THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby pov603 on Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:52 am

I go along with what Sublimity said [in the Seattle plane crash topic].https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2406094#p2406094
they are trying to retroactively legitimize the untrained hijackers meme

i also feel it is part of TPTB's long-term narrative regarding other issues [which may seem random/tenuous] such as the way they've "convinced" the public that "Petrol engines are good" followed up historically with "Diesel engines are better," then we have "Petrol engines are bad", followed by "Diesel engines are good", now we have "Electric engines are better" ending up with "Diesel engines are bad"...that is how gullible the world is.
This is in many ways no different to intercity/intercontinental transportation firstly with steam trains, diesel electric trains, turbo-prop aeroplanes, Jets [which can be hi-jacked and crashed] and now "Hyperloop" unmanned/un-hijackable [Is that a word?...it is now!] transportation pods.
This will, in turn, drive another "landgrab" by the mighty rich [if not already done] along "barren corridors" between major cities.
Of course this can be countered with "isn't this just progress?" but the possibility remains that it dumbs down the population [showing them what is best and when] but ultimately offers an [initially] "elite" mode of transport which the public will have to pay for "through the nose" if they either want it to become the environmentally-friendly option that we are told it is or if we want to live in one city and work in another.

Edit: added link to topic.
Last edited by pov603 on Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby nonhocapito on Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:42 am

simonshack » Today, 09:13 wrote:Hmm... All embedded Youtube videos are not showing up anymore on the entire forum. Is there anyone out there willing and able to help us out with this problem? Nonhocapito, perhaps? Lemme know, thank you! :)


I fixed it (Please check). Somehow the embed code had changed. It seems it was Youtube's fault, nothing to do with SSL I think.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:20 pm


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJPBqbnJsfI

Hooray, NyuckNyuck-Tube works again!

Thanks so much nonhocapito! Here's September Clues (Korean subtitles) with a million views! B)
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:03 pm

Grazie mille, Nonho ! :) :) :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby patrix on Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:34 pm

Just stumbled onto this
https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2018/04 ... m-was-won/
An article about how Kubrick and Clarke worked with 2001. I find this part interesting
Before that, we would have a series of incidents or adventures devoted to the exploration of the moon and planets…[for which] our private title (never of course intended for public use) was How the Solar System Was Won.

Nothing seals the Copernican model like the space hoax. It's what makes it unquestionable to people even though it's geometrically impossible. And this implies that this may be one of the objectives with that hoax. What do you think?
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby nonhocapito on Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:31 am

patrix » Today, 01:34 wrote:Nothing seals the Copernican model like the space hoax. It's what makes it unquestionable to people even though it's geometrically impossible. And this implies that this may be one of the objectives with that hoax. What do you think?

Why? This is terrible logic. The Tychos model could have been easily used by NASA to promote fakery, if that had been the standard. Why would NASA be invested in covering up for something they obviously thought was the real deal? Sure, now they have to, the fact that the planets and the stars behave in a different way from what NASA wants us to believe is a clear indication of the fakery that have surrounded these so-called exploration programs, based on maps of the solar system that were flawed. But they wouldn't have to necessarily: if the world had adopted the Tychos model three centuries ago, NASA could have built their fakery on top of it just as well, don't you think? There is nothing intrinsic in the model that says "space travel isn't possible", correct me if I'm wrong.
I thus invite you to reflect on this simple idea: the fact that western culture adopted the Copernican model, a model that might be flawed but that has nonetheless served us well in our observations of space, is not necessarily a sign of a "conspiracy" to "hide the real nature of the solar system" from the masses. I don't think you can say or imply this. It's much more likely that, simply, a branch of science was led astray for a long time, something that happens all the time and it's part of how science works.

This is partly why this kind of discussion doesn't belong on this forum, because we are very far from being able to state that the Copernican model was a deliberate deception, rather than a scientific mistake mixed with the typical pride and bullying that pervades scientific discoveries. If you want me to believe that no, there were superior philosophical or political reasons to push for the Copernican model against any other, I'd like to see evidence to that, or at least some semblance of a discussion; furthermore, even proving the malice of Galileo or others is not sufficient to suggest that a 500 years old conspiracy has been continuously ran and passed on to NASA, when it seems much more likely that the entire scientific community has simply been led astray by some original, flawed, conspiratorial thinking. The most that we can say is that, since NASA was up to no good, they had no interest in checking the reality of the models, and that's where we can catch them with their pants down.
I don't have time to, nor the inclination probably, but why not looking into some of the Solar system missions of NASA, to check if the geometry, trajectory, speed of it is applicable in the Tychos model? That would be an interesting angle to create a bit of strife among the pro-NASA anti-NASA communities, which in turn could bring exposure to Tychos.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby patrix on Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:44 am

Why? This is terrible logic. The Tychos model could have been easily used by NASA to promote fakery, if that had been the standard. Why would NASA be invested in covering up for something they obviously thought was the real deal?

I disagree that this is terrible logic. Keyword: people. People don't look into the facts of the matter because they don't have the time or inclination to reason around why it is impossible for Mars to be in front of a particular star if the Copernican model were to be correct. I'd say they go "Well if the map was wrong I guess NASA wouldn't be able to fly around up there"

Who is NASA in your above sentence? Of course I understand those working at NASA believe the Copernican model and the rest of the space fakery, but who founded NASA, what were their motives and what did they know? Forgive me for not writing off a deliberate concealment of knowledge during centuries as impossible. It is of course not possible to prove that Keplers falsification of Tychos data, Galileos crusade or Einsteins explaining away of our observable reality, had that intention. But it might in my opinion.

Not that many centuries ago, we could have had a discussion on whether heaven and hell actually existed and if Jesus really did walk on water or turned it into wine. And you could give me the same arguments as you have now. I would not be able to disprove those things either, or give clear motives about why could be a deliberate lie.

But in hindsight it is clear that this belief system was used as means of social control. If you behaved and payed your taxes to the church, you would not spend your afterlife in hell.

I’m not that interested in going further into this speculation/musing, but I do find it a bit odd nonhocapito that you share your opinion that this should not be discussed here on CF after explaining my logic is terrible.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby nonhocapito on Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:42 am

patrix » 50 minutes ago wrote:
Why? This is terrible logic. The Tychos model could have been easily used by NASA to promote fakery, if that had been the standard. Why would NASA be invested in covering up for something they obviously thought was the real deal?

I disagree that this is terrible logic. Keyword: people. People don't look into the facts of the matter because they don't have the time or inclination to reason around why it is impossible for Mars to be in front of a particular star if the Copernican model were to be correct. I'd say they go "Well if the map was wrong I guess NASA wouldn't be able to fly around up there"

Who is NASA in your above sentence? Of course I understand those working at NASA believe the Copernican model and the rest of the space fakery, but who founded NASA, what were their motives and what did they know? Forgive me for not writing off a deliberate concealment of knowledge during centuries as impossible. It is of course not possible to prove that Keplers falsification of Tychos data, Galileos crusade or Einsteins explaining away of our observable reality, had that intention. But it might in my opinion.

Not that many centuries ago, we could have had a discussion on whether heaven and hell actually existed and if Jesus really did walk on water or turned it into wine. And you could give me the same arguments as you have now. I would not be able to disprove those things either, or give clear motives about why could be a deliberate lie.

But in hindsight it is clear that this belief system was used as means of social control. If you behaved and payed your taxes to the church, you would not spend your afterlife in hell.

I’m not that interested in going further into this speculation/musing, but I do find it a bit odd nonhocapito that you share your opinion that this should not be discussed here on CF after explaining my logic is terrible.


Sorry but I cannot understand the point of this post of yours. You seem to suggest that the Copernican model was a better system of social control than Tychos? Can you explain why? Was that true to the point that, in your opinion, people have known for centuries the true nature of the Solar system, but somehow have deemed better to conceal it? Do you really believe this? What evidence is there to support this?

(About the last bit: are you aware that this is a forum about media fakery? It's written up there on this page. You can probably understand why I think that the discussion of a scientific error, or even of a scientific conspiracy, might not exactly fit in here. That's arguable, of course, but not a far-fetched opinion. Furthermore, I have expressed such opinion countless times, so no reason to be surprised or to find it odd. I still completely respect your right to research these ideas and facts and I admire what you guys are attempting to do.)
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby patrix on Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:44 pm

I’m saying that science or psyence if you will, is a belief system for social control that has replaced religion in the western world. And it has its dogmas, miracles and saints. However in later decades the saints and idols have shifted towards popular culture. The Hawking hoax can be seen as a turning point.

As you may be aware being a long time contributor here, it is not only astronomy and the Copernican model that is problematic in todays science. Physics, medicine, history, biology, anthropology etc, have some issues as well that have been discussed here.

But don’t get me wrong, science and the scientific method is the best method we humans have figured out to be able to agree how our objective reality works. The problem is that it is not used properly in todays science.

The Copernican model *may* have been used as a way to pry science away from the Catholic church and then used to create a new belief system in the name of science. The Copernican model won the hearts and minds of the western world during the 19th century. I find it to hard believe that was because of overwhelming evidence when I see Simons research laid in front of me.

On that last bit, I have trouble understanding what constitutes a media hoax in your opinion. If I see something in the media that is not accurate and wish to discuss and research it here, should I refrain if it is not related to terrorism, accidents and/or image manipulation? Are media hoaxes concerning science in general not suitable or does it limit to for example astronomy and medicine?
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:17 pm

nonhocapito wrote:...people have known for centuries the true nature of the Solar system, but somehow have deemed better to conceal it?

Complementing your exchange with patrix, I would add that, to my knowledge, all cultures and civilizations other than the modern, science-ridden Western world have placed Earth at the center of the system. Geocentric models are in harmony with physical observation (and the human experience that flows from it) and allow for predictions accurate enough for all practical purposes, and then some. So, yes, you could say people have known at least that essential fact about the Sun-Earth system since the dawn of times.

Now, it should be remembered that there is no such thing as a purely physical/mechanical science outside the modern Western world. Traditional sciences were like systems with abstract (spiritual and psychological) and concrete (natural and physical) cogwheels working in concert, making it difficult to compare today´s astronomy with what we erroneously identify as older versions of the same.

nonhocapito wrote:If you want me to believe that no, there were superior philosophical or political reasons to push for the Copernican model against any other, I'd like to see evidence to that, or at least some semblance of a discussion

For the reasons above, the answer is yes again.

But perhaps even more compellingly: a wave of hermeticism swept over Europe in the 1400s and completely changed the concept of God, man and the world, which had been supported by the geocentric model. This crucial point has been missing from the analysis. This is stuff for a long post, but, as you say, it may be a bit off the topic of media fakery.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby nonhocapito on Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:07 pm

Flabbergasted » Today, 18:17 wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:...people have known for centuries the true nature of the Solar system, but somehow have deemed better to conceal it?

Complementing your exchange with patrix, I would add that, to my knowledge, all cultures and civilizations other than the modern, science-ridden Western world have placed Earth at the center of the system. Geocentric models are in harmony with physical observation (and the human experience that flows from it) and allow for predictions accurate enough for all practical purposes, and then some. So, yes, you could say people have known at least that essential fact about the Sun-Earth system since the dawn of times.

Now, it should be remembered that there is no such thing as a purely physical/mechanical science outside the modern Western world. Traditional sciences were like systems with abstract (spiritual and psychological) and concrete (natural and physical) cogwheels working in concert, making it difficult to compare today´s astronomy with what we erroneously identify as older versions of the same.

nonhocapito wrote:If you want me to believe that no, there were superior philosophical or political reasons to push for the Copernican model against any other, I'd like to see evidence to that, or at least some semblance of a discussion

For the reasons above, the answer is yes again.

But perhaps even more compellingly: a wave of hermeticism swept over Europe in the 1400s and completely changed the concept of God, man and the world, which had been supported by the geocentric model. This crucial point has been missing from the analysis. This is stuff for a long post, but, as you say, it may be a bit off the topic of media fakery.


I would be careful with taking anti-scientific stances, since the scientific method itself is what is needed to prove the Tychos model, and the same logical, factual, proof-supported approach is needed in all our compelling investigations here. We don't support anything we research here with "tradition" or with religious texts of sorts, do we? Or are you suggesting we should?

You seem to be thinking that "traditional sciences" were somewhat better than modern science. In "harmony" with physical observation and whatnot. Those traditional sciences however struggled for millennia to figure out the nature of almost everything they observed. And because their science was based on their traditions, they were absolutely incapable to rethink their premises or to share their discoveries or to put them to the test. Imagine having a conversation about the Tychos with a Mayan priest. You think you'd get out of that one alive? Think again. You'd be disharmonious alright. Not even with Dante or Aristotle you'd be successful, precisely because their idea of the world was shaped by their intellectual prejudice, to a much higher degree than the so-evil scientists you have to face today.

As far as the hermetism goes. Yes, there was hermetism, for a while. It was followed by other stances, though, including the "enlightenment", which could not bother with hermetism at all. Neither did Positivism, until eventually modern sciences completely detached themselves from philosophy and religion. And please don't give me the Illuminati masons or the ghosts of decadentism. Culture has always been varied and contradictory, but it is a fact that hermetism was wiped out by enlightment, as far as the progress of science is concerned. Darwin, Pasteur or Fleming did not pop up out the earth like potatoes, do you agree? They were the product of a profound transformation for the better. Do you think they were interested in hiding their discoveries? The answer is no. They were eager to put them to the test. Something that hadn't happen in a long time or maybe ever.

People here seem to think that modern science was invented by an evil cabal; while I don't certainly deny that evil cabals have existed and still exist, and that they might have tried or succeeded in hijacking or corrupting science, science remains the product of a remarkable search for truth that has been overall incredibly successful. We stand today on the shoulders of the giants who took part in that search.

Was Galilei an half-mafioso who bullied his adversaries and often acted in anti-scientific way? Most likely. So was Edison. Both found themselves at the beginning of something and strove to protect their own at the expense of the truth. That's despicable but not necessarily an evil conspiracy, despite what the Tesla-bamboozled crowds maintain. It's instead, sadly, a very human trait that comes with the pride of individual progress and self-affirmation.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby nonhocapito on Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:45 pm

patrix » Today, 17:44 wrote:I’m saying that science or psyence if you will, is a belief system for social control that has replaced religion in the western world. And it has its dogmas, miracles and saints. However in later decades the saints and idols have shifted towards popular culture. The Hawking hoax can be seen as a turning point.

As you may be aware being a long time contributor here, it is not only astronomy and the Copernican model that is problematic in todays science. Physics, medicine, history, biology, anthropology etc, have some issues as well that have been discussed here.

But don’t get me wrong, science and the scientific method is the best method we humans have figured out to be able to agree how our objective reality works. The problem is that it is not used properly in todays science.

The Copernican model *may* have been used as a way to pry science away from the Catholic church and then used to create a new belief system in the name of science. The Copernican model won the hearts and minds of the western world during the 19th century. I find it to hard believe that was because of overwhelming evidence when I see Simons research laid in front of me.

On that last bit, I have trouble understanding what constitutes a media hoax in your opinion. If I see something in the media that is not accurate and wish to discuss and research it here, should I refrain if it is not related to terrorism, accidents and/or image manipulation? Are media hoaxes concerning science in general not suitable or does it limit to for example astronomy and medicine?


Starting from your last question, you should not refrain from anything. I only repeat, as ever, that to me these discussions over scientific problems are energy-sucking vortexes which take away attention and interest from other issues, of politics and propaganda, which I consider more urgent and pertinent to the purposes of this forum. I've always been in favor of exposing the media fraud of NASA, for example, but I find the thread which discusses satellites an insult to human intelligence and, fundamentally, a terrible drag on the forum. Simply because those discussions have no end. They are too improvised and incompetent to be meaningful. They are pure distraction. I don't lump the Tychos in the same category, of course it is a remarkable effort, which, however, I am not prepared to judge and thus I end up leaving on the table to look elsewhere, for something else. Totally my problem.

I appreciate that you say that the Copernican model *may* have been used to a certain purpose. It also may not. I tend to think that, despite its flaws, this system has served honest scientific purposes and not only political ones. All scientific discoveries, in fact (think of Relativity) are "flawed", imperfect, and only waiting to be one day debunked. This doesn't mean they don't serve a scientific, useful purpose in the meantime. More importantly, this doesn't mean that they have been established for "evil" purposes. Although, sure, it is possible, but then the burden on proof lies on those who make this statement.

I find it frankly annoying that the Tychos model has to come with this underlying idea that the Copernican model, rather than being a flawed interpretation that has run out of time, has to have been an "evil conspiracy" that has robbed us of harmony and religion and I don't know what, the pleasure of looking at the sky or something. This is bullshit and worse.

Lastly, science "not being used properly". True, and in my opinion as well as in the opinion of many, 90% of the problems with science and the mishandling of science today come from universities and similar institutions, which have become politicized centers of mafia and power and money. I also think that science, somehow, keeps progressing, albeit more slowly, despite this.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:22 pm

Nonho, you are trying to analyze traditional sciences with the mental toolbox of modern science. The result of that is predictable: modern science wins by design. But traditional sciences and modern science do not have the same end and therefore use different methods. One cannot be used to judge the merit of the other.

nonhocapito wrote:Those traditional sciences however struggled for millennia to figure out the nature of almost everything they observed.

No, they did not. It sounds like you subscribe to the enlightenment view that traditional sciences were a barbarian attempt to discover the mechanisms of natural phenomena. I learned that in school too, then at great cost unlearned it.

Traditional sciences are rooted in metaphysics, even if after centuries of decline the metaphysical element has been eroded to the point of unrecognizability. A certain amount of observation and data collection was important in the daily exercise of traditional sciences, but it was not their starting point. Actually, it is not even the starting point of modern science, despite claims to the contrary.

nonhocapito wrote:You seem to be thinking that "traditional sciences" were somewhat better than modern science.

It is not a question of which type of science is superior. In reality (this may not go down well), it is a question of what you define as ultimate reality: inert matter or spirit. If your answer is "spirit", then, in addition to supplying the basic material supports of life, society and science should, if not "promote", at least not be a major hindrance to spiritual realization.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:25 pm

nonhocapito wrote:...the scientific method itself is what is needed to prove the Tychos model.

Simon, what say you?
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:19 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
I find it frankly annoying that the Tychos model has to come with this underlying idea that the Copernican model, rather than being a flawed interpretation that has run out of time, has to have been an "evil conspiracy" that has robbed us of harmony and religion and I don't know what, the pleasure of looking at the sky or something. This is bullshit and worse.

Dear Nonho,

I just wish to clarify that this is certainly not my stance on the matter - and I also think that you are unfairly distorting Patrix' cautious thoughts and musings on the same. When Patrix asked...

patrix wrote:Nothing seals the Copernican model like the space hoax. It's what makes it unquestionable to people even though it's geometrically impossible. And this implies that this may be one of the objectives with that hoax. What do you think?


...I think he makes it clear that the hoax he refers to is the space travel scam - and does not necessarily imply (nor much less conclude) that the 400-year-old Copernican model itself must therefore be an "evil conspiracy" (quoting your own words). If I'm not mistaken, all he's asking is if, with what we know today regarding the Nutwork's need for total control of all human thought, there may be an ongoing effort on their part to use their successful space travel hoax to prevent / hinder / stymie ANY new scientific discovery in the field of cosmology. Well, I'd say that is a given - wouldn't you? Isn't the pathetic Flat Earth DBA operation proof enough of the Nutwork's dumbing-down tactics - and of their urge to control (and mess with) our minds? See, here's why I must respectfully disagree with your repetitive laments concerning my Tychos model being discussed here : yes, this forum's focal "battle cry" is 'exposing media fakery' - but it might just as well be 'exposing the control of all intellectual human enterprise and independent thought'.

I find it interesting that, of late, a number of forum members which I have been fortunate to meet personally and hold in the highest esteem (e.g. yourself, Patrix, Flabbergasted, Kham, Hoi) are currently among the few discussing the Tychos at all. I'm actually fine with that and can see why this is the case: it really helps having met face to face when it comes to debating such an (even to myself!) astounding subject. However, dear Nonho, whilst we do so - let us keep our discussions totally respectful of each others' views and refrain from calling bullshit at any thoughts each one of us may put forth regarding the (unfathomable?) reasons why - in spite of our world's best scientific achievements and advanced technology - the 400-year-old Copernican model still reigns supreme in the minds of most people on this planet.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests