Donovan's Geometry Page.......

[TooStoned]

yeah they are interesting excerpts

but I wonder why Donovan couldn't provide them to flesh out his fantastical statements to begin with and pitcairn is doing so now.

Is there some unknown linkage between Pitcairn and Donovan? Do those two know each other from elsewhere and aren't disclosing it?

I've got a hunch that Donovan and Dragon have had more contact than they're letting on, too.

Pitcairn certainly knew where to find the info on Donovan's ancestors, and to do so he would have to have had more info than Donny's presented here.

Things that make me go "hmmm"

[pitcairn]

http://tinyurl.com/3yv7pd

Krippner, S. (1977). A first-hand look at psychotronic generators. In J. White & S. Krippner (Eds.),

Future science: Life energies and the physics of paranormal phenomena (pp.420-430).

Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.


In 1973, during the First International Conference on Psychotronic Research, I met Robert Pavlita a most enigmatic man. This controversial Czech inventor is the designer of the so-called "psychotronic generator," a device for storing and applying "biological energy."

I don't speak Czech, but with the help of a translator we had a long conversation, after which he demonstrated one of his generators to the people at the conference. His daughter participated by touching her hand to her head in a rhythmic way and then touching her hand to the generator. Within a few minutes the generator started to move. This is very difficult to explain in any conventional way, and I know one physicist who couldn't sleep all night trying to figure out how this happened.

During a more recent visit to Czechoslovakia (January 1974), I was privileged to see ten different demonstrations of psychotronic generators. Dr. Zdenk Rejdak and his staff drove me and my associate, Mark Rejdak, to Lazne Belohrad ...

decriptions of the demonstrations follow

pitcairn -- really enjoying those excerpts you're posting, thank you

you are very welcome your royal wombatness,

of further interest you may find:

http://tinyurl.com/2ljsxa

scroll down to the information/images in re the spiritualist "automatic" drawings of Nova Paka

if anyone here speaks/reads czech, it would no doubt be helpful

[Donovan]

The best take on Pavlita is still in Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain. Chapt 28.

The last orgainization listed is all information in, nothing out. Don't know who they are. (Contacted them many years ago).

There was an 'intell connections' map on Google that was taken off. But it showed Pavlita moved right to the inner power circles around Breahnev (?spelling).

The claim is that I am the first to be able to construct the angle of the Great Pyramid by the simple compass and rule method. Obviously the answer is an angle and that must be precise. Looking at my thumbnail drawing would not suffice. Yes, one must make the construction to measure the angle.

Mr. Too Stoned throws down his glove and says. "Well, sorry, I can't reall meet you on the field, I don't have a weapon."
The challange is open to anyone else. I have prevailed on this on some good math groups. So I know every counter argument. Yes, absolutly a CAD would be necessary to see the angle. Even so it is measured at the ended by double clicking a guideline. Still very good.

Pavlita stated clearly that he would not give out the secret but that it was based on a new geomety. I have not obtained all his shapes, nor anywhere near, but I have a few. He also stated (again Chapt 28 above) that the Great Pyramid shape was a central form in the geometry.

Too Stoned should put up or shut up.
Donovan

[pitcairn]

yeah they are interesting excerpts

but I wonder why Donovan couldn't provide them to flesh out his fantastical statements to begin with and pitcairn is doing so now.

Is there some unknown linkage between Pitcairn and Donovan? Do those two know each other from elsewhere and aren't disclosing it?

I've got a hunch that Donovan and Dragon have had more contact than they're letting on, too.

Pitcairn certainly knew where to find the info on Donovan's ancestors, and to do so he would have to have had more info than Donny's presented here.

Things that make me go "hmmm"

for clarity:

I had nothing more than Donovan's posts and Lycos and Google ready to hand

it took seconds to find this information and minutes to c&p and make tiny urls

try it: use "stephen jewett" as one search string and "rober pavlita" and "jeremiah donovan" as the others

donovan certainly could have provided this, however, he might easily have assumed, albeit (unfortunately) mistakenly, that the Jewett and Donovan names would be familiar to persons of a certain age and social/cultural exposure

since they clearly were not familiar names here, just thought I'd bring everyone up to speed

I am really of two minds about the next thing I'm about to say, becos I feel it is unnecessary, as well as encouraging to those of poor character and conduct, to respond to such vulgar and silly gambits as the one referenced above, nonetheless, what I am about to say is the truth, and therefore, I trust, as truth always is, worth saying:

I am not personally acquainted with Mr Michael Donovan, nor have I had any exposure to his work and/or ideas prior to his introducing himself and his work/ideas here.

I have expressed my appreciation of his presentation to us via private message, and repeat that thank-you here, now; I had been reluctant to post my appreciative remarks directly to this forum only becos I have no interest in, and less patience for, such obfuscating, crude, and puerile displays of ego as those to which we have sadly been treated this last while

I did, however, think that useful and pertinent facts never go amiss, where facts can be had and clearly conveyed

I find it regrettable that Mr Donovan has had such a poor and decidedly rude reception here, but such now seems, sadly, all too often the order of the day

It is actually possible to disagree, even vigorously, without taking, or giving, offense; an exercise worth trying, I should think, if only, in some cases, for the absolute novelty

[Donovan]

The claim was that I have found a simple ruler and compass method of finding the angle of the Great Pyramid.
Too Stoned challanged.
But he won't, nor anyone else, come forth.
My proof is posted. It ends in an angle. Yes anyone challanging would need a CAD program, does not need to be high end, Corel or such would do.
Put up or shut up.
Donovan

[philipacentaur]

Hey Mike, have you seen this guy's page?

[pitcairn]

Pitcairn: It's lovely that you found that info, but nothing there gives one iota of support to Donny Dung Spreader's contention it was his father that came up with the "twisted ribbon" idea of DNA. Furthermore, why are you and not Donny posting that long cut and paste? It certainly doesn't prove anything other than there was a mapmaker with the last name of Donovan.

I wonder if you too have bought orgonite...

sorry, wasn't ignoring you, I had just missed this remark on a first reading

look, I have no dog in this fight, Mr Too Stoned, outside of the fact that I find, and have found, your writing "style"/attitude quite obnoxious, as well as obnoxiously counterproductive to open and vigorous discussion of controversial, but provocative, concepts

the "lovely" posting of information corroborating Mr Donovan's reported family history was simply a factual response to your snide implication that Mr Donovan had in some way inflated, if not fabricated, the accomplishments of his father and grandfather, which, as a matter of fact, he had not

the admittedly lengthy c&p in re the Jewett family history was consequent only to the fact that I had not the time to carefully cull only the most relevant portions; I only posted this information at all becos, regrettably, no one else took it upon him/herself to do so

if only

Mr Too Stoned, and I mean this not as a criticism so much as an observation: your endless imprecations and accusations are tiresome, ugly, and, being largely beside the point, most inutile

oh, and altho it's none of your business, I have not ever purchased orgonite, and would suggest that whether or not others have, or do, is none of my business, as well as none of yours

(edited for typo)

[Donovan]

This is parts of the answer in another thread wherein Too Stoned challenges for proof and won’t meet the challenge.
Again Mr. Too Stoned makes one excuse after another “I don’t have a CAD program” di da di da and on and on. Anyone can get access to one or have a friend who has one and can work it.
The challenge is there. And the more who take it the better.

Too Stoned makes a challenge. Throws down his glove and then says, “Sorry I can’t meet you on the field, I don’t have a weapon.” Corel Draw is common. Such would be needed for the precise angle, an angle with is or isn’t, and which is of issue.

Too Stoned is all words. He wimps out.
Donovan

[philipacentaur]

How do you know the original slope angle of the "great" pyramid? Those casing stones have been gone for quite some time now.

[Donovan]

Good question. The pyramid itself, as you suggested, is worn. There were statements from early Greek historians which gave a formula, ratio of heigth to an area of the side (which related to pi). What could be seen of the slope seemed to fit. 51.7didadi da, (bad on remembering numbers).

Therefore pyramids to that shape were constructed and even had unusual effects, even a patent issued to sharpen older types of razor blades and used by the Soviet Army etc) And it was noted that they worked with top cut off. In otherwords it was the slope of the four sides that produced the effects (worked truncated).

My proof fits the accepted numbers. and those numbers used to make simualar pyramids that when ligned up north south had those strange effects.

The other part to my claim is that I am the FIRST to demostrate the compass/rule method of finding that angle. More and more I feel the builders knew. And I assume Pavlita knows. And by now more than a number of governments. So my claim first openly , modern. Someone could prove me wrong on that end too, not so far. Been on a good number of math groups. Took one of thoss groups a bit to take challange too. And that was the group that confirmed the proof with radians.

When you get to the area of 1/100s a part of one degree, that is fairly pricise. In any of the caluclations some things will throw it off a bit, same with radians. slight variations in answer, but very slight. With Corel there are not many steps so not too much lost in each step if done right. An angle is only gotten in the guideline aspect wherein you double click the guideline and that give a very precise angle. The trick is to (trying to get as close to , what pixel, as possible ) the guideline is aligned with the final line.

SolidEdge, a very high end program, could be even more exact, and would love someone to follow the proof in that.

Now you could do this with a very large sheet of paper, a very good protarctor, but still it would be 'somewhere in middle or high of between 52 degrees and 52 degrees.

So a CAD best step one. That done you trace back to see how it came from ball geometry. there the Great Stella program can help in the visualization.

For further progress one would need a team with a good calculist and someone with great facility in numeric progressions. (I am ok, not great), Found one, Shel Yapelli, she died about five yeaers ago.
donovan

[philipacentaur]

I'm familiar with Pavlita's research. Somehow I wound up with three copies of "Psychic Discoveries..." -- no need for another rehash.

The other part to my claim is that I am the FIRST to demostrate the compass/rule method of finding that angle.

So what? Do you seriously think you're the first person to come up with this specific angle using drawing tools? I don't see why this is such a grand accomplishment. It's an angle.

If you're seriously on to something here, I honestly have no idea what it is. I'm not the best writer in the world, but I have a hard time getting to the actual "meat" in anything you've written -- and believe me, I've tried more than I believe I should.

[Donovan]

philipacentaur asked:

(quote) "...Do you seriously think you're the first person to come up with this specific angle using drawing tools? I don't see why this is such a grand accomplishment. It's an angle...."

Yes. Seriously. If all those researchers, Flannagan et al, saw this they would have stated so.
If you have chapt 28, you said you did, reason:
Pavlita got those results, stated Great Pyramid central, stated a new way of looking at geometry key. Therefore if one can, as I did, demonstrate that he can arrive at the angle AND that from that (after that first step) show how it was reasoned from another geometry I think I have something.
Maybe you don't. Fine.
My challange is still my challange. Too Stoned wimped. Perhaps the moderator would allow a posting on the general discussion as to if or not any have a Corel Draw program and would like to participate.
I have done it. Verification is a number of people doing it and getting same results.
The only way to get to the 'meat' as you say is to do the demonstration.
Step one. Once that demonstrated, proved just the angle, then with the help of GreatStella (easy download) for visualization can show how it came from a geometry of equal sized balls.
Donovan
Donovan

[philipacentaur]

I'm still finding your language a bit dense. Could you please cite some source materials explaining why a simple angle is allegedly so difficult to draw?

Did you check out that link I posted above? That guy seems to be into stacking balls too.

[Donovan]

1- I don't just 'stack balls'. I study the patterns and from that extrapolate what they would do in motion and vibration. Yes, I looked. Not that interested.

2- You said (quote) "...I'm still finding your language a bit dense. Could you please cite some source materials explaining why a simple angle is allegedly so difficult to draw? ..." Arrive at or draw?

It was never arrived at because those thinking in standard terms, not usinig a new geometry, would never see it.

Draw? Should be easy for anyone familiar with Corel Draw, the most common of that sort of CAD. I mearly give tips to make even easier haveing done it so many times.

This conversation only gets anyplace when a number of people do the problem, at least to the first step, and arrive at the same conclusion. You can't 'talk about it', any more than you can just 'talk about' a solution to a theorm in plane geometry. All such talk would of course be 'dense'. You, or another, must do the problem to see it.

[TooStoned]

Pitcairn, well at least you have a better vocab than Donovan...

Why am I so "rude"? Has it something to do with repeatedly being lied to in a thread?

I think so, but in case you'all haven't been reading all the posts on these crappy orgonite/new geometry threads lets review some of Donovan's more fantastical games.

Problems:
1) Donovan claimed, it wasn't Watson and GLICK who drew the "twisted ribbon of DNA" but his "map make DAD" It was Watson and CRick not GLick. It is beyond doubtful it is a typo; just look at your keyboard and notice the the position of the relevant keys. This belies Donovan's woeful lack of knowledge about DNA, but why is father mentioned at all? If Donovan's point was to illuminate us to his "new geometry" why the fantastical claim that distracts from his point? Furthermore, just like his dubious remarks about geometry teachers it demonstrates Donny has something of a Persecution Complex. And I wonder how Pitcairn knew where to find the family info, because nothing that Donovan has presented gives even search words to find those excerpts? When I first challenged Donovan on these points he ignored them (still has), why didn't he come up with the info about his family? Perhaps because having someone else post it appears more un-impeachable.

"the twisted ribbon of DNA" is bunk as well. Supercoiling seems simple but you try twisting miles of ribbon without making a knot and you'll see how poor a metaphor "twisted ribbon" is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercoiling

BTW Watson and Crick get credit for discovering the structure of DNA but it was a woman who did most of the work (including thefirst drawings).
Rosalind Franklin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin#Recognition_of_her_contribution_to_the_model_of_DNA

2) One of Donovan's extraneous, and false claims thoroughly debunked elsewhere, "cubic crystals...a shape rarely found in nature." I linked to and image of a cubic NaCl crystal upthread, but every Halide Salt and a plethora of other compounds form these crystals more commonly than any other shape.

3) Donovan says he has a "mathematical proof" of finding the angle of the great pyramid. The rambling screed is not a "math proof"

In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. A proof is a logical argument, not an empirical one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28math%29

When Donovan "throws down his glove" and demands we bust out CAD or at least a sheet of paper he is demanding we follow his protocols for and EMPIRICAL argument.

A math proof (geometry) follows this general form:
Argument to be proven
Clearly LABELED diagram (e.g. point A, right triangle B, arc C, etc)
True mathematical statement about A
True mathematical statement about B
True mathematical statement about C
Conclusion

You'll notice nothing is required of the reader other than he reads the proof. No ruler, no CAD, no blind faith in a dishonest someones protocols.

4)Donny says (in the orgonite thread iiirc) that "spin pairs the four forces" (amongst many other factual errors about quantum physics) and then later in the thread when this statement is proven to be false says "I never said anything about spin pairing the four forces" this is when I realized that Donovan wasn't just making fanciful statements that distracted from the truth of what he said, but in fact is dissembling and intelectually dishonest.

I could go on with more debunking of Donovan's bullshit, but its already been done on every thread he's commented on so just go read these threads from their beginnings.

As to "Rudeness" I can tell all of the "true believers" here have never been to a scientific research groups discussion meetings or had to take an "oral exam" in a Ph.d program, 'cause if you did you'd realize my rudeness is mild as baby shampoo in comparison.

I guess some of the less rigorously inclined folks don't mind following the mad hatter's rules at this tea party, but don't expect anybody with a scrap of critical thinking skills to dance to his mad tune...
I still want to know how Pitcairn came up with those excerpts. How did he know where and how to look for info because as far as I can tell Donovan hasn't given us his family name anywhere in the paltry links (all to his webpage and none that are "independent")