Comments for Paul's blog http://claessen.com/blog Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:20:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on No fries with that by Jeffery OfSky http://claessen.com/blog/?p=55&cpage=1#comment-11932 Jeffery OfSky Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:20:24 +0000 http://paulclaessen.com/blog/?p=55#comment-11932 Wiley Brooks is not a nutcase, it simply is that you are not spiritually evolved beings and have small minds incapable of big knowing. I have verified this through off world sources, those items and combinations are indeed infused with Orion 5D Blue Kyndalini energy, the energy the New Earth will have as a foundational energy. It is very simple. Wiley has a body in a 5D Vortex, before he embodied, into 3D. That 3D after time made contact, he took the items to a portal, they exist in many places, and the 5D vortex aspect INFUSED in the DIVINE MIND the items with that energy. This has nothing to do with nutrition, it is simply, the ITEM is INFUSED. I currently infuse videos with my 6D aspect, but cannot do Universe wide items. Of course, first you have to know you are a GOD. Most people are not concerned with that, so they never know how this stuff works. Wiley Brooks is not a nutcase, it simply is that you are not spiritually evolved beings and have small minds incapable of big knowing.

I have verified this through off world sources, those items and combinations are indeed infused with Orion 5D Blue Kyndalini energy, the energy the New Earth will have as a foundational energy.

It is very simple. Wiley has a body in a 5D Vortex, before he embodied, into 3D. That 3D after time made contact, he took the items to a portal, they exist in many places, and the 5D vortex aspect INFUSED in the DIVINE MIND the items with that energy.

This has nothing to do with nutrition, it is simply, the ITEM is INFUSED. I currently infuse videos with my 6D aspect, but cannot do Universe wide items.

Of course, first you have to know you are a GOD. Most people are not concerned with that, so they never know how this stuff works.

]]> Comment on Kids, ping-pong balls: it’s all the same. I by icommentonoldposts http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268&cpage=1#comment-11929 icommentonoldposts Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:38:16 +0000 http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268#comment-11929 What a long winded explanation. assuming the probablity of B or G is 50%. The possible outcomes of two births are: BB BG GG GB we are told one is a B so that eliminates the GG pair. Possible outcomes are now. BB BG GB so there is a 33.3% chance of BB. What a long winded explanation. assuming the probablity of B or G is 50%. The possible outcomes of two births are:
BB
BG
GG
GB
we are told one is a B so that eliminates the GG pair. Possible outcomes are now.
BB
BG
GB
so there is a 33.3% chance of BB.

]]> Comment on A new word … by Sherlocky Holmex http://claessen.com/blog/?p=98&cpage=1#comment-11907 Sherlocky Holmex Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:13:10 +0000 http://paulclaessen.com/blog/?p=98#comment-11907 Your lack of faith is impressive my friend! He took the picture only to help keeping (visual memory helps remembering things) memory of how the machine was built, once he got rid of the notes and schemes. The affidavits are only a way to prove (sometime later, eventually) that he is not crazy. Your doubt is a sign of intelligence, you make a good point, but for sure that you know that the (not so many) owners of the monopoly of energy (you can put it also as "the powers that be", if you get what i mean) they don't want any competition, no magnuts out there inventing machines that would ruin them one day to another. They are not quire boys and are ready to kill anyone who come up with any invention that endanger their power while they wouldn't mind at all to get hold of one of those machines (or plans), so that they could use as they very well wanted, even keeping it in secret while keeping everybody paying for oil!! therefore the destruction of the machines and plans. The military, for example, would love to have such a toy. I am not a scientist but i know that the rulers of this world are not good people, (big thing, what a brain i have) they wont have any qualms about killing or ruinning the life of some magnut! it is obvious that this man is at war with the system, and he is not stupid enough to believe they would let him go ahead with his patent ruin the monopoly of energy upon which everything is depending and make a lot of money and solve half of mankind's problems without killing him first. And this may be only the tip of the iceberg. You can't call me a magnut but you can call me a nut! no hay problema! Your lack of faith is impressive my friend! He took the picture only to help keeping (visual memory helps remembering things) memory of how the machine was built, once he got rid of the notes and schemes. The affidavits are only a way to prove (sometime later, eventually) that he is not crazy.
Your doubt is a sign of intelligence, you make a good point, but for sure that you know that the (not so many) owners of the monopoly of energy (you can put it also as “the powers that be”, if you get what i mean) they don’t want any competition, no magnuts out there inventing machines that would ruin them one day to another. They are not quire boys and are ready to kill anyone who come up with any invention that endanger their power while they wouldn’t mind at all to get hold of one of those machines (or plans), so that they could use as they very well wanted, even keeping it in secret while keeping everybody paying for oil!! therefore the destruction of the machines and plans. The military, for example, would love to have such a toy.
I am not a scientist but i know that the rulers of this world are not good people, (big thing, what a brain i have) they wont have any qualms about killing or ruinning the life of some magnut! it is obvious that this man is at war with the system, and he is not stupid enough to believe they would let him go ahead with his patent ruin the monopoly of energy upon which everything is depending and make a lot of money and solve half of mankind’s problems without killing him first.
And this may be only the tip of the iceberg. You can’t call me a magnut but you can call me a nut! no hay problema!

]]> Comment on Kids, ping-pong balls: it’s all the same. I by Mike C. http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268&cpage=1#comment-11902 Mike C. Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:03:01 +0000 http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268#comment-11902 "Jimmy" (4/28/11) sums it up nicely. Here is where your 'proof' goes off the tracks; "The problem can now be stated as "I grab two balls from the bowl. One is white. What is the chance I got two white balls". The only difference with the ‘kid’ problem is that we can actually PERFORM this experiment." WRONG- the difference is that with pingpong balls (or matches, etc.) the first event has a bearing on the second event. Having 1 child does not change the odds of your second child being a boy or a girl (unless there are a fixed number of babies already in that womb). It's a whole new experiment on the second conception/birth. Here's another way of stating the difference; Picking a red card from a deck will alter the odds of picking a red or black card from the same deck (less the first removed card) on your next pick but rolling an even number on a single die WILL NOT changes the even/odd percentages on a second roll because you're back to square 1 again. “Jimmy” (4/28/11) sums it up nicely. Here is where your ‘proof’ goes off the tracks; “The problem can now be stated as “I grab two balls from the bowl. One is white. What is the chance I got two white balls”. The only difference with the ‘kid’ problem is that we can actually PERFORM this experiment.” WRONG- the difference is that with pingpong balls (or matches, etc.) the first event has a bearing on the second event. Having 1 child does not change the odds of your second child being a boy or a girl (unless there are a fixed number of babies already in that womb). It’s a whole new experiment on the second conception/birth. Here’s another way of stating the difference; Picking a red card from a deck will alter the odds of picking a red or black card from the same deck (less the first removed card) on your next pick but rolling an even number on a single die WILL NOT changes the even/odd percentages on a second roll because you’re back to square 1 again.

]]> Comment on Kids, ping-pong balls: it’s all the same. I by Jimmy http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268&cpage=1#comment-11890 Jimmy Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:34:12 +0000 http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268#comment-11890 The following ignores biological complexities and assumes a 1/2 probability of a boy for each of 2 births. The problem is in the ambiguity of the puzzle question. BEFORE any children are conceived, looking forward, the probability of having 2 boys is (1/2)*(1/2) or 1/4. However, once one child is seen to be a boy, the probability the second one will be a boy is simply 1/2. The following ignores biological complexities and assumes a 1/2 probability of a boy for each of 2 births.

The problem is in the ambiguity of the puzzle question.

BEFORE any children are conceived, looking forward, the probability of having 2 boys is (1/2)*(1/2) or 1/4.

However, once one child is seen to be a boy, the probability the second one will be a boy is simply 1/2.

]]> Comment on Kids, ping-pong balls: it’s all the same. I by patrick http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268&cpage=1#comment-11887 patrick Sat, 12 Mar 2011 07:15:57 +0000 http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268#comment-11887 Now throw in some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics and you are all wrong again; because you could have a girl and a boy at the exact same time. Oh nooo Quantum Physics breaks our puzzle :D (and about everything else we did find logic before) Now throw in some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics and you are all wrong again; because you could have a girl and a boy at the exact same time. Oh nooo Quantum Physics breaks our puzzle :D (and about everything else we did find logic before)

]]> Comment on Free Energy, Steorn, Orbo and … possibly … one million bucks? by Free Energy Technology http://claessen.com/blog/?p=91&cpage=1#comment-11884 Free Energy Technology Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:55:49 +0000 http://paulclaessen.com/blog/?p=91#comment-11884 We do need free energy technology in the world. It is the only thing that will get us off of oil, which we must do. I'm glad there are people in the world working on making sustainable free energy machine options for us all, because we will need them in the not too distant future. We do need free energy technology in the world. It is the only thing that will get us off of oil, which we must do. I’m glad there are people in the world working on making sustainable free energy machine options for us all, because we will need them in the not too distant future.

]]> Comment on T-shirt by mbt womens sandsals http://claessen.com/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-11828 mbt womens sandsals Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:56:12 +0000 http://paulclaessen.com/blog/?p=43#comment-11828 green hand testing green hand testing

]]> Comment on Kids, ping-pong balls: it’s all the same. I by Paul http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268&cpage=1#comment-11799 Paul Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:58:42 +0000 http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268#comment-11799 Ruben, the point of controversy (even though I don't see any) seems to stem from "how the knowledge about one kid being a boy' is obtained". I think that's a nonsensical objection, but anyway, you can find more about all that, (as well as more references) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox I looked at some of the objections, and I'm finding myself sitting there shaking my head and mumbling "no, no, no, no, NO!" BUT .. I have to be careful! Probability theory a tricky subject. Ruben, the point of controversy (even though I don’t see any) seems to stem from “how the knowledge about one kid being a boy’ is obtained”.
I think that’s a nonsensical objection, but anyway, you can find more about all that, (as well as more references) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

I looked at some of the objections, and I’m finding myself sitting there shaking my head and mumbling “no, no, no, no, NO!”

BUT .. I have to be careful! Probability theory a tricky subject.

]]> Comment on Kids, ping-pong balls: it’s all the same. I by Ruben Agin http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268&cpage=1#comment-11797 Ruben Agin Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:25:39 +0000 http://claessen.com/blog/?p=268#comment-11797 What is the point of controversy? It seems fairly obvious if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. Boils down to a simple combinatorics problem. Now, I can see why Monty Hall confounds so many and causes controversy. Beca...use of the wording and the conditional vs. unconditional probability. Why so many mathematicians blasted Marilyn vos Savant when she published it in 1991. Incidentally, the anecdote about Erdos is funny because it shows that the greatest mathematicians still have problems with basic probability. I think combinatorics should be taught before probability, as it is fundamental to many of its problems. Any good mathematician should be able to distill such a problem to the combinatorial equivalent and solve it. What is the point of controversy? It seems fairly obvious if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. Boils down to a simple combinatorics problem. Now, I can see why Monty Hall confounds so many and causes controversy. Beca…use of the wording and the conditional vs. unconditional probability. Why so many mathematicians blasted Marilyn vos Savant when she published it in 1991. Incidentally, the anecdote about Erdos is funny because it shows that the greatest mathematicians still have problems with basic probability. I think combinatorics should be taught before probability, as it is fundamental to many of its problems. Any good mathematician should be able to distill such a problem to the combinatorial equivalent and solve it.

]]>