Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Aug 2007 20:12 On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:01:36 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 3, 6:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:31:07 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >Don't lie, Henri. >> >> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:23:20 GMT, you wrote: >> >"Lab experiments will never detect c+v effects because the lab >> >itself constitutes a local EM control frame. 'FIELDS' as well as >> >AIR determine light speed." >> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a02ae0c2146... >> >> >The above is only one of many instances where you have expressed >> >similar sentiments. >> >> >The fact is that EVERY experiment designed to detect c+v effects >> >has FAILED to do so. You are in the peculiar situation of >> >maintaining that BaTh must be true despite not having any >> >experimental support whatsoever. >> >> Crank, there has never been such an experiment. It has hitherto >> been almost impossible to perform. The only known way to do it >> is to simulate variable star curves with BaTh principles. >> >> >Your consistent stance has been that unification effects are >> >responsible for making c+v undetectable in any Earth-bound >> >experiment. This would include the Sagnac experiment. >> >> >You thus have two INCOMPATIBLE explanations for the Sagnac >> >experiment. Since unification by itself would fully explain >> >the results of the Sagnac experiment, and since experimental >> >measurements of the Sagnac effect are fully consonant with >> >light speed = c to within experimental error, there can be no >> >contribution to the Sagnac effect from "photon twisting". >> >> On the contrary. Twisting would occur anyway. The 'arrows' still >> have to be aimed to one side of the target. > However I don't >> claim light speed is rigidly determined, in a vacuum, by my 'EM >> control spheres'. It may take quite a distance to reach some >> kind of stable speed. >> The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. IIRC, Roberts >> once reckoned that the extinction distance in air was around 3cms. > >You miscite Roberts. At optical frequencies, Tom stated that >the extinction distance in air is about a millimeter. >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7536538a3965b8da > >According to classical theory, extinction distance = lambda/(n-1) >Plugging in numbers, 5e-4/(1.0003-1) = 1.6 mm for 500 nm >light in air, in rough agreement with Robert's statement. So the Earth's atmosphere constitutes a very 'strong' local EM control frame. >Since when do you believe in classical extinction calculations? >If you did, then you would be forced to agree that an experiment >such as Beckmann and Mandics (1965), conducted in a vacuum of >1e-6 Torr, had a long enough extinction distance (nearly 200 km) >such that c+v effects, if present, should have been detected. >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf Crank, control frames don't just rely on the 'matter' WE know. The plain fact is, space containing a 'field' is not the same as space completely devoid of fields. Whatever is responsible for the difference, also contributes to the 'EM control sphere'. >No, Henri. For you, extinction/unification is a magical fairy >parameter that you vary freely to suit your needs. When you >need it to be short, it is short. When you need to be long, it >is long. For variable stars, "The extinction distance is >directly proportional to period. The 0.0007 value is for a >period of 0.0042 years. It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 >for 0.042 years..etc." >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d85476 It is unimportant. The plain fact is, light speed unification clearly exists and light multiple imagery never occurs.. >When theory insists that the extinction distance must be short, >you insist that it must be long. When theory insists it must be >long, you insist that it must be short. Millions of kilometers >beneath the surface of a variable star, the extinction distance >must be short. But you insist that this distance must be very >long, otherwise you cannot explain the difference in phasing >and variability between V-band and K-band emissions. When theory >insists that the extinction distance is long, you insist that it >must be very short. Otherwise experiments such as Beckmann and >Mandics (1965), Filipas and Fox (1964), Babcock and Bergman (1964), >Alvager (1964), and the observations of Brecher (1977) should >long ago have convinced you that BaTh is a dead theory. >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Babcock_Bergman_1964.pdf >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf > >Go ahead and believe in your fairies, Henri. Isn't it fun to >have Fairly OddParents so infinitely malleable to your will? I don't need fairies Crank. I'm producing amazing results that show all known astronomy to be highly suspect at best. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Aug 2007 20:20 On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:02:53 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:0jd7b31i2ov9ql32vjg4e9c73mr57r30vr(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:55:17 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> Yes George, sure.... geometry says you can't use the 'noninertial' source >> of >> sagnac in SR > >Not true, you can use a non-inertial frame in SR anytime >you like, but just as in Newtonian mechanics you need to >take account of the pseudo-forces it creates, centrifugal >and coriolis effects, and of course you can no longer use >the second postulate because speeds change due to >acceleration and rotation effects. > >> BUT you CAN us the 'noninertial' GPS clocks to support the theory. > >You still haven't grasped the difference between a frame >and a physical object whose motion is described by >coordinates given by the frame. I know perfectly well how you are trying to wriggle out of a tight corner George. >>>always points along the flight path) and that is >>>supposed to somehow explain why two javelins thrown >>>with exactly the same speed and following the same path >>>but in the opposite direction can hit the ground at >>>different times. It makes no sense at all even as an >>>analogy. Both throwers get speared by the other's >>>javelin, but one gets hit before the other? >> >> You are again very confused George. >> I am not talking about spin but 'twist'. > >Whatever you call it, the spin of a photon is similar >to that of the javelin but with the proviso that it >is always xactly aligned with the direction of motion. >The quantisation of photon spin only allows two values >which can be thought of as the javelin spinning either >clockwise or anti-clockwise as seen by the thrower. The shaft isn't spinning George. I am taking about the angle between the shaft and the direction of motion. >> Go back to basics. >> If an arrow is fired from a moving car so that it will strike a target 45 >> degrees to one side, its shaft will not be aligned with its velocity >> vector in >> the ground frame. >> Being an expert in geometry, you should have no difficulty with this.... > >No difficulty at all, but that analogy does not describe >how photons behave. You don't even know enough basic physics to understand what I am saying. >>>it is only schoolboy algebra after all. >> >> George, Sean clearly understands that the rays are shown moving at c+/-v >> wrt >> the source. > >No, like you Sean thinks the light is launched at c >relative to the cource, not c+v, but he then thinks >that, as the source moves in a circle, the photons >move as if sliding along a rod locked to the source >so their path through space becomes something between >a cycloid and a sine wave like this: > > http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html > >If he can't see how illogical that is, there's nothing I >can say to straighten him out. Maybe you could try since >he claims to be supporting ballistic theory, except that >he thought he invented it of course ;-) That's not my interpretation. > >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Aug 2007 20:38 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:49:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >>> Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >>>> Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>> The SR sagnac analysis requires that an absolute frame exists and that the rays >>>>>> move at c+/-v wrt the source at hte point of emission. >>>>>> >>>>>> SR proves its own postulate wrong.!!!! > >>>>> The idiot hits again. >>>>> SR predicts that that the speed of light is c in >>>>> the inertial (non rotating) frame, and since the source >>>>> is moving with the speed v in this frame, SR predicts >>>>> that the two contrary moving beams will be >>>>> out of phase when they meet the source again. > >>>> ...and in doing so SR requires that, in the inertial frame, the two rays move >>>> at c+/-v wrt the source. > >>> Quite. >>> According to the second postulate of SR the speed of >>> the ray is c in the inertial frame, hence the speed difference >>> between the source and the ray is c +/- v. >> >> If you have good look, you will soon realise that the standard Sagnac analysis >> has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with SR. For one thing, it shows the >> rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source. For another, it assumes some kind of >> absolutely nonrotating frame. In fact, the standard explanatin is completely >> wrong. > >"some kind of absolutely nonrotating frame" :-) > >Henri, what do you think the rotation detected by >a Sagnac ring is relative to? That's all right. We know Rotaton IS absolute...but we can still talk about nonrotating frames that ARE MOVING RELATIVE TO OTHERS. >>>> Don't deny it Paul. It is plainly obvious. >>> Of course I won't deny that, it is plainly obvious. >>> It is the very reason why SR predicts fringe shifts as observed. >>> >>> According to the emission theory - to use your awkward wording - >>> in the inertial frame, the two rays move at c wrt the source. >>> The consequence is of course that no fringe shifts are predicted. >> >> To the untrained eye, that would appear correct. >> >> On closer examination by the better informed, it is immediately clear that the >> assumptions made are not justified and are incorrect. > >Quite. >To the trained eye, it is immediately clear that >the fringes shift because the photons get dizzy when the ring >rotates relative to - eh - what? (we cannot assume some kind of >absolutely nonrotating frame, can we?) I can't draw it properly her but will try to (fixed pitch): This is NOT what happens when the apparatus rotates. S________M | | | | M This IS what happens to the photon axes: S///////////////////M^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M-> Get it now? They tilt slightly. >> >>> Don't deny it Henri. It is plainly obvious. >> >> It is indeed obvious that Sagnac makes a mockery of SR's second postulate. > >Of course it is clear to Henri Wilson that since the Sagnac experiment >prove the speed of light to be c in the inertial frame, then it falsifies >the second postulate which says that the speed of light is c in an inertial >frame. >That is after all Henri Wilson's way of thinking, isn't it? The standard Sagnac diagram shows the rays to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source, AS VIEWED IN THE LAB FRAME. Do you not agree that the diagram itself IS drawn at rest in the LAB FRAME. >>>> SR proves its own postulate wrong. >>> Come again? :-) >>> SR predicts the speed of light is c in the inertial frame, >>> Sagnac demonstrates that this is correct. >> >> Which inertial frame might that be. There is an infinite number of inertial >> frames at the source. Why does light pick the one defined by the ring? Are the >> fairies involved again? > >Beautiful, Henri. :-) >Thanks for the demonstration yet again. :-) Well, you can't answer it can you.... > >The Sagnac ring works fine in an aeroplane at high speed >which show that the light picks the plane-frame as reference. >Don't you think that this prove that the speed of light >relative to the Earth is different from c? :-) Paul, let's perform a thought experiment. Let two ring gyros move past eachother at speed. When adjacent, a source emits a pulse of light that is directed around the two. Please now describe the two separate diagrams that demonstrate the sagnac principle in each relatively moving ring. >>> Can you please explain why this prove that the speed of light >>> is different from c in the inertial frame? :-) > >No answer, Henri? >Can you please explain why the Sagnac experiment prove >the speed of light to be different from c in an inertial frame? The diagram shows light moving at c+/-v wrt the source, AS MEASURED IN THE LAB FRAME. Are you still denying this? If so you are as stupid and stubborn as George. >Paul www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Aug 2007 20:43 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:58:27 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 4 Aug, 00:27, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> If you apply the BaTh to the rotating four mirror Sagnac, you will discover two >> things. The path lengths end up different but not very different...and two rays >> that leave the source 90 apart end up displaced sideways at the screen. The >> latter alone should not cause a fringe shift. >> >> There are however certain assumptions here..and one cannot assume that light >> reflects from a moving mirror at the angle of incidence or same relative speed. >> >Why not? The photon dot is actually a theoretical point travelling at >c >in the classical wave train. Ah! But it isn't that at all. That's what they want us to believe. Infinitesimal points cannot possess properties. >When that single infinitely small point >hits >the mirror the corresponding time for this instance is...0 seconds. >Which means that theoretically the only possible way to describe >this on a simulation is to have the mirror at that point in space and >time to be travelling at speed 0. THe reflection is calculated at >that point >and the incident angle has to be the same as the reflected angle. >Anything else would mean that a theoretical infinitely small point in >space has length. Which is a contradiction. An impossibilty >So one has to assume that incident angle=reflected angle Forget all about it. Photons are long. They have a field structure and intrinsic oscillations. >As for relative speed. You could argue that the mirror is moving when >the light reflects and thus imparts extra speed. But Ive thought >about >this and this dosnt work . At least not the way you want it. >Lets say that your mirror changs the relative speed of the light. >How could it do this? It needs time to move from point a to b to have >velocity relative to the source. Which means that any single point >in the wave train cannot therefore be a single point in space >and time if it also has to be as you demand happening over a >small period of time. So you contradict yourself here. >Your way has each infinitely small point in the wave train being >given >a duration in time and space. >THis is impossible and counterintuitive. >Or look at it this way.If the source has a frequency of 1/sec. >This means that every second regardless of where the mirror is >there is always only 1 frequency per second being incident and >reflected. The same happens at at the other 2 mirrors and at the >detector. >Therefore the detector still only observes the same frequency >regardless >of the rotating speed. This you cannot deny as its observed. The >fringe >shift isnt due to nor would be visible were one path to have a >different >frequency than the other. >THerefore a classical simulation like mine which has the frequency >unchanged at every reflection,can be corroborated by the knowledge >that any >observed fringe shift cannot be explained by two different >frequencies >arriving at the detector.In other words sagnac wouldnt work if both >paths had different arrival frequencies >THerefore seeing as my classical simulations predictions match those >observed it must be true that my mathematical calculation that leads >to the assumption of the same relative speed on reflection... must be >correct. >In other words one can assume the same relative speed because >one can calculate it and one can confirm it with observation. >What more does any theory ever supply then these two basic criteria >that my simulation uses.? > >For you to succesfully argue that there could be a change in speed >on reflection you would have to show that the mirror recieves more >or less beats/second of light from the source than emitted by the >source. >And this is physically, mathematically impossible to prove >or even simulate. And you should know that. Forget it Sean, photons are not ball bearings. >> Sagnac is much more complicated than anyone thinks. >Light is more complicated, not sagnac. Thats why its best doing the >sim in the source frame. The source doesnt move. And the mirrors/ >source and >also do not move relative to each other. >Think about it.... Does any mirror move farther away from the source >during the experiment? No. Does the distance between any mirror and/or >the >source or detector change when the experiment rotates ? NO. >THis can only mkean that any light in the source frame must always >be traveling at c as long as any mirror is not moving away or towards >the source during the experiment. >> I wouldn't even compare it with the MMX which is a quite straightforward >> example of light moving at c wrt its source and everythiug at rest in the >> source frame. >> >> >George is in denial like most relativistas. >> >THey say light has to be at c+-v in their ` inertial lab frame` in >> >sagnac. But they forget that the sagnac experiment is in fact a snall >> >version of the MMx minus the mirror setup . In the sense that both >> >sagnac and MMx sources rotate around a central axis. >> >Yet the relativistas pretend that in sagnac light is at c in the >> >sagnac `lab frame` but then pretend that in MMx the light is at c+-v >> >in the MMx `lab frame` >> > The Mx lab frame would be what george tries to show in his java sim. > > >25 July henri >> I must correct you here Sean. Moseley's animation is wrong. I did the same >> myself. >> If you apply the ballistic theory, the path lengths turn out to be the same >> although the rays are displaced sideways wrt each other. ...That is true IF one >> assumes that the rays reflects from the (moving) mirrors at their incident >> angles and speeds. > >Absolutely wrong. Wheres your proof? You have to show where my >simulations >are incorrectly calculated if you want to prove they are incorrect. >And as with georges attempts, I can show your criticisms to be >unfounded >and unsubstantiated. Try a correct simulation and youll get a >different path >length on one path. How could you even pretend you wouldnt? The only >way you can >get equal path lengths in your incorrect simulations would be if you >had given the light speed C+-v ***RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE** as most >other >bungling relativistas do. And as you should know... the whole premise >behind classical theory is that light is always at c relative to any >source. >And MMx proves this. The light is observed to travel around the MMx >setup at >c, not a c+-v as you seem to think. I cant believe you fall for the >same mistake >george does. He thinks light has to travel at c+-v in any source >frame , >even MMx. Even though all observational data contradicts his view. >Look at his sean planets sim. Here he models light traveling >at c in straight lines relative to the earth (MMX frame). >yet for some bizarre reason he thinks this is not whats observed!! >Wheres his proof? He hasnt any. My proof on the other hand shows >that light does indeed travel at c in straight lines in any source >frame >Its called MMx. And these straight line paths when plotted onto >georges sean planets simulation frame.. always give the >curved dragged frames that he thinks arent observed. I have done the same simulations and these were discussed at length with George last year. I will dig them out again for you. > >Sean >www.gammarayburst.com >To see accurate simulations showing how classical theory can explain >sagnac see... >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Jerry on 6 Aug 2007 01:39
On Aug 5, 7:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:01:36 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Aug 3, 6:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:31:07 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >Don't lie, Henri. > > >> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:23:20 GMT, you wrote: > >> >"Lab experiments will never detect c+v effects because the lab > >> >itself constitutes a local EM control frame. 'FIELDS' as well as > >> >AIR determine light speed." > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a02ae0c2146... > > >> >The above is only one of many instances where you have expressed > >> >similar sentiments. > > >> >The fact is that EVERY experiment designed to detect c+v effects > >> >has FAILED to do so. You are in the peculiar situation of > >> >maintaining that BaTh must be true despite not having any > >> >experimental support whatsoever. > > >> Crank, there has never been such an experiment. It has hitherto > >> been almost impossible to perform. The only known way to do it > >> is to simulate variable star curves with BaTh principles. > > >> >Your consistent stance has been that unification effects are > >> >responsible for making c+v undetectable in any Earth-bound > >> >experiment. This would include the Sagnac experiment. > > >> >You thus have two INCOMPATIBLE explanations for the Sagnac > >> >experiment. Since unification by itself would fully explain > >> >the results of the Sagnac experiment, and since experimental > >> >measurements of the Sagnac effect are fully consonant with > >> >light speed = c to within experimental error, there can be no > >> >contribution to the Sagnac effect from "photon twisting". > > >> On the contrary. Twisting would occur anyway. The 'arrows' still > >> have to be aimed to one side of the target. > However I don't > >> claim light speed is rigidly determined, in a vacuum, by my 'EM > >> control spheres'. It may take quite a distance to reach some > >> kind of stable speed. > >> The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. IIRC, Roberts > >> once reckoned that the extinction distance in air was around 3cms. > > >You miscite Roberts. At optical frequencies, Tom stated that > >the extinction distance in air is about a millimeter. > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7536538a396... > > >According to classical theory, extinction distance = lambda/(n-1) > >Plugging in numbers, 5e-4/(1.0003-1) = 1.6 mm for 500 nm > >light in air, in rough agreement with Robert's statement. > > So the Earth's atmosphere constitutes a very 'strong' local > EM control frame. ....and hence "twisting" is not only completely unnecessary for Sagnac to work, it forces the observed value to deviate from the theoretical prediction that is based solely on lightspeed = c. Your "photon twisting" hypothesis is hence falsified. > >Since when do you believe in classical extinction calculations? > >If you did, then you would be forced to agree that an experiment > >such as Beckmann and Mandics (1965), conducted in a vacuum of > >1e-6 Torr, had a long enough extinction distance (nearly 200 km) > >such that c+v effects, if present, should have been detected. > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_... > > Crank, control frames don't just rely on the 'matter' WE know. > The plain fact is, space containing a 'field' is not the same > as space completely devoid of fields. Believe in your fairies, Henri. > Whatever is responsible for the difference, also contributes > to the 'EM control sphere'. Your fairies impose light-speed control when you want them to, and they hold back when you don't need them. How wonderful. > >No, Henri. For you, extinction/unification is a magical fairy > >parameter that you vary freely to suit your needs. When you > >need it to be short, it is short. When you need to be long, it > >is long. For variable stars, "The extinction distance is > >directly proportional to period. The 0.0007 value is for a > >period of 0.0042 years. It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 > >for 0.042 years..etc." > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d... > > It is unimportant. The plain fact is, light speed unification > clearly exists and light multiple imagery never occurs.. ....and you -need- to explain how and why there should be such a relationship between extinction distance and period. WIthout such an explanation, any reasonable person would conclude that it is an ad hoc adjustment thrown in to force an inviable theory to match observation. Your BaTh theory incorporates epicycles upon epicycles. > >When theory insists that the extinction distance must be short, > >you insist that it must be long. When theory insists it must be > >long, you insist that it must be short. Millions of kilometers > >beneath the surface of a variable star, the extinction distance > >must be short. But you insist that this distance must be very > >long, otherwise you cannot explain the difference in phasing > >and variability between V-band and K-band emissions. When theory > >insists that the extinction distance is long, you insist that it > >must be very short. Otherwise experiments such as Beckmann and > >Mandics (1965), Filipas and Fox (1964), Babcock and Bergman (1964), > >Alvager (1964), and the observations of Brecher (1977) should > >long ago have convinced you that BaTh is a dead theory. > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_... > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964... > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Babcock_Bergman_1... > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_196... > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf > > >Go ahead and believe in your fairies, Henri. Isn't it fun to > >have Fairly OddParents so infinitely malleable to your will? > > I don't need fairies Crank. I'm producing amazing results that > show all known astronomy to be highly suspect at best. How can you be so confident in your lies? Jerry Henri Wilson's Mendacity (1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program (4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying 1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm 2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm 3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm 4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm 5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm 6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm |