analyzed. I am so tempted to cuss these guys out. I wish I could throw something hard at their heads. George claims his mission in life is “to solve the mysteries” of our time, but how is he solving it when he repeatedly doesn’t bother investigating interesting stories like that hieroglyphics one with a supposed video, tangible evidence? And he always shows a flippant interest in such stories. Remember that time he said he was on vacation and in a taxi and the driver seemed so nervous that he feared he was about to be kidnapped, so left? Maybe there was a plot by Mexican drug lords who hated his show so much they were plotting to do the world a favor by getting rid of his ass. Why does he show more interest in things that can’t be verified, like the John Titor time travel (hoax)? Why is that more interesting to him? It reminds me of this time on his show he was asking some guest, I think George Tsoukalous, if he’d like to know everything, to know enough so there’d no longer be any mysteries, and George gave his opinion that he wouldn’t want that because then he’d be bored. Perhaps because of that insane attitude he doesn’t bother to follow any leads, but is content to let others do that and only have them on once and a while. Perhaps that’s why he’s content to sit and speculate wildly rather than use his own wealth to go to some mystery site and do a video/radio show. That’s what being “positive” and “open minded” gets you: laziness, chaos and insanity. My throat is sore over how sickening George is, and it’s very rare my throat gets sore.
On the “NDEs & Open Lines” September 2, 2011 edition of Coast to Coast AM, after Noory interviewed Kathy Baker, he had open lines and spoke with a Mormon grandmother(?) who told him a detailed story. Her story added to the evidence for my claim that demons pretend to be angels and dead humans to fool people into thinking that the Bible (and the religion of fundamentalist Christians that is based on it) are wrong, in other words that you can get to Heaven without needing forgiveness. She told a story about a 5 year old boy whom she took care of who had a mom he hated. I think it was his grandmother. She said one day he said to her that he wanted to die and to make a long story short missed Jesus and wanted to be with him. And the next day said he could travel through time and space and one day found him in a perfect lotus position, and said that angels taught him how to do that. She said that amazed her because she was a Mormon and thought that only her religion was true. That was a stupid statement because simply sitting in a lotus position doesn’t mean there is more than one true religion, it’s just a way of sitting. It’s ironic too since logically she should have seen it as verification of her religion since unlike traditional Christianity, her false version (Mormonism) teaches we are with Jesus before we are born. But Mormons are stupid when it comes to evidence and logic, so no surprise there. It’s also not surprising she was duped into believing whatever it is those demons bothering the kid wanted them to believe, because the Mormon religion is based on a narcissist named Joseph Smith who supposedly received a revelation/having a vision from an angel or angels (and Joseph Smith kept changing his “first vision” story by the way, despite what most Mormon’s claim) or instead God and Jesus who gave Joseph a new gospel, that being that “none of [the churches] are true.” Gospel means “good news” if you don’t know. Great gospel huh? Instead of, “Good news, Jesus suffered and died for sinners making possible their ability to live in peace forever if they repent,” it’s, “You’re all wrong cuz I had a vision no one else saw, and I’ll not tell you why till nine years have gone by while I make my own more exciting Bible to show why you’re all wrong.” So, from the day the the 5 year old said he wanted to die, he got hit by a car 2 weeks later and died in a car “accident”. I suspect rather it was a demon or demons that caused it, he had been trying ever since he said that to kill the boy and possibly get the grandmother, mom and 16 year old guy who hit him, to all commit suicide.
George also let on an idiot called J.C. I think after the Mormon’s woman was on. J.C. is an annoying fool who has been on more than four times, and each time pretends to be a fundamentalist southern Baptist Christian as best I can tell. George said of him that he “cracks me up”. He decided to let J.C. give his usual rants and to do something “different” this time, and let him speak to other guests. The first caller that comes on at that point is a man who wanted to talk about his dead sister and clearly didn’t want to talk to J.C. So what does George do after J.C. trounces on the other caller? Allowed J.C. to move on to another caller while putting the other caller on hold… How about put J.C. the idiot on hold till that caller got to tell his story? Two other calls also didn’t want to talk to J.C. out of three and George finally got rid of J.C. What a fool. Ironically George had asked J.C. if he believed in ghosts, and J.C. said of course and that they were bad spirits. Interestingly he didn’t say they were demons, but implied that they were dead humans who didn’t qualify to get to Heaven. He also seemed to indicate that he had a conscience without saying it when he pointed out that he would seem like a jerk to people listening when the first caller was someone who wanted to talk about his dead sister, which J.C. didn’t realize when joking with him. A person without a conscience wouldn’t have shown concern. So, I don’t think J.C. was “anti-social”. But, that comment about ghosts not being demons, that is unlike a fundamentalist Christian, since F.C.’s believe ghosts are demons pretending to be humans. On top of his usual poor imitation of them, that comment about ghosts he made is evidence to me that he has little knowledge of F.C.s, even if he used to attend some F.C. church. If he did, he must not have paid much attention. His stereotype is very narrow and seems outdated. For example he was saying that he was rescuing some woman from “rock n’ roll” music, which is something unheard of to me. At best a parent will just try and prevent their kid from listening to it, not try to “rescue” them from it. And not many Christians in my experience are against it. The only ones I knew of who were are the ones who follow the narcissist pseudo-Christian Bill Gothard and “orthodox” Presbyterians, not all of whom are against it, but who just have a problem with the lyrics or it not being a style of music that fits their usual moods, just like most people don’t listen to death metal, because it doesn’t fit their usual moods either.
I noticed that George seemed about to say that the angels the 5 year old had seen, might be demons, but him not being the type to offend, especially since the 5 year old died and the grandmother distraught, didn’t say that, but just, with a contrived tone, pretended they were angels coming to take him away. What was interesting is that when J.C. came on, my perception seemed right, since it seemed he was hinting at what he was actually thinking concerning the previous call, was that those angels were demons, because he asked J.C. what he thought of ghosts. That may seem like a stretch, but the grandmother had just gotten off and might have been listening, and if he said, “What do you think of those angels the five year old saw actually being demons trying to send him to Hell?” might have gotten the grandmother to cry more and upset a large number of listeners.
I wonder if George, who claims to be a Catholic, but who is more like a pseudo-Catholic, ever thinks about this verses in the Bible:
“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” – Paul
“Man shall not live by bread alone, by by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” – Jesus
For the second time this week I’ve heard the logical fallacy that the (US) government has no secrets because it’s not good at keeping secrets. If that isn’t circular reasoning than what is? I just heard it repeated again on Coast to Coast AM by Ronald L. Mallett. The show edition is described by the Coast site as,
Host: George Noory
Guests: Ronald L. Mallett, Lauren Weinstein
Physics Professor Ronald Mallett will discuss his breakthrough research on time travel, as well as share an update on the latest in theoretical physics.
Ronald was responding to a caller who asked if the government was hiding a secret program on time travel. Ronald then immediately contradicted himself by saying, “Whatever the human mind can think of, it can and will achieve.” In other words: “IF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONCEIVES OF A WAY TO KEEP SECRETS THEN IT WILL SUCCESSFULLY DO SO.” So, once again, a non-Christian, a Mainstreamer Cultist severely contradicts himself in a breath without even realizing it, and if he did realize it, he should have corrected himself, but failed and allowed others to be deceived. Some might ask, “What does that matter?” It matters because it helps people to be gullible and naive that they can believe whatever the government says, which is utter nonsense. The statement that the government is bad at keeping secrets is also nonsensical in that it contradicts itself, because it’s implying to opposite things: that the government can’t do anything in secret, and the opposite: when it does do something in secret it’s exposed right away. That is what people mean but are vague. Vague as in, how long can’t the government keep a secret? Ronald made it clear, “really bad” at it, so, not long. But what is the evidence that the government can’t do so? That’s also a logical fallacy because it’s the same as saying, “I know that the government can’t keep a secret for long because because it can only do so for a short time because it’s bad at keeping secrets” but saying so without evidence. Ronald is claiming he knows all the secrets and therefore knows all the secret departments of the military, all military secrets, that none have been kept for long, like a year? (vague), everything said in secret by every individual apart of the government, including the FBI, CIA and NSA, and that even when they classify something as above top secret and make UFOs more secret than the atomic bomb (which the military stated it did do), that he would know soon. So then, China and every other country with spies in America must know all the secrets of our government, because it has none, or accidentally reveals it soon after. So can Ronald tell us what the secret craft are that the military has? Can he tell us what happened at Area 51 for the past 40 years? Can he tell us what crashed at Roswell?: Which story out of three conflicting ones that the military gave is correct? What are the names of the many Area 51 workers that are flown and bussed in to Area 51? What are the launch codes for all the nuclear missiles of the USA and what are the names of the ones who possess the launch keys? Ronald’s claim is also logically fallacious and arrogant in another way: he’s negating that any non-government person, no citizen, can find out about the secrets, and only the government and military would in their incompetence or by accident, or that some spy would reveal it (but not a citizen who is spying on behalf of some government like China). In other words: us stupid citizens are stupid, only government and the military is smart and wise, just not smart and wise enough to keep secrets from us… uh wait, but us stupid citizens can’t find out about their secrets because we’re stupid… and there is yet another contradiction from the Royal Mainstream Scientist Ronald Mallett, wannabe time traveler, who’s motivation for going back in time, according to his self-proclaimed Skeptic self, to see his dad again. Can anyone say “shallow”? How much more needs to be pointed out about the Mainstream cult to show that they are very bad at logic in general, and that also effects their effectiveness in scientific research, and therefore can’t be trusted with their fundamental(ist) claims: There was a Big Bang billions of years ago, we evolved from some simple creatures that were created by lightning hitting chemicals (able to reproduce and think and sense what was around them), and that after billions of years, turned into (super complex and much more intelligent animals and super intelligent) humans, with many characteristics (that can’t be reasonably explained without resorting to God as having designed us), and that aliens can’t get here, because… well one guest evolutionist this or last year, on Coast to Coast AM said because it would be too coincidental. And it would be too coincidental that they showed up during this time of our evolution. But why? If there are trillions of planets with possible life and some aliens evolved to become intelligent much sooner then us, then why wouldn’t there be any chance of “just another planet out of trillions” being visited by some alien out of those trillions? Mainstream scientists truly are confused and forgetful of what they study, ever learning and never able to reach the truth. I think that if they would stop obsessing on money and selfish and shallow desires they wouldn’t be so “scatter-brained” and forgetful.
I’ve also been noticing, that recently (others would probably say often) Noory has been asking really stupid questions. During the show he asked Mallet if the time travel he was working on would be MENTAL or physical. What the Hell kind of question is that? George was asking “is your time travel device going to be metaphysical and use spiritual time travel”, because the mind is a spiritual thing, it’s not material. That’s a fact by the way, you materialists, because awareness for example, which you must have a mind for, is not a physical thing, just as actions and information are not physical things. But Ronald Mallett obviously was not talking about a spiritual device or one that manipulated the mind. I wonder if George prepares questions long before the show starts. It doesn’t seem he does, otherwise his questions wouldn’t be so dumb. But, at least God lets me use them to teach profound, deep and useful things.
There was also something else that Ronald implied which is typical of how Mainstreamers, and which shows how their morality leads to things like the 500+ million people killed by atheists (not all atheists obviously): when he said that humans can achieve anything they can think of, he was answering the same caller I mentioned earlier who brought up a stupid example for his question, which was that Suparman’s dad said that going back in time was forbidden and so asked Ronald if God ever forbade it (how about read the Bible and study religion idiot, and ask a religious person and not a materialist Mainstreamer?). Ronald, besides saying humans could do whatever they wanted to, said that if we weren’t meant to do something, then God wouldn’t allow it. That answer implies that if child molestation happens and anything that is obviously evil, it’s good or permitted by God, because we were able to do it. That besides being evil reasoning, is also a logical fallacy: if you aren’t doing something then it can be said you aren’t meant to do anything that you aren’t doing. So then it’s also contradictory. And Ronald was implying that to know if something is permitted by God, you should do it, and he surely meant that, because he also said in his answer, and I’m paraphrasing this part till I can listen again to what he said, that it was wrong to not learn and progress.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. – Romans 8:28
Late last night and early in the morning I listened like I usually do, to C2C AM and noticed George fumbling his words and making salivary sounds while he read the news, and he sounded a little nervous right after doing so two or three times. It reminded me of two posts made in 2009, one on the demonic site ATS and another called Coast Gab, which asked if he was suffering from dementia. And on the previous show, which I also wrote about, George lost his temper with Hoagland three times, the first when he repeated Hoagland by saying, “email”, the second by scolding Hoagland for talking over Zubrin, the third when he, in a pretentious way, told Zubrin he’d have the opportunity to talk alone.
Wow, George went unprofessional on Richard C. Hoagland a few minutes ago (for glory-hogging, which he always does, and which I had planned on writing about months ago), but it was immature: George should have corrected Richard during the break, not chastised him before millions of people.
On the first part of the show George had on a naive Darwinist, a grand poobah of some kind, who endorsed putting solar panels out in space (talk about “primitive”) to beam energy back on earth instead of using wires. It’s ridiculous because even if you beamed the energy to earth you would need wires to get it around or a another wireless transmission system (which he didn’t bring up). Further, there are better ways to get energy then to put breakable objects up in space that would clutter future space travel if there was any and pollute it with debri as other debri broke the panels into pieces – no one on the show mentioned any cleaning robots to put in space, which would have to go up with the solar panels to protect them and get rid of any debri they left over.
He also thought that to do this “solar beaming” would eliminate wars over oil for energy, which just his ignorance further, as oil isn’t simply used for energy, but is used to make all kinds of products, including lubricants.
Clean nuclear generators are a much better alternative to launching, at the cost of billions of dollars of fuel and electronics, thousands to millions of solar panels or mirrors up into space (unless the U.S. Government outs its antigravity technology, which no doubt to me it will never do).
2:44 A.M. – Oh man: Hoagland apparently got jealous over George making Zubrin “NASA administrator” asking Zubrin if he could finish his answer to George. I was going to say that George “rubbed it in” after chastising Richard after I had first mentioned George chasting Richard, by saying he’d make Zubrin the “NASA administrator with a blank check” after the commercial break, but while I was typing the commercial break past, and George seemed to tone down what I thought he meant at first (which was to let Zubrin talk for a long time), so erased it. But Hoagland brought it up like a little kid to my surprise. Hoagland then brought up some information he had obtain from “an inside source”, but couldn’t find what he wanted to quote, and so George allowed Zubrin to talk, during which Hoagland interrupted to say, “Okay I found it”. Embarassing. At first I thought Hoagland was a narcissist, but now I think he’s just rude and arrogant.
2:49 A.M. – Zubrin just rebuked Hoagland for talking over him, for “talking for a long time”.
A Grand Poo-Bah is a person who holds a number of offices or who exhibits an inflated self-regard. The termis comes from Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado”, which debuted in 1885 and skewered the then-current rage in Britain for all things Japanese. Set in the fictional small Japanese town of Titipu, The Mikado tells the story of Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, Yum-Yum, his fetching ward, and Nanki-Poo, a wandering minstrel who is actually the son of the Mikado (Emperor) in disguise. One of the other characters is Poo-Bah, who holds the exalted offices of Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Buckhounds and Groom of the Back Stairs, as well as the handy catchall post of Lord High Everything Else. Everything Else was such a brilliant summation of the self-important puffery of bureaucracy that “Poo-Bah” and its variant poobah immediately became a popular mocking synonym for someone who believes themself more important than anyone else, especially someone in high office. – Source
At about 3:25, Hoagland debated Zubrin on whether or not Phobos was artificial, and lightly chastised Zubrin for pre-judging whether it was or not and for not being willing to look at the “data” (evidence) for it being artificial, emphasizing that science was about data more than theory (yet Richard accepts the Big Bang-Darwinian evolution Origin of the Universe and Life Theory with ease and so probably considers Biblical creationism to be absurd being that the two teachings are directly opposed).
On March 6, 2010(?), I ended up being wrong about Ian Punnet (one of the hosts of the popular New Age movement promoting show Coast to Coast AM) not cutting off callers in the middle of their stories. He did so recently for no good reason to a man who said he had had a close encounter in the 60′s with aliens and had never told the story to anyone. The man was elderly sounding, but was telling his story just fine, and he wasn’t rambling or ranting and he hadn’t gone on for long. When this man said he saw a control panel in the UFO he was taken into, Ian, rather than letting the man say if anything had been said to him or ask him for more specific details, cut him off with a distressed voice asking, “but do you have a question for the author?” How about letting him finish first? He wasn’t giving a story about how boring it is to fast or how he likes to count his fingers or stare at cows all day; he was giving a very interesting out of the ordinary story of the nearly miraculous kind, and of the kinds of stories that Coast to Coast AM is supposed to be covering. Yet you cut him off, saying that the background echo was driving him crazy (which only Ian could hear – well how about asking him to turn off his radio genius?) just so the author can say, “Oh yes Native Americans have encountered UFOs”. And no: Ian wasn’t up against a commercial break as some of you idiot C2C AM worshipers might think: The next caller gave a boring as Hell story about a UFO; a typical colored-lights-in-the-sky story.
And last night into the early morning, the heretic Catholic George Noory wasted the world’s time with about three hours of babble from a regular numerologist who gives people false hope and dread over something as stupid as when they were born and the numerical value of their names. A problem with numerology of the kind that just occurred to me after writing that previous sentence is that Glynis only, and for no logical reason, focuses on the numbers of certain aspects of a person’s life. What about their zipcode, longitude and latitude location, location with respect to certain buildings, how many blades of grass they are standing on, how many clouds are over head, how many cars nearby, how many times they used the same word, how many times they combed their hair that day, how many hairs on their head they have, how many hairs they lost or cut and on what day, how many molecules their body is made up of, how many pounds a person weighs how many people are nearby or far away, how many teeth they have – why don’t any of those matter in Glynis’ or any numerologists explanations for why good or bad things have or will happen in a person’s life, why is the focus mainly on names and dates?
Notice how this numerologist here doesn’t say a thing about why the numerological value of Donald Trump’s name him more successful in business than others or instead why he had success in specific business ventures, but simply asks a pretentious question or two, like, “Well would you pay attention to him if his name was Don?”
The reason for numerologists disregarding numerological factors is because it is inconvenient for them, would take them forever to analyze the numerical value of all things in the universe and it would be too hard for most of them to make money or get praise by doing such a thing, as most people still have enough sense to realize that such a thing is impossible for man and that only an insane person would spend a long time trying.
If you want your child to have a successful life, take the Bible’s advice and choose a good one, not a weird or odd one that suits your personal fancy. What’s a good one? One that doesn’t mean something evil for one, or that sounds evil, or sounds like a joke. People with strange names (in relation to the culture that they are in) have a higher probability of committing more crimes than the average person: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/study-links-unusual-surnames-to-criminality
Scientific Experiments to Prove or Disprove Numerology and Astrology
Set up an experiment in which people with lucky and unlucky names, birth-dates and address numbers are given an equal challenge to find hidden money or something valuable of some sort, which if they can find may keep. Perform the experiment in one place with a lucky address on the same the lucky day and hour. Make sure that each of the participants fell asleep at a lucky hour and woke up eight or nine hours later on a lucky hour before on the day of the experiment, but before performing the experiment (so that everyone is well-rested and didn’t “jinx” themselves by falling asleep and awakening on unlucky hours). Make sure that all your participants are of about equal intelligence. Another thing to make sure of is that what you’ve hidden can be found without taking forever, other wise the experiment may take forever or you may not be able to complete enough of them, especially if the participants have a job to get to on that day or must take care of their family.
Make sure you that have many participants so that you have a significant sample size to come up with statistics on. If lucky names, dates and address numbers are able to affect success, then each of the participants should on average have the same success or failure at finding about the same amount of money or things worth about the same amount of money in about the same amount of time.
After gathering the test results, perform the experiment again, but at that time using unlucky address numbers, sleeping and waking times, and an unlucky day.
An alternative or additional experiment you could hopefully do would be to change the challenge from seeing who can find the most money or things worth the most, to something more simple, like who can burn a hole in piece of paper on concrete using the exact same magnifying glass and same type of paper (without gasoline on the concrete or anything else flammable on the concrete or nearby obviously), and do this on an unlucky and lucky hour, and lucky and lucky day, while the sun is shining bright and there are little to no clouds blocking the sun. If luck really does exist and the number of your name, address, and birth date and date of the experiment influences it, then some people should fail to burn a hole in the paper or have a harder time doing so then others. For example a freak cloud should appear to block out the sun, or an earthquake that scare some of the participants off, or fire ants suddenly biting one or more people and preventing them from having success, or some other incident or incidents getting in the way. And you could even have a experimenter take your place who doesn’t know why the experiments are being performed so that you cannot bias the experiments by interfering with the results somehow either deliberately or accidentally.
These same experiments can be applied to astrology by choosing people born at certain times, and choosing people born in each of the Zodiac sections, and seeing if some perform better then others based on what Zodiac type they fit into. To increase the evidence for your study, perform the experiments on days in which some often used types of astrology predicts a good or bad day or successful or unsuccessful day, etc. and try experiments with a few obscure types of traditional astrology (instead of endlessly testing new methods which I’m guessing, based on my experience, won’t have any evidence for them being accurate either).
What One Numerologist Has To Say About the Influence of Numbers On Luck
Name Numerology : an art full of contradiction ? – Why people with lucky names fail and those with unlucky name succeed.
It is true that numbers influence our life but they are not the decisive factor of our fate. There are many other things (known and unknown), which also influence our life to a great deal along with numbers. Therefore, a complete dependency on numbers, while deciding the future course of action, is neither necessary nor recommended. – Source
The evidence for numerology is absolute zero and it is clearly arbitrary. And once again: When will the Pope or George’s priest excommunicate him for heresy and for promoting the heresies of others and witchcraft? Does anyone agree that Catholics are false Christians?
Related articles which refute astrology:
Related articles which refute numerology (I haven’t read them all – let me know if any are good if you want to):
Arguments against Harold Camping’s numerology (or numerical symbolism):