A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying I act like a dingbat is just as bad as saying I am a dingbat LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the shoe fits

It doesn't. Maybe you should try the shoe on.

I know I am free to leave, but before I do I will express my perception of what I've been up against.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Like you're leaving at all.

There is nothing more to discuss with people who claim to be free thinkers, and are anything but.

I have been the recipient of many false accusations of lying and dishonesty.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you haven't, you are being dishonest right now by even saying so. Multiple flip flops, lies, and many, many, many dishonest weasels have been exposed.

Yes, and I explained why I flipflopped. Sometimes it looked that way because this concept is difficult to explain with which made it appear as if I was flipflopping. But the accusations have been attacks on my character, which are uncalled for. I have never been purposely dishonest which is an intent to deceive. I may have weaseled a bit because I needed more time to analyze the questions posed, and I didn't want people to leave prematurely because I didn't have an immediate answer. I realize it got me into trouble, but that still has nothing to do with the validity of this knowledge.

I do not have a victim mentality or I would have been long gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You thrive on victimhood, that's what a martyr complex is.

Another false accusation. Is this all you can muster up when I'm leaving? You could at least say it was an interesting discussion, but that would lower yourself in your own eyes.

The name calling and the false accusations have been tough, but I remained.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, you have, Brave Soldier

Why the sarcasm? Why can't you just admit one time in your life that you're really not sure if he is right or not. That would at least make you look like an honest individual who can accept that she may be wrong.

This has only given me more determination to get this knowledge into the right hands.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

:chemofist:

And what's chemofist supposed to mean?

I came back because I wasn't sure how to go about marketing on a shoestring budget, and I still don't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep, marketing is difficult. A true grassroots effort would start with your immediate family and friends, but you don't want to go there

No, I am not involving my family and friends. My friends don't want to talk about determinism and efferent vision. They wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. My kids will pass this book on if I can't. They are much too busy with their own lives to get involved right now. They have families LadyShea. This is a full time job.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you don't agree, but it's really okay. I'm not depending on you for validation of these difficult concepts.

You are depending on scientists, which Dragar is one, though. TLR is a scientist too and you were equally disrespectful to him.

Do you think any qualified scientists are not going to ask similar questions and take the same umbrage at your weaseling and questioning their ability to understand the very fields they work in as a career? You are deluded.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained this. Light travels from the object to the mirror which then bounces off and strikes the eye. This has caused much of the confusion because you cannot analyze it this way. That's why no one has figured this out in the field of physics. Although it's a logical conclusion, it's wrong.

Of course you can analyze how light gets somewhere by empirically observing and measuring the properties of the light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are depending on scientists, which Dragar is one, though. TLR is a scientist too and you were equally disrespectful to him.

Do you think any qualified scientists are not going to ask similar questions and take the same umbrage at your weaseling and questioning their ability to understand the very fields they work in as a career? You are deluded.

Well Dragar doesn't get it. That doesn't mean other scientists won't. It might be that Lessans was ahead of his time, but at least I've planted a seed. I don't cower to someone just because they have a credential next to their name. I also give credit where its due. I'm sure Dragar knows a lot about a lot of things that I don't. I'm sure the Lone Ranger does too. But this does not take away from the fact that this knowledge is genuine. Why shouldn't Lessans be recognized for his accomplishments too, since these discoveries are revolutionary and will change our world for the better? Please bear in mind that just because he didn't have the "right" credentials for such a discovery does not mean he didn't know what he was talking about. My hope is that in our lifetime this discovery will be taken seriously, as it has the power to prevent war, crime, and many other evils plaguing mankind so the sooner it is recognized by science, the quicker we will have peace on Earth.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1194056]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the shoe fits

There is nothing more to discuss with people who claim to be free thinkers, and are anything but.

You've said similar many times over the years, yet you keep coming back for more!

Yes, and I explained why I flipflopped. Sometimes it looked that way because I didn't explain it as clearly as I could have and because this concept is difficult to begin with. But the accusations have been attacks on my character, which are uncalled for. I have never been purposely dishonest which is an intent to deceive. I may have weaseled a bit because I needed more time to analyze the questions posed, and I didn't want people to leave because I didn't have an immediate answer.

Your character is that of a weasel. Weaseling is dishonest. Flip flopping is hypocritical. If you needed time you should have taken the time you needed, but instead you intentionally deceived us by weaseling and avoiding direct questions instead of saying "I am not sure, I need to analyze that".

People stayed to argue with you because you say silly and hilarious things because you don't know any actual answers.

Another false accusation. Is this all you can muster up when I'm leaving? You could at least say it was an interesting discussion, but that would lower yourself in your own eyes.

LOL, yep no victim mentality and martyrdom to see here.

Do you really think you're really leaving this time? You've been unable to do so the past umpteen times you've said you were, why should I believe you now?

Why the sarcasm? Why can't you just admit one time in your life that you're really not sure if he is right or not. That would at least make you look like an honest individual who can accept that she may be wrong.

1. I am sure Lessans was wrong.

I readily admit when I think I might be wrong about something, and am open to valid correction. Which has happened, in this very thread.

2. You are a hypocrite. Why weasel instead of admitting for once in your life that you can't explain Lessans ideas cogently?

And what's that supposed to mean?

It's an inside joke. Suffice it to say you are not the first person to credit with giving them determination.

No, I am not involving my family and friends. My friends don't want to talk about determinism and efferent vision. They wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. My kids will pass this book on if I can't. They are much too busy with their own lives to get involved right now. They have families LadyShea. This is a full time job.

LOL, they don't have time to read a book and have discussions with their beloved mother, sister, friend, about information that can save the entire world from evil, war and poverty, huh? Great family you have there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the shoe fits

There is nothing more to discuss with people who claim to be free thinkers, and are anything but.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said similar many times over the years, yet you keep coming back for more!

That's because I'm not starting again anywhere else. You have the pleasure of talking with me. Aren't you lucky? If I had more money, I would be marketing right now. I just bought a course in wordpress. I'll have to learn it myself to get anything done. In the meantime, I hope to find better things to do with my time while I'm figuring out what the next step should be.

I have been the recipient of many false accusations of lying and dishonesty.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you haven't, you are being dishonest right now by even saying so. Multiple flip flops, lies, and many, many, many dishonest weasels have been exposed.

Yes, and I explained why I flipflopped. Sometimes it looked that way because I didn't explain it as clearly as I could have and because this concept is difficult to begin with. But the accusations have been attacks on my character, which are uncalled for. I have never been purposely dishonest which is an intent to deceive. I may have weaseled a bit because I needed more time to analyze the questions posed, and I didn't want people to leave because I didn't have an immediate answer.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

Your character is that of a weasel. Weaseling is dishonest. Flip flopping is hypocritical. If you needed time you should have taken the time you needed, but instead you intentionally deceived us by weaseling and avoiding direct questions instead of saying "I am not sure, I need to analyze that".

You're right, and I admitted it. Why can't you do the same? Why can't you let it go already? Haven't you ever responded in such a way that after looking back in hindsight you realized you should have responded differently? And what does this have to do with the price of eggs? This has nothing to do with the validity of these claims.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People stayed to argue with you because you say silly and hilarious things because you don't know any actual answers.

I know they're here for entertainment.

I do not have a victim mentality or I would have been long gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You thrive on victimhood, that's what a martyr complex is.

Another false accusation. Is this all you can muster up when I'm leaving? You could at least say it was an interesting discussion, but that would lower yourself in your own eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, yep no victim mentality and martyrdom to see here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you really think you're really leaving this time? You've been unable to do so the past umpteen times you've said you were, why should I believe you now?

I'm saturated to the point where I have lost my desire to discuss light and sight. The discussion on determinism has lost its luster also. I may respond to other threads or start a new one when I'm bored, but I have no desire to discuss the book.

The name calling and the false accusations have been tough, but I remained.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, you have, Brave Soldier

Why the sarcasm? Why can't you just admit one time in your life that you're really not sure if he is right or not. That would at least make you look like an honest individual who can accept that she may be wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. I am sure Lessans was wrong.

THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM. ONE THING IT DOES SHOW; YOUR NARCISSISM.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I readily admit when I think I might be wrong about something, and am open to valid correction. Which has happened, in this very thread.

Try not to lose your humility. It makes you a better person. Admit to yourself, if not to others, that you really don't know. Because you really don't LadyShea, and the fact that you say you're sure Lessans is wrong makes you the kind of person that you love to hate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. You are a hypocrite. Why weasel instead of admitting for once in your life that you can't explain Lessans ideas cogently?

Why can't you ever answer honestly without trying to turn the question back on me? You take this as an attack. I'm just asking a valid question. Why can't you ever admit that you don't have all the answers. Why are you so determined to be right when you don't know if you are. At the very least you could admit that you aren't sure, but you can't even do that. You would be so much more attractive. Humility rocks!! Srsly!!!!

This has only given me more determination to get this knowledge into the right hands.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

:chemofist:

And what's that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's an inside joke. Suffice it to say you are not the first person to credit with giving them determination.

It would have been nice if you had explained it.

I came back because I wasn't sure how to go about marketing on a shoestring budget, and I still don't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep, marketing is difficult. A true grassroots effort would start with your immediate family and friends, but you don't want to go there

No, I am not involving my family and friends. My friends don't want to talk about determinism and efferent vision. They wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. My kids will pass this book on if I can't. They are much too busy with their own lives to get involved right now. They have families LadyShea. This is a full time job.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, they don't have time to read a book and have discussions with their beloved mother, sister, friend, about information that can save the entire world from evil, war and poverty, huh? Great family you have there.

My children are wonderful (let your son grow up to be as wonderful as they are), so don't start attacking my children like you have my father. I have talked to my kids about the book, and they are very interested, but they have a lot on their plate. I will not put more responsibility on them than is necessary. I'm not selfish that way. Why don't you understand this? You have a child. You know the work that is involved. Being young parents, and working in demanding professions, hardly gives them any time for themselves.

[LadyShea]

If I had more money, I would be marketing right now. I just bought a course in wordpress. I'll have to learn it myself to get anything done. In the meantime, I hope to find better things to do with my time while I'm figuring out what the next step should be.

did you think to start with the many free Wordpress video tutorials available out there?

On that same note, if you had money, what kind of marketing would you do? If you have some plans/ideas in mind, you will recognize the often free or inexpensive opportunities that become available.

I recently attended one of several free lectures at the library, by a doctor trying to drum up business for his alternative medical therapy. It's non-invasive and does not include drugs or medications. It's very interesting, very promising, solidly based in neuroscience, but not approved by the FDA or covered by insurance, so he has to find his own patients himself or get them referred by word of mouth. He is marketing by talking to the public at free venues. You could do live lectures like that for only the cost of your time, or video lectures for YouTube free.

You've wasted so much time and money trying to adhere to mid century publishing and marketing ideas in today's digital society, arguing with people who think you and Lessans are crackpots, and hoping to recoup your sunk costs, when you should have been building a foundation the truly traditional, old fashioned way by talking to and giving the book to lots and lots and lots of people in the hopes of getting 1 or 2% on board.

[LadyShea]

I'm just asking a valid question. Why can't you ever admit that you don't have all the answers. Why are you so determined to be right when you don't know if you are

I have never said I have all the answers about everything and have admitted to that on several occasions. Need me to find the quotes?

That being said, I am not the one trying to convince the whole world to accept my ideas as truth either. That wopuld be YOU and Lessans. Where's your humility? Where is the evidence of his?

