Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72042 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.


Mumbai, India

#51314 Apr 29, 2013
Honestly, I can't call the African race "handsome" or "intelligent" in any way. They resemble the atavistic types (no racism intended).

Kingston, Jamaica

#51315 Apr 29, 2013
JOEL wrote:
<quoted text>
I am serious.
I don't count you as being even averagely intelligent.
Even that dunce Eric is cleverer than you, Mon.
You may have a 14" bamboo that gets stiff when you see handsome boys/men but your brain is evidently not even 2".
You have repeatedly demonstrated today and before the value of your opinions. Your comment about Eric has the same value and merit of your recently expressed opinion on Singapore and its inferior intelligence to the India and company.

In your world the greater, in reality, is less.

Norfolk, VA

#51317 Apr 29, 2013
Just ducky wrote:
Heebs are persecuted everywhere. Talk about conceit and arrogance!! They are the most "exclusive" group, outsiders are not welcome.
You're absolutely right, the Jews won't even accept their Messiah because he's not ethnically Jewish, he's from the northern kingdom of Israel, the tribe of Joseph. These people settled northwestern Europe after the Assyrian captivity in 722 bce. The USA is Israel.

Mumbai, India

#51318 Apr 29, 2013


Question 1: Can one obtain an enriched fraction of a subcellular organelle or cell type?

Question 2: How does one know that the disruptive procedure does not change the biochemistry of the fraction significantly?

Question 3: Why does one assume that homogenisation and centrifugation do not change the entropy, and therefore the free energy and the equilibria of reactions in subcellular particles? Why are not controls always carried out for subcellular fractionation, except for total recoveries relative to the crude homogenates?

Question 4: Why is it believed that each biochemical pathway or cycle has its own structural compartment when prokaryotes can carry out virtually all the same reactions in only one compartment?

Question 5: Does the finding that a chemical substance or activity is located in the same subcellular fraction and a structure identified by electron microscopy mean that the same chemical activity was located in that particular organelle in the living cell of the intact animal or plant.

Question 6: How is intracellular movement possible, and why is the viscosity of cytoplasm so low in the intact cell, if there is a cytoskeleton present?

Question 7: Where do protein synthesis and acid hydrolysis occur in cells in which ribosomes and lysosomes cannot be seen?

Question 8: What is the evidence that the microsomal fraction consists of cell membranes and endoplasmic reticulum?

Question 9: Why is it assumed that homogenisation and centrifugation do not affect the chemistry of receptors, or their affinities for transmitters, hormones, drugs, ligands, toxins?

Question 10: Can a particle and a vacuole both be lysosomes?

Question 11: Can one calibrate substances originating from tissues using pure solutions in simple salines of approximately the same concentrations?

Question 12: How can one study membranes by electron microscopy, when they are believed to contain lipids which the procedure extracts?

Question 13: What is the real evidence that rapid deep freezing for electron microscopy causes less shrinkage and distortion of tissues, cells and organelles, than classical transmission electron microscopy?

Question 14: Why do those who calculate dimensions from electron micrographs not take into account the shrinkage during preparation and examination of their sections, cells and organelles?

Question 15: Do membranes in cells appear to be normal to the plane of section more often than solid geometry would permit?

Question 16: Can one know the thickness in life of any biological membrane?

Question 17: Why should it be necessary to tilt the stage of the electron microscope to see randomly orientated membranes in all orientations, when this is not necessary with the light microscope?

Question 18: How can carriers assist the passage of ions, aminoacids, etc. across membrane, when the combination must be bigger than the substance carried?

Question 19: Why have few or no carriers been isolated?

Question 20: What is transport?

Mumbai, India

#51319 Apr 29, 2013

Question 21: Why are receptors and channels, which have been characterised, sequenced and their sizes measured or calculated, not seen on membranes by transmission electron microscopy?

Question 22: Can an electron microscopist looking at a metal deposit on a biological structure derive any information about its chemistry?

Question 23: Why do the lamellae of the myelin sheath appear to be equal distances apart irrespective of the thickness or depth of the longitudinal section cut?

Question 24: Is the repeating distance of the lamellae in the myelin sheath sufficient to regard it as a good model for the cell membrane?

Question 25: Since the myelin sheath is believed to consist of a scroll of membranes, and membranes appear darker by light microscopy than cytoplasm, why does not the myelin sheath appear darker than the axoplasm?

Question 26: Why is it assumed that the receptors for transmitters, hormones, messengers, antibodies, drugs and toxins are on the surface of the cell membrane?

Question 27: How valid is the use of agonists, antagonists and ligands to detect receptors, instead of the transmitters, hormones, antigens, drugs and toxins themselves?

Question 28: Why are the dimensions and numbers of synapses different by light and electron microscopy?

Question 29: Why are there no light micrographs in the literature showing the connection of one cell body by a dendritic pre-synaptic fibre to a synapse on another cell body?

Mumbai, India

#51320 Apr 29, 2013

Question 30: Does the chemical theory of synaptic transmission contain unprovable and unproved hypotheses?

Question 31: Why is it assumed that evidence derived from experiments on neuromuscular junctions is relevant to transmission in the central nervous system?

Question 32: If nuclear pores allow RNA to pass through, how do they prevent smaller molecules and ions going through at the same time, and why is there a potential difference across the nuclear membrane?

Question 33: What is the evidence that each cell of a particular plant or animal contains the same quantity of DNA?

Question 34: If the cell membrane is fluid mechanically, how can cells maintain their integrity?

Question 35: In immunocytochemistry, is it assumed that the fixatives, dehydrating reagents, washings, and primary and secondary antibodies, do not change the reaction of the antibody to the antigen believed to be in a particular cell or part of a cell?

Question 36: Is it reasonable to believe that processes or dendrites contain different antigens from the cell bodies from which they arise?

Question 37: Under what conditions can tissue cultures be used in the study of the tissues from which they originated?

Question 38: Is it warrantable to assume that growth of tissues in culture does not change their morphology, biochemistry, or immuno-reactivity?

Question 39: Does not the use of the term neuroglia imply that the authors can not distinguish between astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and microglia?

Question 40: Why are the individual types of neuroglial cells so rarely seen by light microscopy of healthy central nervous systems?

Question 41: Since the latter three alleged cell types were described by classical histological techniques during the first half of the twentieth century, does this not imply that anyone using antibodies to mark them specifically must first identify them by these criteria?

Question 42: Why is there no common agreement about the staining procedures, which are supposed to identify astrocytes, oligodendrocytes and microglia histologically?

Question 43: Why is it necessary to use tissue cultures of the alleged cell types to identify them and their markers?

Question 44: If each cell in an organism contains the same DNA, but some produce different proteins, is the existence of suppressor genes the only possible explanation for the difference of the proteins?

Question 45: In diseases believed to be auto-immune, either organ-specific or tissue-specific, why does the body not reject the specific organ or tissue, as it rejects incompatible transplanted hearts, or blood of the wrong group, often making the patients ill, or even killing them?

Question 46: Why are pure proteins used for calibration, when different tissues contain different mixtures of proteins, which have different calibration curves?

Question 47: Why do synapses seen by electron microscopy appear so much smaller than those seen by light microscopy?

Mumbai, India

#51321 Apr 29, 2013

Biology since about 1960:

About two-thirds of the work done in biology in the half-century since about 1945 is fraudulent, or, more politely, based on foundations so insecure that it will have to be rejected.

This has been allowed to happen through secretiveness, lack of honesty probably fed by the desire for funding, and the general expense and inaccessibility of equipment, as well as excessive compartmentalization of the subject. And the incompetence and dishonesty of research councils, media and civil service personnel.

Many people feel modern biology & medicine are disappointing: they vaguely sense the lack of progress with 'AIDS', Alzheimers, arthritis, cancer, Parkinsons, schizophrenia, and degenerative diseases; they may be concerned about dangerous drugs and vaccination; they may dislike animal experiments.

However, most criticisms are ad hoc and have had no general purchase on the problem—until now. This piece is intended to be a radical examination, in a literal sense, of modern biology.

To impose order on my account, most of my information is arranged around the work of Dr Harold Hillman, MB, BSc, MRCS, PhD, who I've known and liked for many years. In my opinion he is a very great scientist. But there must be other actors in this drama, including people who are completely unknown to me, who may have had parallel careers.

I must stress that this piece has not been written with his approval or cooperation; it is my own work. I've often pleaded with him to put his life's work on Internet, since this is the first medium ever with this sort of freedom—a piece of luck unlikely to last. But my attempts came to nothing—I think because he was held back by a hankering after respectability in the biological/medical establishment, something incompatible with his work. I've even thought he might have sunk to the level of wanting to be a Nobel 'Laureate'.

My narrative is largely chronological, structured around Hillman's books, in the sequence he happened to write them, and what they prove. To combine science with human interest, I've added illustrative material on related subjects in way which is adapted to Internet (separate screens each contributing a piece to the puzzle), trying to throw light on the complicated systems of motives which have led to the present unhappy position — Rae West.

rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#51322 Apr 29, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You're absolutely right, the Jews won't even accept their Messiah because he's not ethnically Jewish, he's from the northern kingdom of Israel, the tribe of Joseph. These people settled northwestern Europe after the Assyrian captivity in 722 bce. The USA is Israel.
rabbee: come on, how many more messiahs do you need? other than Noach, Avraham, Moshe, Yaachov, Shlomoh. my basic study, is on HaMosheeach. and THEY are not jewish, christian, or muslem. THEY are not concerned, with such trivial vanities.

and THEY do not represent any of your religions, THEY are to Represent G-D Religiously Only. even if you cannot face the fact, that all your religions are totally screwed.

Mumbai, India

#51323 Apr 29, 2013

The Living Cell, Hillman & Peter Sartory.(Packard Publishing, U.K.)

A fairly short but very detailed book which examines actual cells, in life, rather than the techniques which are applied to them. Peter Sartory was a highly skilful observer with both microscopes and telescopes.

Some deductions from it include:-

1) The location of DNA within cells is in doubt.

2) The 'Golgi Body' doesn't exist.

3) The cell wall as a double structure is a mistake.

4) The 'endoplasmic reticulum' is a myth.

5)'Rough endosplasmic reticulum' as place proteins are made, on 'ribosomes', is a myth.

6) Sodium and potassium and other 'pumps' in cell walls are non-existent.

7) Idea that 'receptors' exist in the walls of cells is wrong; the whole basis of immunology is wrong, and for example 'Beta Blockers' are a mistake.

8) Synapses' in the brain - the model with chemical transmission between nerves - are a mistake.

9) The traditional structures ('oligodendrocytes' etc) are insecurely founded.

10)'Neural networks' don't model the way the brain works.

11) We have some explanation for the fact that people even with severe hydrocephalus can have normal brain function.

Mumbai, India

#51324 Apr 29, 2013


Israel Created Mordechai Vanunu, Not Nukes.

Vanunu is a Mossad cutout.

Israel created Vanunu in order to add verisimilitude to their claim of having nuclear weapons. Israel has no nuclear weapons. It is a bluff.

Israel has never had a viable nuclear weapons program.

The "policy of ambiguity" itself is the first sign, for if they did have nukes they would, like any other country who has them, furnish evidence, thus making their deterrent useful.

Nukes Are Too Close For Comfort.

Next, Israel is too small to benefit from nukes.

It doesn't have enough landbase to assure that their nukes could not be taken out in one fell swoop along with all their major cities by a first strike against them.

Also, Israel's enemies are too close in proximity to Israel for Israel to consider nuking them. Israel would invariably suffer at least radioactive contamination if they attacked their neighbors. It may be even rendered uninhabitable.

Never a Nuke Test.

Another reason Israel has no nukes is: Where and when have they tested them? All countries with nuclear programs have left evidence of multiple tests. Israel has not. Are they really trying to convince the world that they have a huge arsenal which they created without so much as a single test, let alone the hundreds that are the mark of a large and developing program? No ambiguity here.

Too Broke to Afford Nukes.

Finally, follow the money. Israel has been on the dole from the beginning. Please tell me how it can afford a secret nuclear weapons program when in reality Israel's entire conventional military and its upkeep is part of a known welfare package? Simply estimate the costs of a nuclear weapons program and then look at the year to year flow of military aid to Israel and what it accounts for. You will find that there is no possiblity that Israel could come up with ambiguous trillions to accomplish this feat. Nor is it possible to believe that Israel would make its own nukes when it simply asks for and gets everything else military as a sort of political ransom to the long suffering Jews with their holocaust bludgeon and their insinuation into the affairs of Christianity.

And why would Israel spend money, money which it doesn't have, on something that would not be useful for it for the reasons as demonstrated above? Answer: It wouldn't.

Mumbai, India

#51325 Apr 29, 2013
Think About It:

Israel merely demands that the United States arm it to the teeth with conventional weapons and then that the United States fight Israel's enemies for Israel. Clearly, if Israel wanted to start a nuclear war, it would simply demand the US fight it on their behalf and provide the neccessary bribes and blackmail. Israel does not need its own nukes when it has America's.

The conclusion is that Israel is not a state in any real sense. It is predominantly a haven for international Jewry. It's weakness as a state, as a treaty signatory, as a partner in international law, further shows that it is not willing to invest what is neccessary to have a nuclear weapons program.

Mordechai Vanunu never spent time in prison. He simply lived under an assumed identity for the 18 years following his over dramatized mossad arrest. His ongoing publicity is a continuation of Israel's deception of the world about its non-existant nukes. The Mossad's motto is "By means of deception, thou shalt do war."

"The Samson Option" Deception--Seymour Hersh Lends a Hand.

Because the use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal in the Middle East it has raised doubts that Israel would actually use nuclear weapons – even if they had them. Seymour Hersh's book the Samson Option tries to convince the goy reader that Israel would commit suicide and take the whole world with it if pushed to using nuclear weapons. The book’s main purpose is to reinforce the idea that Israel has nuclear weapons, just as the imprisonment of Vanunu was designed to make us believe.

This bluff has been going on for a very long time – for at least forty years. I believe that the problems of convincing the non-Jewish world that these weapons would really be useful to the Israelis have made their charade suspect and less effectual than they have hoped – even with Hersh’s Samson Option assurances.

The Myth of the Neutron Bomb, and Other Vegetables
I believe that is why the neutron bomb was “invented”. I use the word “invented” in the sense of propaganda, not scientific invention. The neutron bomb was supposed to kill people, but leave real estate intact and uncontaminated. No more need to commit suicide and take the whole world along. The neutron bomb could be used successfully in the Middle East without creating the proverbial glass parking lot. It became the better bluff.

But I find the whole story of the neutron bomb suspect. First of all it was “invented” by one Sam Cohen who claims to have received a peace medal by Pope John Paul II for his invention. It is decidedly strange that the Pope would give a peace medal for a bomb that kills people but leaves the infrastructure intact. If the neutron bomb is the more humane weapon why isn’t it used? If you read Mr. Cohen’s biography I think you may come away with the same sense I got – that this is just another Jewish myth with the underlying purpose of bamboozling the non-Jewish public. The number of Jewish frauds that I have discovered has made me inveterately suspicious of even the most celebrated of Jewish icons – Einstein, Teller, Wiesel, Bettelheim, Freud, Boaz, Daniel Goldhagen, Stephen Spielberg, Jared Diamond, etc. I think Sam Cohen belongs on the list.

....from the internet


Mumbai, India

#51326 Apr 29, 2013
So, if Israel doesn't have nukes then what? My take is that Israel has been gifted with ready-made nukes by the international cabal that runs the world...

Kingston, Jamaica

#51327 Apr 29, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that all the "mistakes" are being made by everyone else: the ATF-types, the atheists. Interesting way of looking at the world. We are all wrong and you're right.(Do you know my wife?!:))
"Anti-scientific" you say. Pot meet kettle.
The 9/11 conspiracy crowd are very much into science (and engineering). Perhaps you haven't looked at any of their evidence.
I would argue they are much closer to the truth than the religious crowd. They are at least in the realm of reality.
<quoted text>
To what religious "evidence" do you refer?
It seems as though you saying something along the lines of, "Don't bother a psychotic person with reality - that isn't relevant to him. He is by definition detached from same."
And I could certainly understand that this would all seem "irrelevant."
It must be blissful!:))
Beautiful poetry.

How are you?

Did you miss me while you were off the forum?

Kingston, Jamaica

#51328 Apr 29, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Religion is a subculture and as so has its own rules and standards, and internal logic which is based upon that.
Even in the modern era there are more than one systems of standards. Scientific definition of evidence is very different from the legal definition.
Just like legal evidentiary standards and definitions of what is evidence are different from scientific standards and definitions of evidence, some organized religions can define on their own what is considered evidence and what is not, and what the standards for evaluating are.
The problem is when they apply their standards to your world, and vice versa. That is what you are getting at. You dont buy their definition, and they shouldnt assume that you should. But among themselves, they have an internal logic.
Former---One cannot in my mind say that he is held to standards of a by-gone era if it's a belief system he subscribes to in the here and now.

Frijoles--I disagree. Religion is a subculture and as so has its own rules and standards, and internal logic which is based upon that.

HughBe--- I agree with Former about the here and now and bygone.

What is RELIGION a subculture of, Frijoles?

Frijoles---Even in the modern era there are more than one systems of standards. Scientific definition of evidence is very different from the legal definition.

HughBe--- Is MURDER a standard of bygone days?

Frijoles---Just like legal evidentiary standards and definitions of what is evidence are different from scientific standards and definitions of evidence, some organized religions can define on their own what is considered evidence and what is not, and what the standards for evaluating are.

HughBe--- Define religious EVIDENCE, Frijoles.

Frijoles---The problem is when they apply their standards to your world, and vice versa. That is what you are getting at. You dont buy their definition, and they shouldnt assume that you should. But among themselves, they have an internal logic.

HughBe--- Share their INTERNAL logic.

United States

#51331 Apr 29, 2013
Female DNA Found on Bomb in Boston Attack
Evan Perez and Devlin Barrett
Wall Street Journal
April 29, 2013
Investigators have found female DNA on at least one of the bombs
used in the Boston Marathon attacks, though they haven’t
determined whose DNA it is or whether that means a woman
helped the two suspects carry out the attacks, according to U.S.
officials briefed on the probe.
The officials familiar with the case cautioned that there could be
multiple explanations for why the DNA of someone other than the
two bombing suspects—Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger
brother, Dzhokhar—could have been found on remnants of the
exploded devices. The genetic material could have come, for
example, from a store clerk who handled materials used in the
bombs or a stray hair that ended up in the bomb.
On Monday, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents were seen
leaving the Rhode Island home of the parents of Katherine Russell,
the widow of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The elder brother died after a
shootout with police four days after the April 15 bombings. ...
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51332 Apr 29, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Beautiful poetry.
How are you?
Did you miss me while you were off the forum?
Hello Huggybear.

Of course I missed you.

You are like a clean, fresh breath of
Blue Mountain air, mon!:))

Kingston, Jamaica

#51333 Apr 29, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Huggybear.
Of course I missed you.
You are like a clean, fresh breath of
Blue Mountain air, mon!:))
Former---Hello Huggybear.
Of course I missed you.
You are like a clean, fresh breath of
Blue Mountain air, mon!:))

HughBe--- Greetings my friend. I am aware that I am like a breath of fresh air like the pure air of the Blue Mountains.

I missed you too. I am sentimental.

United States

#51334 Apr 29, 2013
Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of
global warming
Michael Bastasch
Daily Caller
April 28, 2013
Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and
environmental groups about the urgency of global warming,
climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of
evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.
“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that
the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are
starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections
provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate
system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor
at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the
University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News
Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the
unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least
the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and
environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-
long lull.
This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a
letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage
on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-
sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.

United States

#51335 Apr 29, 2013
‹› Home
View web version
Saturday, April 27, 2013
MS at 11:38 AM
New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2
levels, not man-made CO2
Affiliations Contributions Corresponding authors
A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect
between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2,
demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2
emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed
sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate
of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the
growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of
1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25%
from 2003-2011, but the change in the growth rate of atmospheric
CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures. The
data demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels due to ocean
outgassing, man-made CO2 does not drive temperature, and that man
is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels.
From the prior post: Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is
not the driver of global warming
Roger J. Francey, Cathy M. Trudinger, Marcel van der Schoot, Rachel
M. Law , Paul B. Krummel, Ray L. Langenfelds , L. Paul Steele, Colin E.
Allison, Ann R. Stavert, Robert J. Andres & Christian Rödenbeck
Nature Climate Change 3, 520–524 (2013) doi:10.1038/
Man-made CO2 emissions shown in black, growth rate of
atmospheric CO2 shown in blue
Plot for yourself here a single graph that simultaneously
demonstrates the clear observational evidence that
temperature drives CO2
CO2 does not drive temperature
man is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels
The effect follows the cause; the cause does not follow the effect.
Short-term global temperature changes precede CO2 levels by about
1 year as shown by observations, and by 800+ years in ice core

Pune, India

#51336 Apr 29, 2013
Hugh, the grand chhakka (eunuch) from voodoo-land, Jamaica, is online. LOL.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hurley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 1 hr Richies Cool Man ... 8,961
News Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Jul 17 Tony 630
Where were the flags Jun 28 red white and blue 4
News Voiers' Park plan includes pond (Dec '16) Jun 28 John 16
News Experience Victorian Christmas tonight at Silve... (Dec '09) Jun 27 AmPieJam UncleSam 5
News Twenty-five car pile-up leaves six people dead Jun '17 Budda Gojkovich 2
News Fiesta Latina heats things upJune 19th, 2017 Jun '17 I love the southwest 1

Hurley Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hurley Mortgages