Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petro photoglyph


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Petro photoglyph

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fringe article about a hologram of a unicorn embedded in a lump of rock by aliens. Clearly original research. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:VER. andy (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes my publications pertaining to the research with petro photoglyphs may be original. Andy, you are not the 1st and only skeptic to flame this discovery.  It's no 'lunacy' it is fact.  You have no right judge something you know nothing about.  I hold a collection of photo scribed stones that project a hologram of biblical scripture...this is a fact that will not 'go away' just because of you. Wikipedia does not accept discovery...and yet you claim to be the database of human info?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laserles (talk • contribs) 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopaedia, a work that is by definition a tertiary source, which is not a shortcut for avoiding taking the proper route for having new ideas known by the world. Human knowledge has to have escaped its creator(s) and be peer reviewed and acknowledged by the world at large in order to actually be human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that that nothing new can ever be introduced into that wonderful pool of human knowledge? Does this mean that empirical scientific evidence I have developed over the past 15 years doesn't work for Wikipedia?  You hold nothing but blind skepticism and refusal to even evaluate the data, I hold petro photoglyphs (photo engraved stones).  There is always ignorance before enlightenment.Laserles (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly against WP:FRINGE and WP:SPS.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that the word 'petro photoglyph' does NOT mean 'stone photo inscriptions'? Are you some English language authority?  We are talking about something that can readily be substantiated, anytime and in anyplace, stone etched visual projections (holograms) that have been substantiated by many people and by computer image analysis.  FRINGE is your word for 'I don't know anything about it'.  This is genuine, real discovery...the likes of which modern civilization have never seen before.  I dare you to view the evidence before you further flame something about which you know nothing.Laserles (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Like all publications wikipedia has its own rules. There's no point arguing - Wikipedia is defined by guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:RS and without them it simply wouldn't be wikipedia. So, by definition, when you talk about "substantiating" your discovery, if it doesn't fit in with wikipedia's view of the world it simply isn't acceptable, like it or not. There are no doubt plenty of other online publications that see things differently and would be happy to publish this material. Come back here when your discovery is widely accepted - wikipedia does not publish original ideas . andy (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"if it doesn't fit in with wikipedia's view of the world it simply isn't acceptable" Discovery, Knowledge, Information, all lost in the Wonderful World of Wikipedia! Maybe I'll just toss the 200 or so petro photoglyphs I hold out the window and live a Wiki wonderful life of ignorance and inhibitions, could have sworn we were beyond 1984.
 * &%#$...Wikis quote for human intelligence:

oh please forgive me...I forgot to sign offLaserles (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, lost cause. No unicorns. No aliens. Sorry (particularly about the unicorns). Unless of course you have reliable third party documentation...? No? andy (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact*** there is a very reliable third party source...Someone who can readily substantiate and validate of the petro photoglyph. You  may even known him...or somebody who does?  That would be the artisan of the stone...We call Him GOD!  And here is the reliable 3rd documentation...The most popular book on any shelf...The Bible.

Please look at photos: (they were posted with the petro photoglyph definition).







3rd party documentation:

Job Chapter 39: 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
 * The unicorn is in a ditch (furrow) with a band around his neck***

Job Chapter 41: 1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
 * Leviathan means 'swirled' referring to the horn of the unicorn as he is being drawn out with a hook...as his tongue is pulled down from his mouth with a chord.

This 3rd party documentation has been accepted by a global population for a lot longer than Wiki has been. Every single verse in Job 39, 40 & 41 provides 3rd party documentation of the visual manifestation from this petro photoglyph. Why? Because this most elusive of all creatures throughout humanity...and the subject of JOB 39 - 41 is an Avatar of GOD. Read JOB and you will realize the significance of this creature as God's signature to Job after his trials and tribulation.

You know Andy, there was a reason petro photoglyphs were undiscovered until now...and that reason points to the 3rd party source...The Creator. Laserles (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V. Terrible article on fringe theory.    Snotty Wong   confer 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * God has spoken to you? Why don't you then step away from the keyboard and let God type up a new article. As far as the one you typed up is concerned: delete Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and likely WP:SNOW. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:TRUTH and just about every other policy, guideline and essay on Wikipedia. Oh, and I endorse WP:SNOW for this and would apply it if I had admin tools, since it's an embarrassment to the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete - not wanting to be hasty, I searched the title of the authors book. The closest thing to a secondary source on this work appears on Unexplainable.net, but this might just be a link to the pdf version of the book.  While the topic might be encyclopedic, it is not currently notable enough to include, except maybe as a section in a broader article about petroglyph research.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You all judge this to be false...you have no data...no reason...you are not pragmatic...you judge without knowledge...pundits with no information. This petro photoglyph always projects hologram images...even as I hold it in my hand. You have not seen it, nor do you want to because you think this threatens your perspective outlook of life. A Petro Photoglyph rather than upsetting, puts much into perspective. A Petro Photoglyph is a video codex...the messages track religious events and icons from the beginning of time...Quetazlcoatl, Horus, Thoth, Enki, Enlil, Jesus..are all projected in the codices.

Please...before you flame further something you know nothing about, try this simple procedure:

1. Copy this photograph of a petro photoglyph into MS Photo Editor, Photoshop or Irfanview (freeware):



2. Apply the 'invert or negative' function and 'color adjust: blue-minimize / red-maximize /'.

3. Look at the photographic image you have created...look at the detail...reference the projection to JOB 41:1-34.

Laserles (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Note to closing admin: Please, for everything that is holy, make sure that when if this article is deleted, this AFD discussion is preserved in its entirety. This truly is a highlight of my time on Wikipedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and delete per, well, everybody above.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete as patent nonsense. Ask the creator to get a blog. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)



A detailed development of this Petro Photoglyph: 1. Using a medium format photo 2. Hi-Resolution (10"x12"x300dpi) scan 3. Digital photo invert 4. Spectrum enhance red 5. Spectrum attenuate blue 6. Spectrum exchange RGB>BGR (Red <> Blue) 7. Referenced text from JOB 39 - 41

The Development: http://www.impactoptics.com/images/T006y4c-irfan2b.jpg

Image developments from a petro photoglyph provide a video of much that can only be described...even in Wikipedia! Laserles (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously. Wikipedia isn't here to promote anyone's new ideas. Talk about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this editor is simply not going to listen to anyone it seems. Given the editor's edit history (and I'm glad to see it's been cleared up), it needs to be made clear to him that he has to stop using our pages for publicity. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously. The photographic image isn't even convincing. It's clearly a 'unicorn' shaped indent in the rock. The horn is a crack.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously. The photographic image isn't even convincing. It's clearly a 'unicorn' shaped indent in the rock. The horn is a crack.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Between those who can't read or understand to those who think they own the database of knowledge...It appears that 'The Flat Earth Society' rules.Laserles (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should you think that? I don't want to demonise this guy but wikipedia's particular (and arguable) truth has to prevail if it is to remain wikipedia. This is clearly a source of pain to Laserles. The only problem I have with such people is that they can't see that they're fighting a worldview that differs from theirs in order to gain access to that worldview's communication channels (i.e. wikipedia) and they are therefore certain to be defeated. andy (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cynical perhaps. I'm frankly amazed this discussion has been allowed to carry on for so long. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

SNIP"I don't want to demonise this guy but wikipedia's particular (and arguable) truth has to prevail"SNIP

"Demonise" Why would anyone in their right mind think that an ancient stone etched time capsule (petro photoglyph) projecting  biblical events is demonic? You folks are 'really pathetic'...you have nothing but your verbiage! Pointless pundits! Not one of you has examined the data. Your erroneous judgement is based on nothing but your fears...afraid because it will disrupt your perfect wiki-wonderful world were you reign supreme.

SNIP"The only problem I have with such people is that they can't see that they're fighting a worldview that differs from theirs in order to gain access to that worldview's communication channels"SNIP

I've been publishing online through www.impactoptics.com since 1995...long before wikipedia became the latest word for 'knowledge'. Don't need your publicity! I was attempting to define a 'portal for contact' that was known well by our ancestors...and now, lost to our 'higher intelligence'. Stone etched hologram projections defined as a petro photoglyphs...messages for humanity 2010. Rock hard proof of contact with an intelligence who is the 'Being we have called God'. Do you really think that I care after 15 years about your 'worldview of skepticism'?Laserles (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete No one is arguing "keep" except the creator, and he clearly does not understand what Wikipedia is. Please understand, Laserles, no one is trying to suppress your theory. You are free to promote it elsewhere on the Internet - but not here. This is an encyclopedia, and things published here must be substantiated by outside references. No amount of arguing that you are right, showing us pictures, calling us names, etc. is going to keep your article on Wikipedia. This is simply not the right venue for it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the above and the difficult time I'm having seeing this as anything but a brilliantly crafted windup, meaning either way it shouldn't get anything but a swift flushing. Hatchetfish (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.