tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post3453701128545487527..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: My Refusal to Wrangle with Robert Sungenis Over Geocentrism and a Supposedly 10,000-Year-Old, Non-Rotating EarthDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger444125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-30886828264705606872010-12-19T18:16:02.220-05:002010-12-19T18:16:02.220-05:00[continuation of "S"' comment:
Seco...[continuation of "S"' comment:<br /><br />Second, while it’s apparently possible to detect laser light that has bounced off the lunar surface, it’s clear that this is <b>not</b> what happened and continues to happen with the lunar laser experiments run by scientists around the world (the ones referenced and used by Bennett). Why? A few reasons.<br /><br />As stated at the University of California at San Diego website:<br /><br />“We measure to the retroreflector arrays left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts, and by an unmanned Soviet rover carrying a French-built reflector. These define very specific points of reference on the lunar surface. <b>This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors.</b> We aim at one reflector at a time when performing the measurement.”<br />http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html<br /><br />Another factor to consider, as the article below states, is that the nature of the return signal indicates that it must be bouncing off something well under a meter in size vs. photons reflected from the lunar surface. Also, returns from other non-lunar landing areas are "featureless", meaning that there is no evidence of something unusually reflective anywhere other than where we and the Russians landed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Retroreflectors<br /><br />I don’t see the relevance of the Russian mirrors placed on the moon in 2005 that Sungenis mentioned. Scientists around the world have been using these retro-reflectors - some for decades now - and they get their results by focusing where NASA landed and placed retro-reflectors.<br /><br />So, he still needs to either remove this section of <i>Galileo Was Wrong</i> or stop promoting NASA lunar landing conspiracy theories.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7977710354956755632010-12-19T18:14:17.136-05:002010-12-19T18:14:17.136-05:00Contributor "S" asked me to cross-post h...Contributor "S" asked me to cross-post his reply to Bob Sungenis' latest remarks above:<br /><br />I noticed that Sungenis is still trying to answer the contradiction between him and his <i>Galileo Was Wrong</i> co-author (Bennett) on the loooong thread. <br /><br />IMO, all he’s done with his "new information" is to model the propagandist/conspiracy theorist mindset. As I previously told Johnmartin (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289532816869#c2770407935333708365), they're guilty of the very things that they accuse modern science of. They approach the evidence with an extreme bias that blinds them to the facts in front of their eyes or they fail to honestly seek out contrary evidence in the first place.<br /><br />Sungenis first waved off the contradiction between Bennett and him with a non-answer that gave the appearance of being an answer. Then, after it was exposed that his answer didn't actually answer anything, he didn’t even acknowledge that fact and instead went off to find "new evidence" to "vindicate" himself (in his own words). And that's exactly what a propagandist/conspiracy theorist would do. His belief is dictating his "fact" search rather than allowing his fact search to dictate his belief. His recommendation of the “excellent documentary” video put out by other conspiracy theorists rather than information put out by reputable scientists also fits the propagandist/conspiracy theorist mold.<br /><br />Another illustration of Sungenis' propagandist/conspiracy theorist mindset is that he knew about this contradiction several years ago, before his book was published (unless he wants to say that he never read Bennett’s chapter). But only now, after the contradiction was publicly exposed, did he make any effort to resolve it.<br /><br />So, did Sungenis’ “new information” accomplished anything? Not really.<br /><br />First, how does Sungenis' "new evidence" "vindicate" him and Bennett from "any contradiction", as he claims? Bennett says in Galileo Was Wrong that there are mirrors "placed on [the moon's] surface by astronauts" and Sungenis supports and promotes conspiracy theories that astronauts never went to the moon. Either Bennett is wrong or Sungenis is wrong. That contradiction remains.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28471549682409987842010-11-26T13:14:41.174-05:002010-11-26T13:14:41.174-05:00I am complying with a request from Bob Sungenis to...I am complying with a request from Bob Sungenis to post one last comment from him:<br /><br />Dear Dave,<br /><br />If you would do me one more kind favor and post this on your blog concerning the discussion on geocentrism that contains the 400+ entries, I would appreciate it. I think it will clear up a lot of confusion.<br /><br />As you know, I have objected to you beginning your blog on geocentrism by showing a picture of a man on the moon and implying by that picture that I am to be considered as “absurd” and “eccentric” and not to be taken seriously when I speak on the subject of geocentrism because I doubt whether the United States sent a man to the moon. In the midst of this, one of your blog contributors made a big issue that we had included a paragraph in <i>Galileo Was Wrong</i>, page 440, in which Dr. Bennett states that there are lunar reflectors on the moon, and your contributor inferred by that reference that I am contradicting myself in saying that I doubt that the United States sent a man to the moon.<br /><br />I have some new information that will vindicate both myself and Dr. Bennett from any contradiction. <br /><br />In a <i>National Geographic</i> article dated December 1966, page 876, titled “The Lasers Bright Magic,” it is stated that the United States send pulses of lasers to the surface of the moon in 1962 and received back reflections of the laser light. The main paragraph states: “Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasonic equipment.”<br /><br />In a November 5, 1963 article from the <i>New York Times</i> contained an article titled “Soviet Bounces Light Beam Off Moon in Laser Test.” The article states: “Moscow, November 4 – A concentrated beam of light has been bounced off the moon and detected on earth by a Soviet observatory in the Crimea. The feat, reported today by Tass, the Soviet press agency, duplicates an experiment done late last year by engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology….The Soviet announcement said a laser had been installed at the focal point of the 100-inch reflector telescope at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory.”<br /><br />I have also discovered that the Russians placed laser reflectors on the moon by means of unmanned spacecraft in our recent decade, specifically 2005.<br /><br />If you want to find out more about this, please consult the excellent documentary at:<br /><br />http://www.moonmovie.com/faq.htm#reflectors<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Robert SungenisDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4689785339203989372010-11-22T11:00:17.612-05:002010-11-22T11:00:17.612-05:00I am closing this thread because I'm sick of t...I am closing this thread because I'm sick of the hassle of the gigantic number of posts. I keep having to switch to the most recent page. <br /><br />Whoever wants to keep commenting can do so under the "Sungenis Responds" post. But I don't want any more repetition or personal attacks from anyone.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-11383201935714902412010-11-22T00:06:09.082-05:002010-11-22T00:06:09.082-05:00D- You may be right and I may very well do that. T...D- You may be right and I may very well do that. This thread will soon come to an end one way or another. I believe in free speech, but not total domination of my blog by people with a very specific (and quite eccentric) agenda.<br /><br /><br />But before I would consider removing Mark's accusations, I want a clear, non-nonsense accounting from you:<br /><br />1) Who exactly are you? – I use my real baptismal and confirmation names - John Martin. It is my right to use such a name to be authentic and also retain some anonymity for privacy reasons.<br /><br />2) Do you have anything online where we can learn about you? – Theologyweb is where I do just about all my posting. You can see a variety of thread I’ve started here –<br /><br />http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/search.php?searchid=33507<br /><br />I’ve done some small number of posts on CARM, an example is given here –<br /><br />http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?10671-The-end-of-Calvinism-and-Penal-Substitution/page6&p=259683<br /><br />There are some posts on Turrentenfan’s blog. One such example is here –<br /><br />https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21597890&postID=4299777104357587583<br /><br />I also have a small number of posts on another physics discussion board some time ago. I don’t remember the name of it though at this point in time. The discussion was on Newtonian physics and the tides. Each time I made posts under the name of Johnmartin. I have a tiny blog spot of only two posts in response to Turrentenfan here - http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/. You can tell I’m not Robert Sungenis and you know what . . . its very easy to work out from the difference in writing style. See for yourself. I’m me and I write like me wherever I go and Robert is not me and he writes very differently to me.johnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59283493074518151072010-11-22T00:00:35.732-05:002010-11-22T00:00:35.732-05:00I also have a small number of posts on another phy...I also have a small number of posts on another physics discussion board some time ago. I don’t remember the name of it though at this point in time. The discussion was on Newtonian physics and the tides. Each time I made posts under the name of Johnmartin. I have a tiny blog spot of only two posts in response to Turrentenfan here - http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/. You can tell I’m not Robert Sungenis and you know what . . . its very easy to work out from the difference in writing style. See for yourself. I’m me and I write like me wherever I go and Robert is not me and he writes very differently to me.<br /><br />3) What happened at Theology Web? – I was in a discussion at Tweb and statements were made as expected with such a controversial topic. The persons involved were mostly atheists/agnostics who made several statements. I did have an agreement with another member of my family to create another account to bump some posts and keep the thread going. Tweb disciplined me for using two accounts and everything has been pretty sweet ever since and I’ve made several hundred posts since the incident. I’ve also since been involved in a number of threads on geo and other apologetic topics and Tweb is happy with my behavior. The geo threads have been popular with about 86,000 and 37,000 views in each. I’ve been posting on and off at Tweb since I joined in November 2004. My account has been largely inactive for about 2 months. The account is currently still open and I’m free to post there any time, just like any other member.<br /><br />4) Are you simply being fed info. from Bob Sungenis or anyone else? – Definitely not. My posts on other various topics both inside Tweb and on other forums are my own writings based upon my own research, which includes information from GWW, other books and websites. I did consult Robert on some occasions early on in the original geocentrism discussion. Even when I was consulting Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennet, I was very open about it and everyone on the forum knew what was going on. It was common knowledge and only after one poster posed the question – “Are you Robert Sungenis?”, did I deny it. Actually at the time I found it offensive that someone should ask me the question and that’s why I originally reacted the way I did on the Tweb thread. Anyway the incident was a long time ago and I have continued in various dialogues with the same persons involved and we all get along just fine. It’s really water under the bridge.<br /><br />D- I want straight and detailed answers, or else you may find your comments deleted as well. I take an extremely dim view of game-playing and identity-switching on the Internet. <br /><br />JM- I’ve directly answered your questions. Now I request you consider my request and delete Marks posts, which are off topic. Marks posts are a clear example of character assassination.<br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2663350539081399532010-11-21T14:58:00.728-05:002010-11-21T14:58:00.728-05:00Mark,
Could you please provide me with some hard ...Mark,<br /><br />Could you please provide me with some hard evidence and facts regarding your accusations toward johnmartin? I found the threads at Theology Web and they are monsters: 100 times larger than this monster combox. Can you give me some URLs where there is something objective that shows that johnmartin is just a puppet for someone else, as you contend?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-13500783203672942172010-11-21T14:45:31.515-05:002010-11-21T14:45:31.515-05:00Hi johnmartin,
Dave Armstrong - I request you del...Hi johnmartin,<br /><br /><i>Dave Armstrong - I request you delete all of Marks posts. He is flooding the combox with the intent to attack me and has no intention of discussing the subject matter of geo. Please maintain the standards.</i><br /><br />You may be right and I may very well do that. This thread will soon come to an end one way or another. I believe in free speech, but not total domination of my blog by people with a very specific (and quite eccentric) agenda.<br /><br />But before I would consider removing Mark's accusations, <b>I want a clear, non-nonsense accounting from you</b>:<br /><br />1) Who exactly are you?<br /><br />2) Do you have anything online where we can learn about you?<br /><br />3) What happened at Theology Web?<br /><br />4) Are you simply being fed info. from Bob Sungenis or anyone else?<br /><br />I want straight and detailed answers, or else you may find your comments deleted as well. I take an extremely dim view of game-playing and identity-switching on the Internet.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35823195357177345912010-11-21T09:27:06.017-05:002010-11-21T09:27:06.017-05:00Thank you Mr. Phillips for your most profound stat...Thank you Mr. Phillips for your most profound statement regarding the dire effects of removing the earth as the center of the Universe a la Copernicus and "watered by Galileo." <br /><br />Just Saturday, Nov 20 at the end of an article entitled "Newfound planet challenges theories" an astronomer Alex Wolszczan of Penn State Un said, "he always welcomes reports indicating that planets are more common than previously believed. It keeps on making us less and less important in the universe, but I am not saddened by this [and in an attempt to laugh it off] --I think it's comforting," he said. "Do you like to be alone for long periods of time?"<br /><br />But those long time periods do not exist as Geocentricism suggests and C-14 dating of fossils from dinosaurs to diamonds supports. Thus, when this realization that we are NOT random accidents of nature in a purposeless cosmos, God's laws will most assuredly be restored and respect for Him and our fellow humans from the unborn to the elderly will soar like an eagle.HUGH and PEGGY MILLERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03939594571208958915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86791401962877561212010-11-21T05:39:01.832-05:002010-11-21T05:39:01.832-05:00M- As I already said, unlike the others here and a...M- As I already said, unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda. <br /><br />JM- And Mark has only referenced one thread, yet JM, whoever he is has roamed far and wide and attacked honest people, whoever they are. I do believe Mark is very desperate to make me look very bad because he has no answer to the geo arguments.<br /><br />They are dealing with Johnmartin and nobody else.<br /><br />Goodbye.<br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-19524724964620516692010-11-21T05:14:15.702-05:002010-11-21T05:14:15.702-05:00John, you say, "Whatever happened on another ...John, you say, "Whatever happened on another thread years ago is history...Anyway this thread is not about me, it's about geo."<br /><br />Oh, I very much disagree. By your choices, you have made this about you now.<br /><br />As I already said, unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda. <br /><br />If Sungenis or any of his conference confreres are involved, there may also be a financial motivation. In reading through these comments I note that one of Sungenis' geocentric confreres stated straight out that their goal is indeed to sell geocentrism -- and subsequently Sungenis' books, of course. Perhaps you are simply a groupie (or groupies) trying to curry favor with your geocentrist idol without a financial interest, but perhaps not.<br /> <br />If after knowing all this about you these people here want to continue to interact with someone like you, at least they'll know who they're dealing with.<br /><br />As for me, I want nothing to do with you. <br /><br />Goodbye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-63780315027160254652010-11-21T05:07:01.293-05:002010-11-21T05:07:01.293-05:00Dave Armstrong - I request you delete all of Marks...Dave Armstrong - I request you delete all of Marks posts. He is flooding the combox with the intent to attack me and has no intention of discussing the subject matter of geo. Please maintain the standards.<br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82531024824448422992010-11-21T05:05:13.014-05:002010-11-21T05:05:13.014-05:00Steve F: "Maybe you [johnmartin] should take ...Steve F: "Maybe you [johnmartin] should take the moral highground and explain your relationship with "matmark" and defend yourself against allegations of sockpuppetry."<br /><br />Roy: "Still haven't seen any explanation of the matmark relationship"<br /><br />johnmartin: "A family thing resolved with the mods and thats where it stays."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78231492170541504692010-11-21T05:02:15.074-05:002010-11-21T05:02:15.074-05:00Whatever happened on another thread years ago is h...Whatever happened on another thread years ago is history. There's nothing that can be done about it.<br /><br />It only shows me the anti geos have nothing to say on the topic so they attack the author.<br /><br />In fact anyone who is interested in geo can read the geo threads over there. I put a lot of work into many posts and I believe I defended geo quite well over a long time period in a quite hostile environment.<br /><br />Anyway this thread is not about me, it's about geo.<br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75740470039088188282010-11-21T04:52:19.576-05:002010-11-21T04:52:19.576-05:00Poor deluded little Moonbat [johnmartin]! Do you r...Poor deluded little Moonbat [johnmartin]! Do you really think that your buddies Bennett and Sungenis will write anything different in their books that we haven't already seen? You just spent the last three months playing the ventriloquist's dummy (a perfect role for a blockhead IMHO) for them and they still couldn't answer the simplest criticism of their garbage.<br /><br />Remember you were asked about how Geocentric believers calculate the distance to stars, and Bennet replied “We can’t tell?” Or how we asked the Geo explanation for stellar parallax and we got the idiotic “The aether moves?” Or how we asked you to provide backup for the density of the aether being 4x10e93 gm/cm3 but you couldn’t do it? The list goes on and on...<br /><br />Here’s a thought – how about you invite those goofballs here and have them defend their nutcase ideas on an open board? Ask them, and see what excuses they give you.<br /><br />- TiggyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-41834086513037200542010-11-21T04:49:11.265-05:002010-11-21T04:49:11.265-05:00Sylas:
I decided some months ago that john was ju...Sylas:<br /><br />I decided some months ago that john was just not worth debating for various reasons. I don't think he has any credibility at all in this forum, so I've just been ignoring the floods of nonsense.<br /><br />A couple of posts in the last day or two moved me to comment. John's behaviour is destructive. It's possible that he did write the material he has been cutting and pasting ... In my report I just said that I could not find the source, but that it was repeated in the thread and a plain bad cut and paste job. (If we want to get into outright intellectual theft, there are better examples where johnmartin has stolen the work of others.)<br /><br />For the record... if you have written other essays that are relevant, the best thing is to give an abstract or summary, with a cite or link to the original. It's very poor practice to pad out threads by dumping lots of text you've kept on hand from other contexts. Doing it twice is not a minor infraction at all. Doing it twice in the same thread, without comment or warning, and you're very bad news indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49285612712770080452010-11-21T04:48:56.175-05:002010-11-21T04:48:56.175-05:00Sylas:
Johnmartin posted this same article back...Sylas: <br /><br />Johnmartin posted this same article back in msg #126 of this thread. However, the previous time the formatting was all wrong, and it still included footnotes from the original source he was plainly cut and pasting. I have reported the post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44699350638978159422010-11-21T04:48:00.570-05:002010-11-21T04:48:00.570-05:00Sylas:
Johnmartin posted this same article back...Sylas: <br /><br />Johnmartin posted this same article back in msg #126 of this thread. However, the previous time the formatting was all wrong, and it still included footnotes from the original source he was plainly cut and pasting. I have reported the post.<br /><br />Sylas:<br /><br />I decided some months ago that john was just not worth debating for various reasons. I don't think he has any credibility at all in this forum, so I've just been ignoring the floods of nonsense.<br /><br />A couple of posts in the last day or two moved me to comment. John's behaviour is destructive. It's possible that he did write the material he has been cutting and pasting ... In my report I just said that I could not find the source, but that it was repeated in the thread and a plain bad cut and paste job. (If we want to get into outright intellectual theft, there are better examples where johnmartin has stolen the work of others.)<br /><br />For the record... if you have written other essays that are relevant, the best thing is to give an abstract or summary, with a cite or link to the original. It's very poor practice to pad out threads by dumping lots of text you've kept on hand from other contexts. Doing it twice is not a minor infraction at all. Doing it twice in the same thread, without comment or warning, and you're very bad news indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29813523492518910552010-11-21T04:23:59.293-05:002010-11-21T04:23:59.293-05:00Roy: "No, John, you aren't clean. For one...Roy: "No, John, you aren't clean. For one thing, your above apology is non-specific - it doesn't actually confirm whether or not you wrote the 'matmark' posts. Since you complained about someone else's answers being 'evasive and vague' in the same post there is a moral onus - a burden - on you to be precise and straightforward, lest you be seen as a hypocrite - and the above apology does not meet the standard you set. For another, sockpuppetry and plagiarism aren't the only issues. There is also your constant use of double-standards - insisting that others behave better than you do; your apparent inability to ever admit when you don't understand something; and more recently, the appearance of dishonesty. But the main reason you aren't clean is that you've only just realised that you're dirty. You don't yet know how dirty. You're still at the stage of admitting that you have a problem, and as yet you don't know how serious that problem is. You're like someone standing up for the first time at a recovery meeting and saying "My name is John and I am a sock-puppeteer". And like an addict, the initial admittance of failure doesn't get you clean - it's the months of hard work after that, of adopting different behaviours, of making recompense to those you've offended, and generally trying to become a different person that make you clean."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-794041298008036782010-11-21T04:23:08.124-05:002010-11-21T04:23:08.124-05:00johnmartin: "Ok lets see if it ends now. Here...johnmartin: "Ok lets see if it ends now. Here’s the apology – I apologise for any breach of Tweb rules I have committed in the past, such as any plagiarism and the use of sockpuppet accounts. There you go, I’m now clean as clean."<br /> <br />continues on belowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71210967383266740012010-11-21T04:21:28.243-05:002010-11-21T04:21:28.243-05:00johnmartin: "Ok lets see if it ends now. Here...johnmartin: "Ok lets see if it ends now. Here’s the apology – I apologise for any breach of Tweb rules I have committed in the past, such as any plagiarism and the use of sockpuppet accounts. There you go, I’m now clean as clean."<br /> <br />Roy: "No, John, you aren't clean. For one thing, your above apology is non-specific - it doesn't actually confirm whether or not you wrote the 'matmark' posts. Since you complained about someone else's answers being 'evasive and vague' in the same post there is a moral onus - a burden - on you to be precise and straightforward, lest you be seen as a hypocrite - and the above apology does not meet the standard you set. For another, sockpuppetry and plagiarism aren't the only issues. There is also your constant use of double-standards - insisting that others behave better than you do; your apparent inability to ever admit when you don't understand something; and more recently, the appearance of dishonesty. But the main reason you aren't clean is that you've only just realised that you're dirty. You don't yet know how dirty. You're still at the stage of admitting that you have a problem, and as yet you don't know how serious that problem is. You're like someone standing up for the first time at a recovery meeting and saying "My name is John and I am a sock-puppeteer". And like an addict, the initial admittance of failure doesn't get you clean - it's the months of hard work after that, of adopting different behaviours, of making recompense to those you've offended, and generally trying to become a different person that make you clean."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37915586133587876072010-11-21T04:20:11.118-05:002010-11-21T04:20:11.118-05:00johnmartin: "I'm not Robert Sungenis.&quo...johnmartin: "I'm not Robert Sungenis."<br /> <br />Mark Little: "I think we understand that there is a [John Martin] who is not Robert Sungenis. The question was whether you were the only person using the account. I'm sure your religion would not allow you to lie by omission by saying something that would mislead us into believing one thing when you know this is not true, so I'll take that statement as meaning that no one else has been using your account or telling/giving you what to say."<br /> <br />SteveF. "It is interesting that [John Martin] has not commented on this matter. Personally, I would be outraged if someone claimed that I was using a sock-puppet (and I wasn't) and tell everyone in no uncertain terms that it was all rubbish. Of course if I did get caught using a sock puppet and the messages could be traced back to my internet address, I guess I would keep quiet and hope it goes away. Hopefully, [John Martin] has not gone down "the slippery slope" as another poster likes to to tell everyone else. Even though I think his ideas are definately wierd, I wouldn't think that he openly lie about such as thing if asked, so to sort it out, at least in my mind: JohnMartin, did you use a sock-puppet account (matmark)?<br /><br />continues on belowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70479450188850031142010-11-21T04:17:38.484-05:002010-11-21T04:17:38.484-05:00Here are just a few comments from the theologyweb ...Here are just a few comments from the theologyweb forum that show what "johnmartin" has been up to and what we all noticed there. Unlike his goecentric folderol, it's worth your time. <br /><br />Oxmixmud: “John - you are acting like YOU are Robert Sungenis or Bennet, and his assessment of their education is a personal insult.” <br /> <br />Mark Little: "Why John Martin, you have changed your theory yet again. Not only that your mannerisms and content has changed remarkably."<br /><br />Jim: "John Martin: ARE YOU ROBERT SUNGENIS. Remember: lying is a sin."<br /> <br />Jim: "BTW: are you or are you not Robert Sungenis. "<br /><br />johnmartin: "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you."<br /><br />Oxmixmud : "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you. John Martin"<br /><br />Oh no, I am quite serious. I think it is very likely you are Mr. Sungenis. And the more you evade the question, the more I become convinced. So make a clear statement. If you say you are not him, I will accept it. It is you who will have to live with the fact you lied if you are in fact him, not me.<br /><br />continues on belowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4974884831372096852010-11-21T04:15:16.672-05:002010-11-21T04:15:16.672-05:00Here are just a few comments from the theologyweb ...Here are just a few comments from the theologyweb forum that show what "johnmartin" has been up to and what we all noticed there. Unlike his goecentric folderol, it's worth your time. <br /><br />Oxmixmud: “John - you are acting like YOU are Robert Sungenis or Bennet, and his assessment of their education is a personal insult.” <br /> <br />Mark Little: "Why John Martin, you have changed your theory yet again. Not only that your mannerisms and content has changed remarkably."<br /><br />Jim: "John Martin: ARE YOU ROBERT SUNGENIS. Remember: lying is a sin."<br /> <br />Jim: "BTW: are you or are you not Robert Sungenis. "<br /><br />johnmartin: "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you."<br /><br />Oxmixmud : "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you. John Martin"<br /><br />Oh no, I am quite serious. I think it is very likely you are Mr. Sungenis. And the more you evade the question, the more I become convinced. So make a clear statement. If you say you are not him, I will accept it. It is you who will have to live with the fact you lied if you are in fact him, not me."<br /><br />johnmartin: "I'm not Robert Sungenis."<br /> <br />Mark Little: "I think we understand that there is a [John Martin] who is not Robert Sungenis. The question was whether you were the only person using the account. I'm sure your religion would not allow you to lie by omission by saying something that would mislead us into believing one thing when you know this is not true, so I'll take that statement as meaning that no one else has been using your account or telling/giving you what to say."<br /> <br />continues on belowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45546959819886654862010-11-21T04:05:28.863-05:002010-11-21T04:05:28.863-05:00You wrote to James Phillips, "I agree with yo...You wrote to James Phillips, "I agree with your comment James." Not surprising that Sungenis groupies think alike. But I wonder, Johnmartin (whoever and however many you are): do you also share in James' other extracurricular interests? i I thought I recognized his name and indeed I did. After searching his name and geocentrism I encountered this comment by a disgusted poster at the Discover blog:<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />Oh, good heavens. Now I find out that you’re a fan of Michael Hoffman, Mr. Phillips. That explains your affinity for Sungenis.<br /><br />http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-catholic-shoah-theology-newsletter.html?showComment=1240938120000#c3228893315301159821<br /><br />Enough said, I won’t waste my time any further on this kind of putrescent idiocy.<br /><br />Michael Hoffman:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II<br /><br />http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20II<br /><br />(End of Quote)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com