I am merely expressing my opinions and thoughts. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I believe wholeheartedly that I am right in my judgment of Lessans as mistaken about most everything, and my judgment of your arguments as incoherent and vapid.

You would be so much more attractive. Humility rocks!! Srsly!!!!

Attractive to whom? Who am I trying to attract? What a shallow, silly thing to say.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have talked to my kids about the book, and they are very interested, but they have a lot on their plate. I will not put more responsibility on them than is necessary. I'm not selfish that way. Why don't you understand this? You have a child. You know the work that is involved. Being young parents, and working in demanding professions, hardly gives them any time for themselves.

I don't understand it because it sounds like a bullshit excuse.

I manage to work two jobs (one of which involves marketing, ironically), spend time with my family (with my mom daily), read books, have discussions online, participate in my community and son's school, plan and take trips, do volunteer work, all while raising an awesome, bright child who is a delight to everyone around him. Just today my son, my mom and I went to an exercise class together, then took him to practice. Son and I then had lunch together, took the dog to the vet, and cleaned the kitchen...along with my working at home today as well. What I don't do is watch TV very much. I record a couple of shows and catch up on them late at night after my son is asleep.

Why don't you understand that if your kids really thought Lessans had the answer to world peace, they would easily find time to at least read the book and have a couple of discussions with you? It would be a priority if they really thought you had genuine discoveries able to change the world in your hands, and they are as wonderful as they are. Wonderful people aren't too busy to end all evil.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deserve to be suddenly attacked as if his knowledge on this matter is the last word. This is total arrogance. He was just waiting for me not to answer his questions in the way that he expected, so he concluded wrongly. He thought that he was justified in calling me a dingbat. Don't you see how premature this is? Regardless of whether he thought I was right or wrong, no one deserves to be treated this way.

I can't see why you should take such umbrage at someone making a simple astute observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been the recipient of many false accusations of lying and dishonesty. I do not have a victim mentality or I would have been long gone.

It is precisely because you do have a victim mentality that you are still here. You obviously do not understand the meaning of the phrase "victim mentality".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained to you (have you forgotten already?) that this was in one of his books.
<snip>
One day I will upload where it says, other than light, in his book "View From The Mountain Top." And once again I will be vindicated.

I am pretty sure that he has not forgotten that you have made that claim. I am also pretty sure that he just doesn't believe you. One wonders why. I also don't think that uploading something will help your case. What is to prevent you from simply fabricating evidence?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave the explanation of how mirrors work as if this somehow disproves his claim. Light travels, so the reflection of light doesn't negate or disprove this phenomenon at all, yet you think it does. You said I should refer back to your definition. I cannot refer back to a definition that isn't useful, or doesn't even make sense in light of this new knowledge.

Dragar never said that you should refer back to his definition. He simply made the observation that you did refer back to the standard explanation, rather than offering an explanation that would make sense in terms of your model. We know, of course, why you can't offer an explanation that makes sense in terms of your model, because you don't have an actual model and what you do have doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained this. Light travels from the object to the mirror which then bounces off and strikes the eye. This has caused much of the confusion because you cannot analyze it this way. That's why no one has figured this out in the field of physics. Although it's a logical conclusion, it's wrong.

Explain, if you can, how light can reflect off an object, bounce off a mirror and then strike the retina without involving traveling photons or elapsed time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It sure sounds like magic, because you don't explain it more fully. You don't explain anything. You can't even explain how mirrors work - you explained it using light, which isn't (according to you) how we see. Why should reflected light from a mirror change what we see? Silence from you.

It is a pretty poor sort of magic that can't even produce the effects it claims it can produce.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Attractive to whom? Who am I trying to attract?

You are obviously trying to attract me, what with that whole Tinkerbell/Rosie The Riveter look. Sorry LadyShea, it just isn't going to work unless you acquire a little more humility. Also some genitals.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you can analyze how light gets somewhere by empirically observing and measuring the properties of the light.

After all this time, you don't have a clue. Move on LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Dragar never said that you should refer back to his definition. He simply made the observation that you did refer back to the standard explanation, rather than offering an explanation that would make sense in terms of your model. We know, of course, why you can't offer an explanation that makes sense in terms of your model, because you don't have an actual model and what you do have doesn't make sense.

Explain, if you can, how light can reflect off an object, bounce off a mirror and then strike the retina without involving traveling photons or elapsed time.

Because although light is reflected, the image is not. No one understands that all the light in the world will not provide an image on film or the retina if the object is not within optical range. There will be no nonabsorbed photons to resolve. The truth is we see the object due to light being AT OUR RETINA as we look at the object in our visual landscape which includes all matter. Light, being a necessary condition, reveals the object regardless of how far away it is. You have to think about this backwards: if we see an object, that means the light that reveals the object is already there. It does not mean that the properties of light have changed.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It sure sounds like magic, because you don't explain it more fully. You don't explain anything. You can't even explain how mirrors work - you explained it using light, which isn't (according to you) how we see. Why should reflected light from a mirror change what we see? Silence from you.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is a pretty poor sort of magic that can't even produce the effects it claims it can produce.

I didn't say we don't use light. Of course we use light. Light allows us to see. Show me one post where I say that light is unnecessary. You must have been snoozing half the time. You're just as cocky as the rest.

[Spacemonkey]

What a dingbat.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if we see an object, that means the light that reveals the object is already there. It does not mean that the properties of light have changed.

Already where? Could you be any less precise?

If you meant to say that the light that reveals the object is already at the eye, well of course it is. We couldn't see the object unless light from the object was at our eyes. There is, however, nothing in that account that excludes the light having traveled to get to the eye. If you want to insist that the light that reveals the object is at the eye instantly, without the prior necessity of having to traverse time and space, then you are quite definitely altering the properties of light.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained this. Light travels from the object to the mirror which then bounces off and strikes the eye.

The same is true for any object. So how do mirrors work?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Going back to the previous example, if the objects in the room suddenly disappeared, we would get no image in the mirror. Why?

What are you talking about? We would see the walls and such, unless you are talking about removing all matter from the room and creating some kind of featureless Void? Because yeah, there must be a something either emitting or reflecting light, in order to see that something

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After all this time, you don't have a clue. Move on LadyShea.

No

I do have a clue, we are asking you about the properties of light, which you claim is identical in your account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

did you think to start with the many free Wordpress video tutorials available out there?

There are a lot of videos on youtube. That's how I found this guy. He is a really good teacher. It was worth the money and he's always updating it without me having to pay more money. I just haven't delved into learning mode yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

On that same note, if you had money, what kind of marketing would you do? If you have some plans/ideas in mind, you will recognize the often free or inexpensive opportunities that become available.

I know there are inexpensive opportunities, but this book is so different that what would work for most indie authors wouldn't work here. I may discuss the book on a radio show. We'll see.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I recently attended one of several free lectures at the library, by a doctor trying to drum up business for his alternative medical therapy. It's non-invasive and does not include drugs or medications. It's very interesting, very promising, solidly based in neuroscience, but not approved by the FDA or covered by insurance, so he has to find his own patients himself or get them referred by word of mouth. He is marketing by talking to the public at free venues. You could do live lectures like that for only the cost of your time, or video lectures for YouTube free.

I could give video lectures, but without endorsements or verification that this book is worth reading, it won't go far. That's why I want to send it to philosophers who already lean towards determinism. I don't want to have to defend these principles over and over again. If their worldview is that of compatibilism or free will, this book won't be for them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've wasted so much time and money trying to adhere to mid century publishing and marketing ideas in today's digital society, arguing with people who think you and Lessans are crackpots, and hoping to recoup your sunk costs, when you should have been building a foundation the truly traditional, old fashioned way by talking to and giving the book to lots and lots and lots of people in the hopes of getting 1 or 2% on board.

I can't continue giving books away. It's a fortune LadyShea; you have no idea. I'm not even thinking about recouping my sunk costs. I am only interested in getting his knowledge investigated. If I make my money back, great, but that's not the most important thing. I may put the ebook on Amazon. But the book will cost at least $9.95. As far as going around doing speaking engagements, this may be too strenuous for me. As you know, I have a health problem so there are many hurdles, but I know I will overcome them someway, somehow. Thank you for your input. I know you are sincere and you wish me the best even though you think I'm a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No

I do have a clue, we are asking you about the properties of light, which you claim is identical in your account.

It is identical. There is nothing that changes regarding the properties of light. Light still travels at 186,000 miles a second. Mirrors work the same way. GPS systems work the same way. Fiber optics work the same way. Our measurements based on the speed of light work the same way. The wavelengths that make up the full spectrum work the same way. The only thing that doesn't work the same way is our understanding of how light functions in regard to sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? We would see the walls and such, unless you are talking about removing all matter from the room and creating some kind of featureless Void? Because yeah, there must be a something either emitting or reflecting light, in order to see that something

That's not what I'm saying. If the light was reflected from a source, and that source was removed, according to science we should still be able to see the image in the light because the object that reflected the light is not necessary. Please don't tell me that we can't see the image because the light is traveling too fast. Now try to weasel your way out of this one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm saying. If the light was reflected from a source, and that source was removed, according to science we should still be able to see the image in the light because the object that reflected the light is not necessary. Please don't tell me that we can't see the image because the light is traveling too fast. Now try to weasel your way out of this one.

It's interesting how a person can take a well understood idea, such as the afferent model of vision, and totally misunderstand (apparently) what is being said. Of course, on Earth, light moves too fast for anyone to remove an object from the line of sight and still be able to see it. And it is only the light that passes directly into the eye that matters for vision, light that passes by us too fast to see is irrelevant. But in the solar system there are plenty of cases where an object moves out of the line of sight, but we can still see the image because the light is still traveling towards us. and outside the solar system, everything seen is from the light that started traveling to us a long time ago, so we are seeing the object as it was when the light was emitted or reflected from that object. The Lessans/Peacegirl model of efferent vision is completely devoid of any relationship to reality. There is no evidence to support efferent vision, only a few wild claims by someone who knew nothing about vision. Afferent vision, on the other hand, has years of evidence from research, experiments, dissection, and tests that support it with an overwhelming amount of evidence.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm saying. If the light was reflected from a source, and that source was removed, according to science we should still be able to see the image in the light because the object that reflected the light is not necessary.

No, that is a strawman. Nobody thinks we see "the image in the light" first of all. Additionally, in order the see the object with our eyes, the reflected light from the item must physically intersect with the retina with sufficient intensity to resolve an image.

Please don't tell me that we can't see the image because the light is traveling too fast.

That may or may not be the case, depending on the exact circumstances such as distances, light intensity, size and nature of the sensor, etc.

Now try to weasel your way out of this one.

There's nothing to weasel out of, you haven't trapped me or anything.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm saying. If the light was reflected from a source, and that source was removed, according to science we should still be able to see the image in the light…

No, light doesn't carry images, as has been explained to you countless times. Light is light, period, and light is what we see.

.. because the object that reflected the light is not necessary.

That's right. It's not necessary. The Hubble Deep Field telescope photographs light from objects that have not been in those locations in the sky for billions of years. None of them exist in the same form now as they did then, and many of them don't exist at all. Yet we see their light that took 14 billion years to reach our eyes, meaning that light shows us those objects as they were 14 billion years ago, not as they are now. Everybody can understand this simple fact but you and Lessans.

Please don't tell me that we can't see the image because the light is traveling too fast. Now try to weasel your way out of this one.

No, the light travels too fast to be seen is some more bullshit that YOU made up. Light ALWAYS travels the same speed, c, and if it intersects with our eyes we see it. If it doesn't, we don't. Speed has nothing to do with this.

There is only one weasel here -- you. You are the