Posts Tagged ‘George Noory’

Anti-fundamentalist George Noory Makes A Fool of Himself Again

November 17, 2012 Comments off

A snippet of a conversation from Coast to Coast AM tonight:

Betsey Lewis: I believe the Miracle of Fatima was a UFO mother ship.

George: I do too.

BL: You do?

George: (With the tone of someone clearly caught of guard): Yes, miracle or not if that were the sun coming down, I don’t care what, the sun would have burned everyone alive.

No, George wasn’t joking, he was caught off guard by Betsy (unintentionally) making another one of his careless agreements with guests, and I do mean CARE-less, meaning he didn’t care what was coming out of his mouth except to as he always does, sound friendly, wise and fill in air time till he got to the end of the show. His response was so strange that I’m not sure anymore if George is a conartist, as in makes up arbitrary lies or really believes angels or angelic events are really aliens. The comment besides being silly and childish, was also nonsensical: a miracle is supernatural, so if the sun were really brought down, obviously God could have prevented it from burning anyone, and had it come down the whole world would have known. If he did believe it was a UFO, why did he struggle to respond and make such a foolish response? Was it because she said “mothership” rather than simply a UFO? But if that is why, why didn’t he do the adult thing and say, “Well not a mothership, it might have been, but I have no way, sorry about that”?

George often agrees with guests including callers no matter what absurd thing they say. One example was a show in which a guest was on who claimed to be a former military person who was in contact with the Grays, aliens, and helped one escape. A caller called in with some nonsensical question or claim that Soviets had put secret spywear on American hard drives (which had nothing to do with the topic) and George replied to the caller with a strong emphatic agreement, and obviously hadn’t listen to the bizarre rant, and then asked the x-military guy, “What do you think?” And that x-military guy was making sense during the whole show, even if the story was fake, and wasn’t someone like Noory, sloppily winging it. George is one of the most unprofessional workers I’ve ever known in life, it’s no wonder he gets no prestigious worldly awards of any kind, like the Marconi or a Nobel for peace. The day he does will be a shameful day for the world, and I would bet would provoke God to move swiftly and furiously.

But he was caught off guard by this Betsy “Leaps of Logic New Ager” Lewis. George wasn’t joking either, he was giving a serious reply. This is how UNWISE this man is, that despite having been taught the Bible’s wisdom to be careful when listening and with your speech at a young age, and being surrounded with its wisdom and people everyday, that after decades and decades of being immersed in the world, having chosen to live life as a casual entertainment experience rather than a serious and precious gift given by God, still decides to behave and think like a child. Yes, George has the voice of an adult male, and can pull off some very witty replies, but those are rare moments, the rest of him is stunted and shallow.

Sometimes I wonder if George is a narcissist, as in truly mentally ill. He seems to have a “hankering for questions” as the Bible puts it, yet he’s a pandering liar who in my opinion cares more about money that truly knowing anything, or perhaps neither are mutually exclusive. I remember on the show he once asked someone, “Do you truly want to know (how they built the pyramids)” because he enjoyed the mystery and would no longer care if he found out, I think he was asking the narcissist Richard C. Hoagland.

Update 12-20-2012: A new bizarre phrase for agreement from George: George was doing open lines and a foreigner called in at the end and started talking about how aliens are coming from such and such planet and that it takes them 24 minutes to get to Earth, to which George replied, “That’s not bad at all.”

Signs Noory is a narcissist:

1) Conniving/cruel and immature: his enjoyment of wasting time and enjoying the mockery of fundamentalist Christians via J.C.’s mockery (the guest caller who seems to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian without ever saying if he’s pretending to be a mentally ill and/or stupid one, or if that is how he thinks they all are, let alone admit to pretending at all,

2) Shallow: for example his repeatedly having on extremely shallow guests like “Glynnis Mccants, the numbers lady”, that stupid sun coming down and burning everyone comment and his fixation with John Titor), talks about his opinions often after having said he never gives his opinions because listeners don’t listen to the show to hear his, but the guests’ (wow, try saying guests’), uses something that is nearly a neologism, “dimensional” by misdefining (by the way he uses it) as apparently (to me at least) “Not regularly seen because they are from an unseeable dimension” (yet George never explains what he means by “dimensional”. He also repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, says that “people these days are acting weird” and “strange”, but doesn’t say in what way,. or when they never were acting that way? And sometimes also pairs that with “people sense something is coming”, like another earthquake, a tsunami, a mass murder, another war, and that matters because? And who can’t figure out yet another disaster is coming?

3) Arbitrary: agrees that the universe was created, which would require an all powerful all knowing God, doesn’t believe in the Big Bang or evolution, yet readily reads mainstream scientology articles claiming such and such is billions (or millions) of years old, starting out stating it like this at times, “Scientists have discovered the bones of a 30 million year old” or “Scientists have found the oldest galaxy, 12 billion years old” as if it’s a fact that these scientists are right, never giving a disclaimer that what he reads he doesn’t necessarily believes

4) Vain: keeps injecting his worthless opinions, uses the cheap shot of condemning murderers and “pedophiles” in order to make himself look morally superior. When he says “pedophiles” he means “child molesters”, which shows more of his disingenuous concern for people, as that word simply means kid-lover or sexually attracted to kids”, and by condemning that all as being such, risks their lives, because there are many people who are also vain and self-righteous, who are willing to become a murderer (and George even stated his approval of murdering a pedophile) if they believe someone to be a pedophile. He also says he would never forgive someone who murdered someone of his own family, yet never sees it from the other side: would he forgive his own kin if they murdered someone else, who necessarily was the kin of someone else’s family? And such lack of an obvious thought shows again him to be arbitrary (picking his own family as important, but not someone else’s and not considering exceptions at all for forgiving a murderer) and shallow. If that doesn’t do it enough for you (and vanity is the key sign of a narcissist), perhaps you might remember hearing George, at least twice, saying he would not quit hosting Coast to Coast AM and would continue till he was dead. No doubt to me that would not help the national suicide rate in the long run, especially not hearing George shrink dumber over time, think slower, and talking with a raspy phlegmy voice, and seeing his prune face on the Coast homepage for the next (I hope not) 50 years. My guess is America won’t exist anymore by then anyways.

5) Hypocritical: George claims to be a Catholic, which whether he likes it or not is a type of Christian, a false one, but regardless, a Christian is supposed to forgive and love everyone (until perhaps Judgment Day, when all Christians would reach moral perfection and so would no longer be hypocritical in any way).

6) Lying and exaggerating: George repeatedly embellishes the reputation of the liar and narcissist Richard C. Hoagland, and it seems to me that he pretends that John Titor was time traveler, if he’s not pretending then he’s truly gullible and stupid (and being gullible) is another sign of narcissism). There is a clip on YouTube of George lying to a caller about being psychic.

7) Gullible: George, though not falling easily or at all for global warming, vaccines, world government aspirations, the belief that being a police officer or scientist makes you necessarily honest/good, does fall for the claim that Earth is millions and billions of years old without bothering to see if those dating methods are correct, although he did have on a few creationists, and one recently, and supported him a little at first, but when his guest Giorgio Tsoukolous said that it was crazy to believe the universe was 6,000 years old (which is short by about 500 years by the way) he agreed with him (once again his agreeing with whatever and his pandering). See sign 6 too.

8) Rambling ranting/talking over others often: This isn’t necessarily the sign of a narcissist I think, but if it’s there it is an additional piece of evidence. George sometimes talks over guests, but usually doesn’t, and when he does he immediately stops. As for ranting or rambling or both, this is the most difficult to find sign about George, because, though being vain, he does amazing to me, allow guests to go on and on. However he did publish a book, supposedly by himself, something about dead people, which I would bet contains plenty of ranting. This isn’t always a sign of a narcissist.

9) Hatred of criticism against oneself: George actually stated during his show that people shouldn’t criticize him if they dislike what he says.

10) Violent outbursts: I only know of one moment where George, unprofessionally, had not just a violent outburst, but to me, a cranky sounding one, in which he rebuked Richard C. Hoagland for not allowing Zubrin, another guest, to talk. It would have been mature if George had simply and gently said when Richard did it the first or second time, to stop, instead George allowed it to go on for a long while, which made him responsible in way for Richard’s rambling. It may be that George is able to control his anger well because he is wealthy, and is able to satisfy himself mostly from his wealth, and with millions of listeners is able to get the high he wants. The Bible makes it clear that people like George are violent inside however.

11) Hatred of work: George once asked someone how anyone could live on minimum wage and working long hours, the way he stated it he made it sound as if he couldn’t believe people could exist like that without starting a war or killing themselves or just dropping dead after living like that for a while. The appropriate mature response would have been to praise hard working people and condemn the rich who are stingy with their workers, and say that he wishes he could somehow help.

12) Stingy with the poor/detesting the poor: George once said he saw someone who seemed to be grieved over the amount of money they had to spend on gas, implying or describing them as struggling or poor I think, but gave no indication of having helped this person, despite himself being obviously wealthy. I remember this one because someone made this point on the Internet somewhere. It’s not hard to imagine that George hates most of his listeners, being that he pulls off obvious and boring deceptions almost every night with his show and by having put out a needless book about life after death, as if he were a scholar or expert on the subject, he isn’t, or even had good stories to listen to, but he doesn’t.

13) Narcissists often are in high up job positions because they use flattery and pandering to get there (which anyone can see/hear George does often).

14) Immature: There is a clip on YouTube of George lying to a caller about being psychic, his violent outburst, his obsession with John Titor, his having extremely shallow people as regular guests including J.C., his playing the UFO Phil song at the end of his shows, whic is a very horrid and immature-sounding song, not being professional by trying to follow up on guests with interesting and potentially ground-breaking stories let alone simply asking where the event being spoken of took place (which could also count as being arbitrary and lazy/hating work).

I’m not saying that George never tells the truth, is never mature, has never done a little or a lot of hard work, but as Jesus and anyone would say, liberal or conservative, slave or free, black or white, that when a person does these things regularly, they are these things. Not everyone is willing to point them out, for fear or retaliation or being wrong or out of hatred for God, but I have no problem with it, since I fear God more than men.

These are all the basic signs of a narcissist, and George fits them all well enough for me, so after having wondered for a long time, I now safely conclude he is a narcissist, and should be treated as one, meaning, someone to avoid listening to. Listening to narcissists can destroy appropriate pride, a healthy judgment of yourself, self-esteem I suppose you can call that, which leads to depression and violence and can even cause narcissism in youths.

“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” – James 1:19

“The tongue of the wise presents knowledge appropriately, but fools belch foolishness.” – Proverbs

Categories: George Noory, narcissistic personality disorder Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Denise Siegal – Fraud Psychic

September 21, 2012 Leave a comment

I’m listening to Coast to Coast AM right, now, to Denise Siegal, a supposed skeptical psychic and an astrology. She confuses prophecy with being psychic. That says a lot about her level of knowledge, no offense. And afterwards, George Noory, a moron, just caught her on what he thought was her contradicting herself it seemed to me, when she said she thought and felt we’re on the verge of WW3 (that’s not a prediction if you hadn’t noticed), although it wasn’t because you can do both. AND UGH: WHO IN THEE HELL NEEDS TO BE PSYCHIC TO THINK OR FEEL WE ARE?! What a stereotypical fraud psychic. Then George said after some other exchanges: “I don’t care about your opinions,” as if to be funny or rather meaning, “I only want your predictions.” After some other words she said that she FELT again that there’d be another world war sometime in the next THIRTY YEARS. WOW, AGAIN, STEREOTYPICAL VAGUE “PSYCHIC”: GIVE A BROAD AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOURSELF TO BE RIGHT OR WRONG. What a joke. And incredible that a person like this gets a long line of comments on her about me page while someone like me, who actually teaches logic and truth, and gives evidence for what I say, clear evidence, is ignored. She doesn’t even show a picture of herself on her about me page or homepage (maybe because she knows it would be a bad idea if she wanted to get a real job, if her face became well known for for her scam). It’s shameful that liberals cheer each other on while Christians, the true ones, are usually silent.

A Resonating Insight Into Negative New Age Positivity

March 17, 2012 2 comments

To Tina Fiorda and Tilde Cameron:

Hi, I’m a logician. I don’t like to waste time so I will go right to the point:

You made a false claim that God, because he “is love” wouldn’t punish. God isn’t literally love, if so, he’d not be God, he’d be an emotion, which makes no sense, because emotions aren’t alive, they are are response of living beings. Further, if God could only love, he wouldn’t have a free will, he’d be a slave to love so to speak (supposing there was such thing as living love that could be God at the same time, but he’s not. It’s too convenient and wishful thinking.

So, major error there. Also, it’s common knowledge you punish for two reason: justice and to teach, just as you said, to teach. Is God NOT teaching by causing pain? Or is he not teaching when he exercises justice? Using your logic, no one should punish, people should get away with crimes, no one should be restrained even. Your logic is one sided and biased too, because you’re saying God shouldn’t have the right to exercise his truly free will.

Your second error: You said he gave us free will. Free will doesn’t justify doing wrong, it’s not a free ticket to do wrong or to try and do whatever we want.

Third error: You said, in response to the Christian who corrected you with the Bible, that “we feel” such and such. Feeling is inferior to reasoning. It’s by following your feelings over reasoning that is the main reason for fights (not as others say in a vague way, “religion” as in, “being religious.”) Simple example: children fighting, bad marrying decisions, unprepared pregnancy, leading to endless baby-murders, divorces and wrecked lives.

Fourth error (though is the same as the third one): Does that “resonate” with you? You said that your message “resonates” with you. What does that mean? It’s a vague statement that explains nothing. You also said that spirits can also be positive and not negative, and asked, “Why must they only be negative”? However your question is a rhetoric fallacy: your question doesn’t prove that spirits communicating in a way forbidden by the Bible won’t always be negative.

Fifth error: You’re use of the word “negative” is also vague. It has multiple meanings that don’t match. Negative can mean, “Displeasing”, “not having messages or an attitude conveying happiness” or “being unthankful and/or having a fault-finding attitude out of hatred”. The first two aren’t necessarily bad, the third is, so these definitions are not all compatible. Your question therefore could not be understood, it was meaningless. If you hadn’t used that deliberately deceptive New Age term and instead used the biblical “evil”, you would have been understandable and not teaching and spreading confusion.

The Bible makes it clear that consulting a spirit will have negative consequences because God forbade it, and sin (going against his command/s) leads to punishment, or what you might vaguely call “negative consequences.” That is why you will always. if “a spirit” really is speaking to you, get a deceptive message over all (not that every single thing said is going to be a lie). It’s also not the same as a sin like theft, in which you may have a temporary “positive” as you might call it, result, like getting a bottle of aspirin and getting rid of a headache. A demon doesn’t do anything beneficial, nothing significantly beneficial, not usually at least. It’s intent is always to deceive or facilitate some deception, including just by being silent if that’s all it feels like doing or was told to do by Satan. A demon is not like a genie in a bottle. It’s like an angry tormented snake covered in sharp thorns that wants to relieve its pain and is willing to harm you if it thinks it can ease its pain by doing so.

Sixth error: You’re use of the word “spirit” is also deceptively vague. You’re purposely avoiding specifying angels and demons and attempting to make people think that you can also talk to dead humans. There is no evidence, with the exception of one debatable verse in the Bible, that humans, especially unforgiven ones, will communicate after dying.

Seventh error: You said God unconditionally loves. Who says that, and what is the evidence for that? The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that, and if it did, it would be a major contradiction using your interpretation. You’re picking and choosing which verses you want to believe, and simply going with what is convenient and sounds most pleasing to your ears.

Eighth error: You can’t create a reality and there is no such thing as more than one. That’s an incorrect usage of the word. The way in which you use it goes opposite of one of the only definitions, which is, “The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.” So you’re midefining it, completely going against it, by saying there is more than one reality. The word has not been used that way till New Agers started misusing it. It’s a delusional use of the word and sets people up for a fall and can get people killed because you are teaching people that they can literally cause dangerous things to be safe just by wishing or that lies can be true just by wishing, like making child abuse a good thing that directly helps children, or driving on the wrong side of traffic something that will improve safety, or jumping off a cliff something that will be a positive experience that leads to enlightenment and immorality rather. It’s an extremely against common sense delusion. It could even cause children to become mentally ill if they were repeatedly taught to believe in imaginary things and told that they can wish things into reality or wish things away, like the sun, and are later traumatized into a permanent mentally deluded state when someone abuses them, by endlessly responding with delusional defenses like pretending that the abuse is good, and even becoming worse by becoming addicted to abuse. Your reality creating fallacy is actually one of the roots of all logical fallacies: denial of absolute truth or rather, that there are absolute lies. And to deny that leads to endless confusion and mistakes. Your claim that we can create realities therefore refutes your very claim, because I can, according to you, create a reality in which you are completely false (and yet that can’t be true either because you deny that there is anything that can be completely true), hence why I said your reality is unworkable. An analogy of your teaching would be if we lived in a completely red universe, yet you say, “The universe is blue, but not truly, really, it’s red, but not really; because we can see blue if we want too, because we have free will. Just imagine you’re seeing red only?” And of course you ignore the test: just check to see if anyone is able to see red only using something other than your feelings and imagination.

So, you’ve created a life-wrecking, false and contradictory reality if anything, one that isn’t loving as you repeatedly insisted during your interview by Noory. And your using vague words makes it harder for the ignorant, gullible and stupid to realize that.

I hope you appreciate my patience in using my “free will” and valuable time to correct your mistakes for the benefit of all. You can learn how to be saved via the salvation link above.

Categories: George Noory, New Age teachings Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Ager Lori Tove and Her ”I Am America Map”

February 23, 2012 1 comment

Lori Tove with her was on Coast to Coast AM yesterday night, promoting her New Age life style and her I Am America Map. She said the ascended masters (demons) that she talks to and consults are always wrong about the dates (prophecies) they give for when disasters will happen, and was emphatic about that. She also claimed to have knowledge of what happened to Atlantis and how the people lived, from the ascended masters.

Why if they are always wrong about their prophecies (and repeatedly lying to her then), and therefore not trustworthy, does she promote her map that she drew up from them and claim to know what happened to Atlantis? This is just more obvious evidence that anti-fundamentalist New Agers are not good, immoral, hypocrites, deceivers and confused.

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” – 1 Timothy 4:1-4

Ian Punnet Heaps Up Another False Teacher on Coast to Coast AM

December 24, 2011 Leave a comment

Dr. Judith Orloff, a New Ager, who calls herself an intuitive and psychiatrist, is scheduled to be a guest on Coast to Coast AM tonight. Her website slogan is,

“You possess an intuitive intelligence so powerful it can
help you heal, relieve stress, and find emotional freedom”

Yet we still need Judith to tell us that and help us to use it, even though it’s powerful and we can already know things just by trying and without having to reason. Can someone give me a, “Making money off the gullible.”? And what is “intuitive intelligence”? Like all New Agers, Judith is using catchy New Age cliches. The usual are: evolve (that word copied off materialist and humanist evolutionists who also sometimes or often use the word in a vague way), healing, aura, vibration, vibrational, energy, lower energy, higher energy, higher self, lower self, negative, positive, light, love, abstract, emotional, intuition, inner self, spirit, spirituality, negative forces and positive forces. Such words and phrases are used in vague ways by New Agers, never described precisely, and that is because they are vague and abstract themselves, not thinking carefully and with precision, but carelessly and sloppily, and going with their vague feelings rather than precise and logical reasoning. They assumed that it’s a good thing to think in “abstract” ways rather than to be specific, and by doing so, are easily manipulated by Satan, who pushes and pulls at the hearts of those who are ignorant of and against God. Intuition in the way she most likely used it, means,

“direct perception of truth, fact, etc., SEPARATE from ANY reasoning process”. But when she said “intelligence” she committed a logical fallacy because the word can mean two different things in the way she used it. She wasn’t specific. It can mean, “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and teaching” or ” a high mental ability” to do those things.

But, either way she’s saying a person has the ability to directly know the truth without reasoning using your mind (Satan would have everyone “think” this way, because by following your heart, you’re bound to fail and sin, because the heart as God says, is desperately wicked. And history shows how unreliable the human heart is for doing what is right and best.)

If however she specifically meant, “ability to know the truth apart from reasoning by a high mental ability to reason” she’d be contradicting herself, and that wouldn’t be surprising to me being that she’s a New Ager who thinks in abstract and vague ways rather than using careful reasoning.

On Facebook she contradicts herself again in a blurb under a picture of a person sitting on the edge of a pointed cliff. It says,

“My job as a psychiatrist is to help others find light in darkness. Don’t let the dark seduce you! The light is always there”

The contradiction is saying that the (bad) darkness has light in it that is good. How can darkness of light in it? That’s nonsensical. Further, if it’s bad how can it have good within it? If she meant, “goodness in a bad situation,” then why not just be specific and clear and say that then? If she meant, “good thoughts among your bad thoughts,” it would be pointless. So what if you have good thoughts among bad thoughts, thoughts of helping the poor among thoughts of murdering them, what about it? Is someone helped by simply saying, “You have thoughts of helping the poor, don’t think about the fact that you also feel like murdering them.” Is that how you help someone, by getting them to think about their “positive” thoughts and pretend they don’t have evil thoughts? Imagine trying to help a murderer or liar by saying, “Don’t think about the fact that you’re always lying/murdered 40 people, focus only on the good you’ve done.” Can a person become good by that, by not confessing their sins to God for forgiveness and repenting of them? To say to someone, “Deal with your evil impulses by thinking only about the good you’ve done,” is the same as saying, “Ignore your never-ending evil desires by thinking about doing honorable things or thinking about honorable things you’ve done, and by doing that, you’ll no longer have evil desires.” But what is the evidence of that? What’s the evidence that ignoring your guilt by thinking of doing good deeds or on your good deeds is healthy, will set you, “emotionally free” whatever that means, and will get rid of “the darkness” whatever that is? Vague, vague, vague, baseless, baseless, baseless! Her “therapy” and “counseling” is useful for turning someone into a psychopath, sociopath or narcissist if it were started early enough on someone, and faciliates the ones who are adults. To say, “It’s good to be emotionally free” is horrible. It’s like saying, “It’s good to do whatever you feel like doing, to be like a wild animal, and to have no self control.”

She described her “help” accurately by claiming that she was someone who could find light in the darkness; she thinks evil (negativity) can produce good, or has goodness (positivity) in it.

Update 10:48 PM: Judith just said “linear knowledge” to solve brain problems isn’t the only way. What does that mean? And then said that “just because something sounds right doesn’t mean it’s true.” But then a few words later contradicted by saying that if it doesn’t feel right it can’t be true. It’s a contradiction because a thing can sound right either based on how you feel, think or all three. It’s a perfect example of how New Agers don’t make sense because they use a word in a way that can have multiple meanings and in this case one of them contradicts her point.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Timothy 4:3

Categories: New Age, the End Times Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Noory Ain’t Interested In Solvin’ Nothin’

November 11, 2011 4 comments

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.

A dangerous predator pumpkin from Mars captured in the wild by Villafane Studios.

Another Anti-Christian Ignorant On Coast to Coast AM

Post link:

The Coast to Coast guest idiot of the night tonight was Carmen Boulter, a former professor at the University of Calgary, who “will discuss evidence of levitation, and alchemy being used to construct the numerous pyramids in Egypt, as well as an update on how the current structure of civilization is not conducive to the empowerment of humans.” Can you tell that this is a over-generalizing moron from the last part? I hadn’t read that till just now and was getting ready to point out a statement that pretty much summed up the intelligence of this person. That statement, which she said on Coast to Coast tonight, was, “The Bible says women are whores and prostitutes.” Can anyone say super idiot? How about ignoramus? How about a disgrace of a fool? Not sure what that last part would mean but anyways, wow, dumb, stupid. People who reach adulthood who aren’t living in North Korea or some super impoverished place out in the desert are ignoramuses if they can’t see with their eyes or hear with their ears or read braille with their fingers the obvious and clear evidence that the Bible has given women more freedom and taken them out of greater oppression:, Killing of infants on the rise in Pakistan,  Muslims Will Only Repay Half Of Damages to Acid-attacked Muslim, Cuz She’s  a Female

Professor of Canadianess Boulter also pointed out with a subtle tone of contempt when she made the stereotype over generalization claim that “Christians” defaced Egyptian statues, and praised (some goddess I’m guessing) that one or more were buried deep in the sand so that when it was found that you could still see the amazing colors (just forget that idolatry is a sign of ignorance and stupidity and has been a massive waste of time and money, and yet this idiot claims that no modern civilization today, not even the massively idolatrous Hindu and Catholic religions (which worship femininity) are conducive to being moral and technological advancement. So, damn the Christians (probably the twisted version of Mary-worshiping Catholics) who defaced idols worth NOTHING except to idolators and obsessives and reduce the most beneficially influential book of all time, thousands of years, best selling, most freely available, translated into the most language, as “says women are whores and prositutes, so bleah yeah pyramids this pyramids that feminine goddess of femininesses is cool. I sell a book on Pyramid Codes and was a professor in Canada at a University and am an expert in what is civizationally correct, and wowy wow Christians are no. Damn all the bazillions of Christianianians for hurting the goddess statues that I wanted to see the noses on and colorful colors of. Oh and so like my advice for you civilization structures of the world is to read my pyramid codes and watch me on history channel tell you about how the egypsums could magically using super tech carve quartz bowls and make awseome coffins and make giant pyramids that last really long in the dessert and to ignore the Christians with their whore book on how women are whores who defaced my statues, I mean the Egypsian statues, yeah, Egyptian, I didn’t really say mine, just a mental slip up. And so, what I was saying, was…” Professor of Pyramid Codes also pointed out that she believed that there was an ancient worldwide disaster that caused the world to lose its advanced technology, but God forbid Canadian girl mention that the Bible already mentions what it was and what led up to it, and why it happened and that every ancient civilization repeats various parts of the Flood of Noah and creation story, some much closer to the Bible then others. Spiritually blind Canadian girl apparently is ignorant that the Bible makes out various nations that disobey him and worship false gods as being like whores and prostitutes, that includes THE MEN and that women who obey God ARE PRAISED and exalted by God, and above men who do not. One famous examples in the Bible are the MARYs, Deborah, Jael, Jeptha’s daughter, the widow who gave all she had unlike her hypocritical male leaders the Pharisees, and the prayerful prophetess Anna. The Bible also says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you [the true church] are all one in Christ Jesus.” That’s a statement talking about the spiritual equality of all saved Christians, not physical. Obviously there are physical differences, including between people of the same race, and the Bible isn’t talking about that as some ignorants might thing.

Ironically, Miss Pretend Archeologist, or rather Bad Archeologist, didn’t mention the status of women in Egyptian, and for a know it all about ancient Egyptians, I would think she would, but no, she’s self-centered, anti-Christian, idol fanatic, and therefore shallow. Supposing she knew, she probably didn’t want to mention it because of her irrational anti-Christian hate, being that the Egyptian civilization, in certain ways, was what liberals like Pyramid Code Prof. would call Christian Extremism. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Marrige was a very important part af ancient Egyptian society. SOme people say it was almost a duty to get married. Compared to today’s world, Egyptian marriages were very different; husbands could marry more than one wife, and people of close relations (first cousins, brothers and sisters, ect.) could also wed one another. For the most part, however, incest was frowned upon, except in the royal family, where incest was used to safeguard the dynastic succession.

There was no age limit as to when people could be married, but generally a girl did not get married until she had begun to menstruate at about the age of 14. Some documents state that girls may have been married at the age of eight or nine, and a mummy of an eleven year-old wife has also been found. Marriage required no religious or legal ceremony. There were no special bridal clothes, no exchange of rings…

Pregnancy was very important to ancient Egyptian women. A fertile woman was a successful woman. By becoming pregnant, women gained the respect of society, approval from their husbands, and the admiration of their less-fortunate sisters and sterile friends. Men needed to prove their “manliness” by fathering as many children as the possibly could, and babies were seen as a reason for boasting. – Source, Cornell University, The Status of Women in Egyptian Society

*Carmen thinks to herself*: Goddess damn those damn Egypums for forcing the divine feminine women to be baby breeders and slaves who didn’t have control of their own bodies! Nah, just don’t mention that part. Damn men to imaginary Hell! I hope I sell more Pyramid Code books, I love being able to afford all the lobster I can eat, especially for my Canadian LGBT friends.

And really Carmen, you think a society that wasted its time making giant pyramids, obelisks and idols is better then one that uses its that labor instead to make shopping malls, apartments, condos, houses, parks, zoos or that spends its time donating and doing charity work, including for the thankless and enemies? Have you heard of any ancient civilization being charitable to another to please any God? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans like that? If so, how many times, which among them were like that to the poor, especially females? Oh and, churches, all church buildings are terrible, pyramids way better, right Carmen? Icky Christians! What good are those pyramids doing? They are monuments of what happens when you use your genius in vain. Where is the Egyptian civilization now Carmen? On Coast to Coast tonight you said over 1,300 years (why that number) moral decay happened which is why peoples’ minds were changed. Well how shallowly insightful. You might as well have said climate changes happens, which is why things change temperature and move. So, infanticide of female babies was moral, or attempting to exterminate Christians, or enslave others, or worship imaginary gods and wate your time carving them from stone and painting them when that time and money could be used to make real advances? Oh and where was the LGBT community of Egypt? I didn’t read anything about a man leaving his house to live with another man, or woman going to live with another woman. How bigoted and shortsighted those Egyptians were! And wow what pedos they were for allowing marriage at any age! Ew nasty dirty old people and nasty preteen bodies ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! So gross so gross so gross ew ew ew must thing about people my age must think about people my age and LGBT and the divine feminine and anti-Christian thoughts and pyramid codes electronics 123 electronics 123 brain overloading bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What else. Oh, damn those Christians for defacing the colorful Egyptian idols, and enslaving the Israelites and forcing them in the Hellish heat to bake bricks one after another. Damn them for calling the Israelites lazy if they dare took a break under the watch of their idols and animal and sun gods and whatever gods, must whip them to keep them in line, ugh, stupid Israelite slaves, LAZY ISRAELITES! BAKE MORE BRICKS! OH, WHAT, YOU’RE RUNNING AWAY AFTER WE AGREED TO LET YOU GO FINALLY, LET’S CHASE THEM DOWN ANYWAYS AND BRING THEM BACK SO WE CAN SUBJUGATE THEM AGAIN! Oh wait, that was the slaver idolatrous baby-making-tyranny-state of the non-Israelite Egyptians, NOT “THE CHRISTIANS”. In conclusion, may God continue to bless Carmen the Canadian Truth-Defacer till she finally shows genuine thanks and love to the one and only true God.

Demons Pretending to Be Angels and the Free Will Heresy

June 14, 2011 6 comments

Post link:

On Coast to Coast AM last night, George Noory had on “Doreen Virtue” which C2CAM says, “is a spiritual doctor of psychology and a fourth-generation metaphysician who works with the angelic, elemental, and ascended-master realms.” In other words, truthfully, “she communicates with demons which she has deluded herself into thinking are angels and so called ‘nature spirits’”. Doreen herself on the show acknowledged that demons can pretend to be angels and that people should not romance them for pleasure.

On the show, Doreen claimed that we must ask angels for help to get help from them, which reminded me of Mormons and other Free Will Christians, and suspected that that is why she said that, and then no surprise to me she confirmed it by saying that that was necessary or it would be a violation of our free will, however, she contradicted herself afterwards by saying that the only time they could help without our asking for it was “if it isn’t your time” (to die). It’s a contradiction because it implies that GOD’S WILL supersedes our own, and that isn’t compatible with the heretical “free will” nonsense teaching that I’ve been observing and learning about as I keep hearing the world talk about it. Basically, the world’s free will doctrine is that human free will is a sacred thing that must not be violated and that God won’t violate it (and many non-Christians believe that Earth aka Gaea and/or ‘Mother Nature’ also has a will of its/her own), yet, it’s a lie, and like so many lies, contradicts itself. Here is how it contradicts:

1) Wills are always in conflict everywhere, generally speaking, and depending on the personality of the ones who are not getting there way, it can lead to sin, crime, hateful arguing, rather than one side peacefully giving in to the other. So, to act like human’s wills can’t be violated as if it’s some physical law, is nonsense. It’s clearly observably wrong to claim our wills cannot be gone against successfully. Clearly not everyone’s will can be done as they want it to be done and there will always be unfilled will until there is perfect peace (which God says he will bring about, except in Hell). For the Free Will Christians who believe the Bible, who claim that God can’t go against our will, they are clearly wrong, since the Bible repeatedly claims God does that all the time. Some Christians try to brush that off with the ridiculous explanation that God isn’t really going against anyone’s will (how ridiculous!) when he punishes them, because they want to be punished. That is dumb, absolutely dumb. Sure, some people in bitterness say, “bring it on” or “I don’t care” but that’s because THEY DON’T KNOW THE WRATH in store for them. Like one proverb in the Bible says, “A servant cannot be corrected by mere words.” That (rebellious) servant can’t be corrected by mere talk because they aren’t feeling any pain and will especially dismiss warnings if they are feeling pleasure. It’s the same with a rebellious child or any person with a bad habit and who is having “a good time”: unless there is a painful negative consequence, emotionally or physically, they won’t stop. Further, why do so many people, when committing a crime, try to hide that they are committing a crime, or run when they think they are in danger of getting caught for that crime, or lie in court over whether they committed one or not? OBVIOUSLY, it’s because they don’t want to feel pain for what they did, not “BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PUNISHED”. But in order to defend their backwards doctrine, that is how absurd and childish heretics must think: backwards, backwards to the point of embarrassing absurdity that even kids who aren’t brainwashed can recognize is obviously stupid and illogical reasoning that goes against what even stupid people know is stupid.

2) If God’s will is also sacred and cannot be violated, then how can everyone else’s will also be sacred and forbidden from being violated being that God’s will is often not the will of man or anything else? That is a clear contradiction. And it is obvious that if anyone’s will is going to always be done, it’s going to be the all-knowing all-powerful eternal Creator’s, not the created things that like ants compared to him. The Bible even says that God’s will is always done in Heaven, and has us pray that it will always be done on Earth, and even Jesus said to God, “…but your will (be done), not mine.” Doreen tried to dismiss the Bible and untrustworthy because, “it’s been rewritten many times,” the cliche attack of an ignoramus who doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge that the Bible is backed up by many old copies of itself showing that it has been copied very accurately in all the places that matter most, and that there is no evidence of loss of text. Her logic is also wrong in what she implied, which was that many copies necessarily lead to errors. She also stupidly implied that God can’t preserve his own word. With such an unreliable God why does Doreen pretend to love and honor him and that he’s in control? If he can’t preserve his own word, his laws, his commands to love, then how can we? And why follow him if he can’t keep track of what he says or if we can’t? Again: contradictions. That is the lot of liars: lies and contradictions.

3) Why would there be an exception like Doreen claims, that “unless it’s “not your time” angels can’t help you”? Is it just because she said so? Because some angel supposedly told her so. And so what if one did? Can demons pretend to be angels? She herself said so, so then she cannot simply claim, “angels never lie.” And being that humans can repeatedly make the same mistakes and be deceived till death, for years, she can’t claim, especially as a religion-ignorant, which she clearly is, that she is undecievable, immune to be fooled, tricked. Further, some demons, not merely staying in one place and keeping to themselves, go out of there way to lie to humans and deceive them, and having lived for thousands of years, have mastered deception and know how humans react to all kinds of situations and suggestions. And how long has Doreen lived in comparison to such demons? She sure has not lived long enough to become a master of the truth, nor has she studied well enough as was indicated by her evil broadside attacks against Christians, like that they “blackmail” people into believing there religion and her illogical vague statement that “preaching fear” is negative energy (a meaningless statement) with the implication that that is bad. And guess what Doreen is doing by making those claims? According to her vague nonsense, she’s also “preaching fear”. It’s also a clear lie to claim as she did, that all Christians do is talk about fear. Truly she’s a lying ignoramus. Who doesn’t know that millions of Christians have said and still do, “God is love” or “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life” or “love your neighbor as yourself” or “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” or “love your enemies” and “bless those who curse you” and the most famous of all, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” all of which are verses from the Bible. Yet she slanders all Christians, including the children, as “preach”ers “of fear” and negativity. Clearly it’s Doreen who is the preacher of fear and negativity by mainly focusing on what she perceives are “negative” things about Christians and mainly finding fault with them, when clearly they have done much good and continue to do so (I’m talking about true Christians, but even Free Will ones do some good, though at the expense of the truth about how to get saved and to lead people away from true salvation, though not all realize they are misleading people).

4) Doreen Virtue also made clearly wrong claims, which is that angels can’t help you unless you ask for it: but as she herself would know, angels are always helping people without them asking for it, and some don’t even believe in angels when they are helped by them. Many people also don’t pray for the help of angels, but ask for God’s help, knowing that he uses angels to do things for him, yet Doreen says to pray to the angels. Why would you pray to the angels rather than God who is in control of them? If you want a coworker to be friendly to you or to help you who is in a different state, do you pray to the coworker or to God? But Doreen hates God, so refuses to go to him for help, but instead wants to worship what he created.

5) Concerning again Doreen’s claim that angels need our permission to help us, how can she say that when surely she hears stories all the time of people being helped by angels and not knowing they were angels or being helped without asking? That could be seen a deliberate deception or insanity for her to ignore what she repeatedly sees contradicts her “free will” belief, which is really about pride and a childish attitude of rebellion towards God. And if angels need our permission, then doesn’t God? Does God need our permission for anything? Obviously to say he does is stupid. That’s lying say that I need the permission of a toy I made, even a living one with a mind, to do anything to it, or that a parent needs the permission of the child to move it somewhere, teach it something, feed it something, give it a gift, love it or even talk to it (which leads to a paradox: how can you ask for permission to talk without first talking if not given permission to talk?) And if a parent doesn’t need its the permission of its children for anything but a few exceptions, how much less does God the creator and sustainer of all things need it? And consider the evil consequences of this free will logic, at least Doreen’s: Humans must ask each other for permission to help each other in all circumstances, including to save each others lives. Consider how many more people in the world would be ignorant, sad, injured and dead from such a law. But many people realize the evil of such bad logic, and have made “good Samaritan” type laws as are mentioned on Wikipedia: It’s noteworthy that Wikipedia however, doesn’t point out the origin of such laws: God’s word.

“Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.” – Colossians 2:18

“the devil took [Yeshua] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” – Matthew 4:8-10

“I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” – 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

“who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” – Romans 9:20-21

Update: 6-16-2011

Yesterday, after having written the above (except Romans 9:20-21 which I added while adding this note), I finally realized the solution to what was a long and great mystery to me: “Is the human will and all wills “random” (because random would seem to be the result of ‘not controlled’, in other words, not a machine that is just programming or being moved around by God directly or indirectly), and is randomness necessary, and if random, how could God predict what would happen in the future correctly? And is a random will necessary for self-awareness and responsibility for the actions of the person who makes choices using their will?” God’s word had the answer all along. First of all, it makes it clear that God predestines everything (and the claim that God doesn’t predestine anyone to Hell is stupid). God doesn’t destine some things and others allow to be loose, random and free to do whatever. Second, there is no evidence that a will must be random in order for a person to be aware of themselves and that their choices and to be responsible for them.

“To humans belong the plans of the heart” – Proverbs 16:1

“A person’s steps are directed by Yahweh” – Proverbs 20:24

“In Yahweh’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” – Proverbs 21:1

Categories: angels, Free Will, Logic and Religion, Logic Fallacies Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11:11, Synchronicities and Evidence of Intelligent Design

March 20, 2011 1 comment

About two weeks ago I think, while looking up more information on Srinivasa Ramanujan, a super mathematical genius who shamed atheists and Hinduism by his belief in some sort of God and gods etc., and because by obeying the Hindu religion his life was cut short, probably the greatest Indian who ever lived next to Christian ones (which shames Hinduism in that they lost their best man). Well, I found some British radio show on him, and downloaded it, and learned of a mathematical law, which is that the number one shows up the most frequently out of all other numbers. Those with a large amount of understanding and a brain might think, “Shouldn’t all numbers how up equally as much as the other since the universe is just random?” But the answer, is, NO. First of all, the universe isn’t random, it always follows laws that God put in place, always follows them unless he intervenes or changes them. To say otherwise is to make a Randomness of the Gaps, and to claim that “randomness did it” (for those of you who don’t know what I mean, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of those who believe in randomness who also mock Christians by pretending that they merely explain why anything is by claiming merely that, “God did it” and claim such a God is a God of the gaps (gaps meaning “gaps in Christian knowledge” implying that Christians are very ignorant in the context these idiots use it in).

ANYWAYS, concerning George Noory’s claim that people are always seeing 11:11 when they look at a clock, I don’t know if he is right, since people look at clocks all the time and don’t see that number. George is probably imagining this because it’s four ones in a row, which he thinks is weirder than other number patters. It’s as silly as attributing something special to the number 100 or the year 1111 or 2000 or 2111 or 2222. However, you would see the number 1 more often then other numbers, so, if you see it more often on clocks when you do look, that isn’t out of the ordinary. To me it’s another indication that God exists. The number one being the most common number reminds me of Fibonacci numbers and the  chirality phenomenon, which is a name for the right-sided characteristic which all molecules in the human body have (and God made it that way).

And the reason I made this post (had finished most of it yesterday) was because a Buddhist or fan of Buddha put 11:11 in the subject of his email to me, which, in a way, was perpetuating the natural frequency of the number, which ironically, got me to write about it.

After I was done with this post, which didn’t include the above sentence, or this one, I glanced at my viewership stats, and was astonished a little when I saw the stats for the most viewed “page”, and then looked farther down, and was astonished again. This is what I saw some minutes ago… (I just looked at the clock and it’s 11:16 PM):

Update 3/23/2011:

I forgot to show this pic yesterday, which I took after I woke up and looked at my stove clock for the first time that day:

The clock was an hour behind.

Jews With Heart-Walls Turn to Dead False Prophet

December 6, 2010 4 comments

At about 11:40 P.M. yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, the following exchange was made between George Noory and conartist Dr. Bradley Nelson (a moron who claims that there are more than nine emotions, and had trouble getting the number straight when asked and who claimed you can inherit emotional problems called heart-walls composed of more than 20 emotions):

Dr. Bradley Nelson: When someone in high school or college tells you to follow your heart, that is the best advice they can give you.

George: Absolutely.

Since when is following your heart, let alone of all times when you are teen or in college, the best advice, let alone the best advice? How many more divorces, yelling arguments, physical fights, crushed feelings leading to suicide and baby-murders does there need to be before people like the self-proclaimed emo-doctor, doctor Bradley, realize that he and heart-followers like him are the ones creating so called heart-walls, not curing them? And this conartist, when asked by a caller how she could find out how to remove her heart-wall, advised her merely to go to his website, watch his videos and buy his books, and that that would make her certified to remove them. How convenient that he, having the cure for all of humanities emotional problems, can’t give a basic explanation as to how to cure the world, and can only do so through profit. To my disgust the caller flattered him greatly and praised him for his advice – what advice? Here’s simple free advice for getting rid of “pent up” emotions, so called heart-walls: find out from the Bible what you should feel and why and why you feel the way you do. The short answer: because God gave us the ability to feel, and allowed us to to sense things which we would desire or dislike, be happy, sad, angry, afraid, curious, worried, amazed or surprised over, and because of man’s inability to be logical apart from God’s love and help, they chose to feel things that they should not in certain situations. And how can this Bradley Nelson be a doctor of emotions and not know there are at a maximum, no more than nine core emotions? Imagine someone calling themselves a doctor of the body and first claiming there was an extreme of 180, and then a few seconds later, 18. Would you call such a person a doctor or think him qualified to heal you of anything, or even sane? Would you trust him with your life?

George Noory also interviewed a heretic Moshe Yess, a so called “rabbi” and Judaic (people often mistakenly refer to Judaics as “Jews”, as if there is no Jewish race) who was a heretic. He believed in a ridiculously named “Messiah” who was, get this: dead. How corrupt can Judaism get? So now instead of waiting for a living Messiah, instead of worshiping a living man, now there is a sect that worships a DEAD messiah! Talk about hating God! Instead of worshiping the true Messiah who died for the sins of the world, who has come back to life, whose demonstrated his all-surpassing love and power before many witnesses, a section of the Judaic group has become so twisted that they not only reject that one, but instead accept some obscure demonic Judaic who died in the 90′s, and expect him to return! How convenient that after the New Testament already came up with the concept of a Messiah who could die and who would return does now, these Judaics, come up with one 2000 years later and act like they have something original to give the world, and so original, as to be ridiculous. The Rabbi Schneerson cult also claims not to be a “team” that is above other teams, but that this Rabbi Schneerson will save everyone. The rabbi also claimed that there will be nothing “negative” when Rabbi Schneerson returns to change the universe, which is a comment that makes it a New Age cult: New Agers smear everything that they personally dislike (including fundamentalist Christians) as “negative” or evil, in place of the word immoral or wicked because those words remind people of the Bible and it’s laws. The word evil is also a Biblical word, but was a word that was used for hundreds of years, unlike “negative”, as a term for what was generally considered “immoral” by everyone, though it was also used like the word “negative” in that a good/righteous or decent person or group would be called “evil” by someone or some group that personally disliked them. The word “negative” however, unlike “evil” is used much more vaguely and more often used.

You can always hear many false Christians and non-Christians, including atheists, calling other groups, including true Christians, “negative”, but less so “evil”, because that word evil, as I said, is a biblical word, further, true Christians use it often to describe some non-Christians who repeatedly reject Christ after he is explained to them (I don’t mean that true Christians will say to anyone’s face that they are evil after first seeing what they are like, but to others so as not to get into a physical fight or embarrass the evil person or group they met). And so, the non-Christians who were condemned as evil will avoid using the word evil so as not to be reminded of the condemnation from Christians. So, this Schneerson cult is “universalist”, meaning that ultimately, or indirectly, it approves of any and every belief, including evil ones, with the exception of the true religion (the one given by God), because the true religion (which promotes only the truth and is accepted fully only by those who are honest), directly opposes universalism, which accepts lies and liars.

I’ve already been given eternal life, and don’t need a dead “rabbi Schneerson”, who comes on not just 2000 years late on the seen, but who even when he died was late in letting the world know he existed, let alone died, to give me life.

At 12:46 A.M., George asked this “rabbi” Moshe Yess: Is there anything to our free will? …can we change them [future events]?

This question once again demonstrates the misconception the world has over the meaning of “free” and “will” and no surprise then the term “free will”. The Mormons and every false Christian (that includes Catholics like George Noory), misunderstand “free will” to mean “free physical actions” as in freedom to do ANYTHING you want to do. George asked if free will could change physical events, because he was confused, or, was completely deceived into thinking his will could affect physical events (and he does believe literally in wishful thinking, that willing something to happen with enough will power can change the physical environment (just like many insane Pentecostals believe, who believe they can wish money into their purses and wallets with faith). He may have been asking the rabbi that question to see if the rabbi was on his side, his side that precious “free will” (a subconscious code for “Man’s sovereignty) was sacred, and above God’s will.

At 1:51 A.M., the false rabbi reminded me of something George Noory says now and then, which is that he doesn’t believe in coincidence, and I immediately realized that by saying that, Noory was contradicting himself in his belief that the future can be changed. For George, who is a believer in a thinking God who designed and created the universe, who still interacts in the world at least indirectly – for him to say that there is no coincidence, is to say that there is no randomness, no chaos, but that everything happens based on someone’s will, and due to “natural laws” which God created, and which God sets aside at times to accomplish something according to his will.

I also noticed that a few minutes later, near the end of the show, that the false rabbi went against the statement of the final caller, which was that the world was not controlled by an illuminati, but that we were all under the control of God. This was deceptive statement, and unwise to say, because as I often point out, the world doesn’t understand “free will” and God’s control correctly, and so when someone simply says God control’s everything to the masses, it doesn’t advance their understand but ends up creating more contention, in general. His reply was also deceptive, because the Bible itself says that Satan is the god of this world, figuratively, but that literally there are demons who rule certain sections of this planet, who, like human rulers, fight against the good (however the demons also fight against angels, which demons once were).

I’m curious if Noory, being someone who confuses “free will” with being able to do whatever you want to do, took the claim of the rabbi that God is in control to be true or false, and if he understood it to mean a general control (as in spiritual to a limited degree, and also fully environmental) or if he took it to mean in control of even the will of others (which wouldn’t make sense by the way since a will by definition has to be free to choose otherwise it’s not a will). l also wonder what the false rabbi meant by saying “control”: if he meant complete control or a general overall control so that his plans are always fulfilled without failure of any kind.

There was one good thing that Moshe Yess said, which was that he distinguished Jews from Judaism, indirectly acknowledging/implying that a Jew was still one racially, and not only a person who practiced Judaism.

What is the Best Evidence for Reincarnation and Karma If Any?

October 28, 2010 1 comment

On Coast to Coast AM tonight, George Noory was once again allowing the reincarnation and karma deception to be spread, this time by Barbara Martin and Dimitri Moraitis. These false teachings, which besides having no evidence for them, contradict God’s word, and God said that we only have one life, and that after an unforgiven person dies, they sleep and await condemnation and permanent imprisonment in Hell, and that when an forgiven person dies, their spirit goes to Heaven immediately and their physical body will one day be resurrected in perfect health and transformed into an immortal one that can withstand the glory of God and be in its presence without harm.

Teaching that reincarnation and karma are real, is dangerous. It’s dangerous because they make God out to be a liar, but God is the truth, and gives the true and only way to eternal peace, and who warns us with an eternity of non-stop suffering in Hell if we are not forgiven by Him, and His forgiveness comes with his Son’s salvation from sin, temporary pain and imprisonment in Hell (how to be saved is explained here).

Many people say that the best evidence for reincarnation comes from little kids who say things that they only could have known if they had been another person (as in “had a previous body”) and could only have certain behaviors that are similar or the same to that previous body if it had been theirs, and that another evidence is having a birthmark similar to some wound or fatal wound of the other body from which they have memories from. But there is no logical connection as to why they must have had that previous body merely because they have some of the memories of that body and some similar or some of the same behaviors of it. And, because of other possibilities as to how those memories and behaviors can be acquired, and with no proof that it is from reincarnation only, it cannot be proven that reincarnation would be the only mechanism by which those memories and behaviors were acquired. For example, demons (former angels that God has permanently shunned for rebelling against him) possess people, and are able to take over their bodies, including brain, and being that they have demonstrated the ability to manipulate flesh in supernatural ways, for example making it impervious or highly resistant to damage, causing it to change shape without damaging it, restoring it after changing its shape, and levitating it. So it is not a stretch to think that a demon could read the memories of a person it possesses and have done so, or that they memorize the events that have happened in the lives of various people, and later implant those memories into someone else after that person dies, and that some go so far as to manipulate the flesh of a baby in the womb so that it has some birthmark similar to the person whose memories it is implanting into the baby’s brain. Some demons may have targeted certain babies for confusion because the demon saw that the baby had a birthmark that reminded the demon of some non-fatal or fatal wound that it saw had been inflicted on some human that it had memories of. According to Scripture, demons in general try to lead people away from the truth about God, especially trying to prevent them from learning the truth about how to be saved. They use subtle ways to lead people astray all the way to trying to force them to reject Christ by having non-Christians persecute them, or by causing fights between Christians in various ways, like by getting some false or non-Christian to turn them against each other using false information or some unkind acts to provoke them to unkind against each other. Scripture makes it clear that demons can memorize things, can have great power and intelligence (like Satan), and can be extremely hateful (Satan tried many ways to get Jesus to fall, and fooled “the world” into murdering Him, but for all his scheming, God’s perfect wisdom caused Satan’s wisdom in evil, to backfire).

The claims of those in the reincarnation-believing group refute their own claim that reincarnation exists or can be said to be true in some case, this is because some say that demons exist and can possess people, some believe in “walk-ins” (which is when a spirit from a dead human possesses a living human’s body), some say that after a person dies they go to Heaven (with other human spirits) and choose the life they won’t live next, some say that aliens can possess a person’s body and many believe in psychic powers and that knowledge can be gained from reading the minds of others or seeing into the past or future supernaturally, and some believe a person can leave their body and learn things outside of their body, and even learn any past event from a spiritual place where it is recorded. If these seven things can happen according to many of them, why do they claim with certainty that when anyone has “past memories” that they didn’t go through in their current body, that it must have been because they once had another body, that they must have been reincarnated? And should Buddhists who don’t believe in any of the other seven possiblities claim with certaintity that reincarnation is the only reason why someone would have memories from another person when Buddhists claim that reality is an illusion or that they are deluded until they reach a state of perfection? And even if a person who believes in reincarnation doesn’t believe in any of the other seven possibilities, but unlike Buddhists believes reality to be a definite thing and that reality is not even subjective, how can they state with certainty that “past memories”, behaviors from another person’s body, and a birthmark similar to some wound they had, is due to reincarnation if they can’t see how the “past memories” are gained and when they can’t show any evidence that demons don’t manipulate people anymore than anyone can show evidence that God doesn’t exist and that the most of the Bible isn’t his word, or that his word hasn’t been effective in persuading people to do good, like not hating others but loving them, and not lying, stealing, murdering, but helping people to live well, or survive and to be at peace (except to those who refuse such help and even attack Christians who try to give it)?

As for the birthmark “evidence”, why would a baby have a birthmark similar to a wound from a previous body it had? What would cause such a wound? It would require intelligence for such a wound to be imitated on its new body, but what would make more sense, that the baby, in its stupid ignorant state decided to replicate the wound, or that another being did, one which obsesses on violence and is murderous (demons), or that the birthmark is natural and a demon targeted the baby when it saw the mark? An argument I can think of against the targeting argument, is that the demon would have to have to go far and wide looking for someone who had a wound in the same spot that lead to their death or was some area where they had cancer, or some traumatic relation like that, but such an argument ignores that demons talk with each other, can share memories (at least 1000 according to the Bible possessed one person), and aren’t all physically limited to slowly reading and understanding information like us, and aren’t all limited to certain languages, but could read information from a hard drive without needing a monitor or printer to read what is on it, and even when the hard drive is not powered on, and so, could scan through billions of hospital, police and obituary records and learn about various wounds or skin diseases or skin infections certain people had, and find someone who had such a problem on their skin that matched the birthmark of the baby they want to confuse (and those who get to know the baby), and then the demon could look for other personal information on the deceased people they chose for their scheme, asking other demons if they know anything much about those people it chose, and if one or more does, then transmitting the memories it has of that person into the little child all at once or over time or repeatedly putting the memories into the child. Some children have reported having nightmares of certain memories, supposedly from “a past life”, which I believe is from a demon somehow causing the child to focus on that memory or memories while that child is dreaming.

Concerning karma, the concept doesn’t make sense because it for people to “get back what they put out” or as said, to have negative or positive consequences for a financial act, and for everything they do, karma would have to be alive and have a mind and be intelligent and know right from wrong, and have the desire to judge and punish or reward or give consequences. Even if karma were not that specific, it would still have to have intelligence in order to do such things. How can a non-living thing, like a rock, tell the difference between a good or bad act, or good or bad speech? Further, it would have to coordinate all of the “positive or negative” things it did to people so that each one got what it deserved, otherwise it would be chaotic and nonsensical. On top of that, karma would also have to deal with giving positive or negative things to non-human things, even aliens if they existed. How could a non-living thing, unless it was programmed with future events, know how to respond in every situation? And how is it able to manipulate every single thing in such a way that everyone “gets what they deserve” or “gets What they put out”? It would have to be a computer far more advanced that we can comprehend, and the one who programmed it even more advanced since it would have to know how to program such complex tasks and would have to have the power to give the computer such power to manipulate the countless things in this universe so that everything came out as the programmer wanted it to. Karma then wouldn’t be karma as Buddhists, Hindus or New Agers claim it is, but a tool of a being who would be best described as God, and who has destined all things already since this karma machine would always achieve its goals. And no Buddhist, Hindu or New Ager has ever even hinted that karma fails, so they cannot argue without showing that they simply being contentious, argumentative, that karma doesn’t always work out. And even if it didn’t always work out, what would their point be? It would be self-defeating to argue that since they would be admitting that karma isn’t just, but unfair, and it wouldn’t explain how karma knows what to do to a person for their actions, how it knows a good thing from an evil thing.

Another problem with karma is that it justifies any evil act committed against another person, because according to the doctrine on karma, whatever bad thing happens to you, you deserve. So if a baby or little kid or anyone is abused in some way, sexually or not, or murdered, it was because they deserved it. Is that true? According to the Bible even a person who is suffering or who is in need or handicapped, isn’t always suffering or in need or handicapped because God is punishing them, but to test them (as evidence for or against something, like if they are patient or impatient, good or bad), or to show his love through them, like when Jesus healed various people who were handicapped.

Another problem with karma is that it justifies (according to the doctrine or personal belief of many who believe in karma) someone giving things to the rich who don’t need what they give them and which rich people have no intention of giving what they received from that person to the poor or little or anything of the things they already have and even things they most likely don’t or won’t need in the future. And the personal beliefs of many who believe in karma, even justify giving such things to the rich even if those rich people are stingy and hoard their wealth, even if they are giving to such rich people out of kindness or love for them. But according to the doctrine or personal belief of others, those things, including gifts, should be given to the poor who need them, or at least the poor who are decent, especially to ones who are righteous or good, and to such poor who even share with others who are poor. So who does karma consider to be in the right? And according to the simplistic doctrine that most have on karma (I’ve never heard them debating this and only bring up their thoughts about it if any when I bring it up to them), if an evil person who mostly does evil, but to whom mostly good is done, deserves that goodness. So for example, when Hitler was murdering the Jews and was having good things done to him and when many were doing almost whatever he asked them to do, it was because he deserved it. Or if someone was hoarding their wealth all throughout their life and using it for little good or only using it to make a profit and doing it oppressively in general (there have been many people like that all throughout history), and those people had many good things done to them, more than the evil things, it was because they deserved it.

The doctrine of karma reminds me of the false tithing doctrine that many false Christians (and sadly some true Christians) teach, because both are vague and the proof for both is arbitrary. Promotors of tithing (especially Pentecostals) claim that if something bad happens to you, it was because you were robbing God of money, of 10% of your weekly income, and that if you were giving it, you’d get 100 times back sometime in the future, unless you “didn’t have enough faith” (when you gave the money?). Isn’t that vague to say, “sometime in the future” or “didn’t have enough faith”? How much faith do you need to get the 100 times back of the money you gave, and how long must you have faith? Ironically such Christians refer to a passage in Malachi as evidence that you must tithe your money to God, however that verse indicates that God was asking them to test him, to see if he would reward them for tithing (something other than their money) and taking into account their lack of faith so that they would have faith after seeing Him pass their test. And how much faith would they have if God said, “I’ll reward you later, sometime, just wait.” Who would have faith after 60-80 years and believe God after waiting for so long? How would they know after having waited so long that the reward, the “reaction” wasn’t just “chance”? And how is karma any different? When is it working? When is it taking place? Does it take place right after an evil or good act or is there a delay? And how long is the delay? It matters because since there is no Laws of Karma, unlike in the Law in the Bible, the many commandments in the Bible, so it’s impossible to know when you are breaking the laws of karma. By the way, I’ve also noticed that those who strongly believe in the tithe-for-profit doctrine treat people cruelly, coldly or with unkindness. They justify their treatment of others this way because of their, “You reap what you sow” belief which they take out of context in the Bible to make it seem that because God is punishing you then they then have the right to hate you and also have the right to punish you. They might as well say, “You get what you put out.” In fact, a Pastor Galen of First Family Assemblies of God Church in Albuquerque, who is the father of the younger and unmarried one who is also a pastor in his church, told me that I was the most negative person he ever met (after reading a short critique of his son’s misteachings). And by ignoring God’s law and replacing it with their “Be positive whenever you talk to me or else I have the right to treat you negative and will do so” doctrine, they might as well be teaching the vague doctrine of karma, which can suit whoever believes in it.

Another problem with karma, is how to know how to comply with it so that what you want to happen to you, happens, but the problem is, how can I know what it considers good or evil being that it doesn’t show it in any way and can’t be found or accessed? Does it consider it a good thing to kill a person who is mostly destructive or bent on destroying things, or does it consider it an evil eating certain food in front of another person considers immoral to eat? Does it consider saying, “Allah doesn’t exist”, “Buddha doesn’t exist”, or “Moses didn’t exist” evil things to say? Does it consider that one person’s conscience isn’t the same as someone else’s, and that some people have no conscience, like psychopaths? Does it consider any lying to be evil, even a lie that doesn’t harm anyone but instead saves a life or lives? Does it consider stealing a weapon or what someone intends to use as a weapon to commit murder a good thing or a bad thing? Where is the rule book or commandments of karma? Some might argue that karma judges you by your own standard, but if that is true, and my standard is to do whatever I feel like: steal, lie, commit adultery, hate people for no good reason, dishonor my parents even when they do good to me, abuse animals, endanger the lives of others, including by polluting in such a way that it is a certain danger to others, or murdering people whenever I feel like it, and I do those things, then shouldn’t karma “reward” me? Some might argue that no one is like that, but that isn’t the point, the point is that that can be a standard, and besides that, there are people like that, and hundreds of millions if not billions of people have died because of people who made it their standard, at least for a moment, to speak and act in those wrong ways.

Almost every race and culture believes in demons, with the exception of most Buddhists, and even many atheists believe in “negative spirits (without a body)”, so to claim that reincarnation must be the reason for anyone having past memories of being in another body, and having a birthmark related to that other body, and having certain behaviors of that other body, is either assuming things or ignoring other evidence or both.

Update 10/29/2010:


The Buddhist and Hindu View of Reincarnation and Karma:

The Hindu Caste System and Their Teaching On Reincarnation and Karma:

Odors of Sanctity, Visions and Healings by ‘Mary’ and Bleeding Saints

Last night and into the early morning George Noory, the main host of the Coast to Coast AM radio show, interviewed Kevin Cook author of Marian Apparitions, talking about visions of Mary and other various miracles that his guest no doubt wanted to use as evidence that the Catholic Church was a legitimate religion. George did a good job interviewing this time, and so made the show interesting.

Kevin claimed that he had had an inner calling in him while he was a Methodist pastor to become a Catholic (not that the Bible taught that Catholicism was the true religion) and so he became one because of that he implied. He said that he knew George Noory was a Catholic, and George immediately acknoweledged that he was right, in some way that I forget. Ironically George showed his anger at one caller who tried to raise fervor for the Catholic Church, telling him the show was about visions of Mary, not the Catholic Church.

Kevin brought up various miracles and Catholic prophets, and I knew that the usual would happen, which is that people would here this who were not saved and think that these were signs that the Catholic Church is or might the “true religion”. The problem with these miracles Kevin brought up, is that he himself acknoweldged that these Mary ghosts showed no concern for a true religion, but that she accepted anyone (which refutes Catholicism as being the true religion and shows the demonic nature of these Mary ghosts) and that the “miracle” of the smell of roses from no known source does’t just happen at Catholic churches or when Catholics are around, which eliminates the notion that it’s a Catholic only miracle. As for those who wonder if demons can heal, like I have for many years, they clearly can from what Revelation says, which is that the anti-Christ will receive a deadly head wound, but that it would be healed. So any healings that Catholics are able to perform or that seem to come from objects or places used in the Catholic religion should not cause anyone to wonder if Catholicism is the true religion. On top of that, the Bible said that the coming of the anti-Christ would come with demonic deceptions:

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds miracles, signs and lying wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. – 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10

Notice the Bible there doesn’t say, “fake miracles, signs and wonders” meaning “man-made miracles or mistaken for miracles or demon-made but having no effect,” but instead says that they are “lying” as in they give people false information, for example the false implication that any religion except ones which are good in God’s eyes or that those who do as they please won’t be punished, except of course those who go against such a message (which would be the people of the true religion, the loved children of God).

The Bible also teaches in the Old Testament that God allows for the possiblity of prophecies that come true but which were falsely claimed to have come from Him or from a false god, and that he does this to test people (to condemn or justify them in other words), to reveal if they are faithful to him or merely following their own heart ultimately. So, no one should be afraid when a Catholic makes a successful prophecy, especially not a vague one.

Another warning sign that these miracles are of Satan, is that the Catholic Church won’t reveal what this so called final (third) secret of Fatima is, which apparently is that it will be a perpetrator of child abuse: Ironically that page, which is propaganda, which attempts to legitamize the Catholic Church though showing that the Pope danced around the issue of the third “secret” deceptively, refutes Catholicism by implying that the forgiveness of priests does not atone for anyone’s sins, that justice has not been satisfied.

Before that show, Art Bell did a show, and said, “It’s okay to attack someone’s beliefs… to attack their data… but when you attack their character, that’s another story.” That is a deceptive and immoral statement because it is obvious that attacking a belief or data (as if it were a lie and not good) without evidence, is considered to be a crime of harassment, and in a way it is an attack against the character of the one who has the beliefs being attacked, and, Art’s statement implies that you may not rebuke a person for being thief, liar, adulterer, fornicator, idolator, rebel or murderer, which would mean we should all allow people commit repeat crimes to get away with their crimes without justice.

Ramblin’ Steve: a Giant False Christian

June 23, 2010 32 comments

See also: Steve Quayle, False Christian

False Christian Pastor, Robert Tilton
Sweeet money: gimme ur money so I can buy more cool stuff for myself oh flock!
I like Texas a lot, yessum, I do indeed. Yee, yee, yee, yee, yee, yes iiiin DEED!

If anyone has been listening to Steve Quayle tonight on Coast to Coast AM, it’s another good example of what a liar this person is. He rambles (amazingly George Noory is skilled enough to be able to get a word in without it sounding like either is talking over each other) and floods, as if to avoid having to answer any hard questions. When George asked him if he had any scientific evidence for his claims (for example giants having the ability to kill people with electromagnetic waves produced from their skulls), Steve replied, “Of course there is” but gave none and continued to ramble. Very weasely. He cites the Bible as if it were evidence for his claims, yet if you read the Bible you can see that it doesn’t even hint at giants having the ability to hurt anyone from a distance with EM waves. He also, to my disgust, cited that fraud Tom Bearden, and cited the usual nonsense Bearden is known for pretending to be an expert on: scalar waves and perpetual motion. Bearden is a liar who incredibly, managed to dupe some mainstream (evolutionist) scientists into letting him ramble about “his” free energy MEG in their science journals. His mathematical rants have been exposed as hoaxes years ago. Incredibly, it took me to get Wikipedia to put an article up on this con, and despite me citing the evidence that he was a con, Wikipedia deleted the page in jealousy, knowing I was a creationist, but then later added a page on him, a page that didn’t even mention criticisms against him till long after, and even when it cited some of the same evidence I pointed out against his fake science, were merely put as foot notes at the bottom. Why were they protecting this idiot?

During the show George played a song from Steve’s daughter, some country song, part of which was, “I ain’t no housewife”. Is it humble or “Christian” to make housewives appear to be something bad or shameful? Obviously not, but Steve raised that woman.

Steve Quayle is a greatly damaging heretic because he promotes pseudo-science and gives a false impression of what a true Christian is.

Update 2:41 P.M.: What a surprise: Just now Steve said he wasn’t always for turning the other cheek and “I’m not a pacifist”. That makes it pretty clear where his daughter got her arrogant, “I ain’t no housewife” attitude. Hypocritically, after saying this, he kept asking what was wrong with saying, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So love equals shooting at “giants” and government agents or those who offend you or trespass against you? Jesus also said, “Love your enemies”, “bless those who persecute you” and “not to resist an evil man”, not “resist and shoot your enemies”.

2:47 P.M. A caller just reminded me, indirectly, that spirits are not material beings, yet Steve claims that they can turn into giant beings of flesh and “an appropriate size”. Steve also teaches the false claim that the “Sons of God” mentioned in Genesis were evil angels who had sex with humans and made demonic giant children as a result. “Sons of God” however implies something good, Christians. The Bible doesn’t call evil angels “sons”, it does repeatedly call Christians “sons” however. Only once does the Bible refer to all humans as “children” of God. In Genesis, when it says that the Sons of God took wives from among men, it’s talking about Christians marrying and having children non-Christians.

At about this time Steve said that he believed some book he was selling was going to sell out (in other words to get it now so that others who want it won’t be able to get it, nice), but wasn’t boasting when he said that and wasn’t trying to pitch his book; I don’t think so.

2:55 P.M. Steve is telling everyone that you can see giants who are pretending to be ordinary humans with sound waves. Ridiculous. So everyone is going to go out buying sonar vision now to see who might be preparing to attack them with their EM power and eat them (Steve claims all giants are cannibals).

While listening to this show, Steve, besides sounding like a classic “bullshitter”, reminded me of that false Christian, con pastor televangelist Robert Tilton. Steve’s babble is even like Tilton’s fake speaking-in-tongues routine.

Pastor Robert Tilton smells imaginary bread.

Just imagine givin’ me all your money sweet flock.
Just visualize, then give. That’s right: God wants you to fork it
all over to me. Oh bibili babili babalah babiboh, rahdi tih tah TAH!

Pastor Robert Tilton using his imagination.

I smells me some bread, n’ it smells like, muh muh muh muh munay.
Tithe to Tilton, and ur’ tithin’ to the Lord. 1-800-GIVE-2-GET-RICH
Have faith my friends, have faith. Mmm mmm mmm.

Related articles:

The Resurrection of Robert Tilton

Tilton still swindling in 2009

Other prominent false teachers, starting with Tilton

What’s Wrong With Noory?

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.

George Noory Gets Mad On the C2C NASA Show and Another Stupid Darwinist Wastes the Audience’s Time

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).


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers