The Genesis Seal

well i'm with Rob on this one: his reverence for the MRC secret Seal is fully justified. Who would have thought that those innocent-looking 64 characters from the OP (upon which Hans based his extraordinary work) would have been anything more than just part of a simple sentence? We can't be blamed for not recognising the fact that in reality there is a revolutionary construct here that is not only visually appealing but clearly indicative of grand design on the original author's part. It seems clear to me now that Kingfisher (the author of the source text) deliberately placed those characters from his OP in a specific order as part of a universal unifying code that would only become apparent in the future to those persons who had achieved a very particular state of awareness (as Hans clearly has). I'm still coming to terms with this incredible discovery.
 
EvilQuest said:
well i'm with Rob on this one: his reverence for the MRC secret Seal is fully justified. Who would have thought that those innocent-looking 64 characters from the OP (upon which Hans based his extraordinary work) would have been anything more than just part of a simple sentence? We can't be blamed for not recognising the fact that in reality there is a revolutionary construct here that is not only visually appealing but clearly indicative of grand design on the original author's part. It seems clear to me now that Kingfisher (the author of the source text) deliberately placed those characters from his OP in a specific order as part of a universal unifying code that would only become apparent in the future to those persons who had achieved a very particular state of awareness (as Hans clearly has). I'm still coming to terms with this incredible discovery.
Click to expand...

Now, that is sarcasm!
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I have been labouring under the illusion that the JREF forum was: A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.Even if a hundred posters lose interest, I can hope that the may be others who are interested. I shall continue to use this thread as a 'shop window' for an important issue; anyone who prefers can pass by and shop next door.
Click to expand...
Sorry but your trap won’t catch any mice and the world won’t beat a path to your door. I recommend returning to the drawing board.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I seem to remember that Richard Feynman attracted that sort of label when, at a prestigious conference, he first introduced his cute little diagrams to explain quantum interaction of multiple particles.
Click to expand...
Two problems with this:

1) They laughed at Galilleo, yes. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
2) I never applied any label to you. I merely said that you have a distorted view of science, and that if you wish to participate in scientific debate grow a thicker skin, because all of us have endured far worse than what's happened to you in this thread.

I have been labouring under the illusion that the JREF forum was: A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.Even if a hundred posters lose interest, I can hope that the may be others who are interested. I shall continue to use this thread as a 'shop window' for an important issue; anyone who prefers can pass by and shop next door.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm out. Kingfisher has stated (twice) that he's not interested in discussion--he's merely going to present his ideas, and doesn't want any criticism. It's not worth my time to discuss things with people who don't want to discuss them. I suggest it's not worth anyone's time.
 
Dinwar said:
Two problems with this:

1) They laughed at Galilleo, yes. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
2) I never applied any label to you. I merely said that you have a distorted view of science, and that if you wish to participate in scientific debate grow a thicker skin, because all of us have endured far worse than what's happened to you in this thread.

Well, I'm out. Kingfisher has stated (twice) that he's not interested in discussion--he's merely going to present his ideas, and doesn't want any criticism. It's not worth my time to discuss things with people who don't want to discuss them. I suggest it's not worth anyone's time.
Click to expand...

I'm out too. Boring.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I have been labouring under the illusion that the JREF forum was: A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.Even if a hundred posters lose interest, I can hope that the may be others who are interested. I shall continue to use this thread as a 'shop window' for an important issue; anyone who prefers can pass by and shop next door.
Click to expand...


Few of us suffer fools gladly. Some of us are more patient than others - this often has to do with how many times we have seen the same idiocy presented badly, arrogantly, and with absolute confidence.

I, for one, have been friendlier than usual - I even reached out to a new poster whom I like and respect and welcomed him to the forum.

Your grand ideas are scrapings from the bottom of the barrel of woo. You have been treated by many with far more patience and thoughtful attention than your posts have warranted. I have chosen to be sparing in my praise of your efforts so as not to confuse you - I truly wish that you would drop this stuff and learn to interact with reality - it is far more interesting.

Do what you will - the rest of us will muddle along without you.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I have been labouring under the illusion that the JREF forum was: A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.Even if a hundred posters lose interest, I can hope that the may be others who are interested. I shall continue to use this thread as a 'shop window' for an important issue; anyone who prefers can pass by and shop next door.
Click to expand...

It is indeed such a place, but:

1) You are, in fact, being addressed in a quite friendly way. Lively too, to be sure, but certainly friendly. Real friends tend to tell you the truth, however.

2) You are not discussing the things you mention. You are not even actually discussing your obsession with your genesis seal, as of yet: For the first several pages of this thread, you were quite condescending and were expressing impatience. You stated that we needed to understand (meaning accept) your premise before you could move on, ignoring the fact that several posters told you that they (we) had indeed understood your premise, but had rejected it.

Now, I recognize that you seem to move a bit; you seem to recognize that your first premise, that the initial words and patterns were rare and unique, may be wrong, but you are as yet unwilling to consider that this alone may shatter your hypothesis.

You are, currently, like someone who thought a pattern in the pebbles he found on the beach is unique and fantastic. After having been shown that the beach is littered with similar patterns, you are now claiming that YOUR particular pattern is still somehow different.

So now, without much patience, since you have claimed this many times, and you tell us you have studied this for years, we ask you: Then present such evidence that you might have.

When presenting this evidence, I have a hint: If you feel even the slightest need to use terms such as 'may', 'possibly', 'not unlikely', yay even 'probably', then your evidence does not stand.

Why is this? Well, you have been shown that patterns, including, but not restricted to words, abound in an essentially random set of letters, it follows that this property must be recursive: Any next layer you conceive will, for all practical purposes, also equal an essentially random set, and as such abound in patters. This will be true of any subsequent layers, simply because it is a property of random sets of meaningful units to seem to form meaningful patterns. So, to hold any weight, in the face of this overwhelming probability of randomness, your evidence must be clear, distinct, and incontrovertible.

As for your hypothesis about historical impact, it is an entirely different hypothesis, because it is absolutely detached from the discussion of purpose. As already discussed, people have been constructing imaginary patterns since the beginnings of humanity, so it is indeed possible that others have trod the same way as you, persisted in their illusion, and having happened to have power, made an imprint on history with it.

Now luckily, pragmatism seems to ultimately prevail in human undertakings, if only because reality imposes it on us, so perhaps even this quest is unlikely to show anything, but try you might. One word of warning though: I have already seen you assign a perfectly unwarranted reliance on single historic sources. In reality, our knowledge of details in even relatively recent history is often shockingly sketchy.

Hans

(It's 4:30 AM here, and I can't sleep, probably for jet-lag, but I'll now give it another try)
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
As for your hypothesis about historical impact, it is an entirely different hypothesis, because it is absolutely detached from the discussion of purpose. As already discussed, people have been constructing imaginary patterns since the beginnings of humanity, so it is indeed possible that others have trod the same way as you, persisted in their illusion, and having happened to have power, made an imprint on history with it.

Now luckily, pragmatism seems to ultimately prevail in human undertakings, if only because reality imposes it on us, so perhaps even this quest is unlikely to show anything, but try you might. One word of warning though: I have already seen you assign a perfectly unwarranted reliance on single historic sources. In reality, our knowledge of details in even relatively recent history is often shockingly sketchy.
Click to expand...

I'm fully on board with the hand-in-glove relationship betweem friendly debate and the need for thick skin. I can recognise it in action here. But there are some posters who are beyond the pale, employing fillybustering tactics demanding that I present evidence while keeping me busy with unhelpful comments and questions. These are the ones I try to avoid getting bogged down with, because it often look malicious.

The question of impact in history is, I believe, very important because the Genesis Seal is a new source - new in the sense that it has not been recognised during the period in which a rational, modern approach to history has been developed. The scope for scholarly citation is quite restricted to start with, and is quite impractical in a discussion like this, under pressure for quick results. When I do reach the stage of presenting evidence for impact in history, I shall continue to be more or less anecdotal. If that means my input is discounted as un-scholarly then so be it. I will be content to have sown the seeds that others may turn into healthy fruit-bearing plants. I shall concentrate first on getting information out into the open; the volume of this information should have a bearing on its own integrity. Afterwards I may be able to settle into a comfortable rhythm of more scholarly discussion.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
RobDegraves said:
Quote by Kingfisher :
that it has been recognised as such in the past, and may have influenced historical movers and shakers.
Click to expand...
This you absolutely need to prove.
Click to expand...

You are quite right that I need to get on and show some proof, rather than just saying it exists. I am getting closer to being able to do just that. I shall do so after my next contributory post.
Click to expand...

What happened with that?
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I seem to remember that Richard Feynman attracted that sort of label when, at a prestigious conference, he first introduced his cute little diagrams to explain quantum interaction of multiple particles.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, that is not appropriate. You are not coming up with a theory that can be replicated at this time. Feynman on the other hand had a theory that could immediately be confirmed, and it was.

You on the other hand have engaged in a lot of stuff, with no replication or apparent method.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I'm fully on board with the hand-in-glove relationship betweem friendly debate and the need for thick skin. I can recognise it in action here. But there are some posters who are beyond the pale, employing fillybustering tactics demanding that I present evidence while keeping me busy with unhelpful comments and questions. These are the ones I try to avoid getting bogged down with, because it often look malicious.
Click to expand...
Nope you came in here unprepared and found out that you lack protocols, methodology and controls. Welcome to critical thinking.

We all get the exact same treatment here. My ideas and thoughts go through the mill as well.
The question of impact in history is, I believe, very important because the Genesis Seal is a new source - new in the sense that it has not been recognised during the period in which a rational, modern approach to history has been developed. The scope for scholarly citation is quite restricted to start with, and is quite impractical in a discussion like this, under pressure for quick results.
Click to expand...
In other words you think that there may be something, but either your sources are comical or you don't have any data to share.
When I do reach the stage of presenting evidence for impact in history, I shall continue to be more or less anecdotal. If that means my input is discounted as un-scholarly then so be it. I will be content to have sown the seeds that others may turn into healthy fruit-bearing plants.
Click to expand...
maybe you should tend your garden before you get all puffed up like that.
I shall concentrate first on getting information out into the open; the volume of this information should have a bearing on its own integrity. Afterwards I may be able to settle into a comfortable rhythm of more scholarly discussion.
Click to expand...

No what you have currently presented as 'information' is lacking in integrity.

We have really been kind to you.
 
The question of impact in history is, I believe, very important because the Genesis Seal is a new source - new in the sense that it has not been recognised during the period in which a rational, modern approach to history has been developed. The scope for scholarly citation is quite restricted to start with, and is quite impractical in a discussion like this, under pressure for quick results. When I do reach the stage of presenting evidence for impact in history, I shall continue to be more or less anecdotal. If that means my input is discounted as un-scholarly then so be it.
Click to expand...


So... you made a number of claims that you have no intention of proving, is that correct?

You have been treated with far more patience than you should have been. I am not sure that it is a good idea to encourage your mania.

How about this deal? In good faith, see a psychiatrist or psychologist and tell them about the Genesis seal. When you have done that, take a moment to figure out whether this obsession of yours is real.

After that, maybe we can have an actual scholarly discussion.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I'm fully on board with the hand-in-glove relationship betweem friendly debate and the need for thick skin. I can recognise it in action here. But there are some posters who are beyond the pale, employing fillybustering tactics demanding that I present evidence while keeping me busy with unhelpful comments and questions. These are the ones I try to avoid getting bogged down with, because it often look malicious.

The question of impact in history is, I believe, very important because the Genesis Seal is a new source - new in the sense that it has not been recognised during the period in which a rational, modern approach to history has been developed. The scope for scholarly citation is quite restricted to start with, and is quite impractical in a discussion like this, under pressure for quick results. When I do reach the stage of presenting evidence for impact in history, I shall continue to be more or less anecdotal. If that means my input is discounted as un-scholarly then so be it. I will be content to have sown the seeds that others may turn into healthy fruit-bearing plants. I shall concentrate first on getting information out into the open; the volume of this information should have a bearing on its own integrity. Afterwards I may be able to settle into a comfortable rhythm of more scholarly discussion.
Click to expand...

what i take from this is that you will continue to suggest that people in the past may have used this "technique" albeit that they wouldn't have referred to it as the Genesis Seal specifically (obviously, since it was you who coined the term)

You can't say that here. Not when you've made it clear that you intend to present actual evidence of this. Anecdotal evidence won't wash if that's what you meant, because that's just you suggesting again and accepting hearsay. If you don't have substantive evidence, all you have to do is state that you do not actually have that direct evidence after all. You may get flayed for that but it's better than pretending that you have something that you don't.
 
I'm a bit confused. Has Kingfisher2926 stated why this Genesis Seal thing is important? All I'm getting is that if you take the text and rearrange the text in a square you can then form words that...already appear in the text? Or are somehow related to the subject of the text?

Why is this significant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom