THE "CHATBOX"

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby thisisunreal on Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:16 pm

patrix » June 28th, 2019, 10:23 am wrote:The fool speaks, and the wise man should listen


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8YEc4-Uz-c


Behold the oppositional force of comedy! The most opposing, truth giving element of the media! What a complete sham from start to finish. The complete scripting of the interview! He even wears a space related t-shirt.

I find the video disquieting. There are three segments, two of which are discredit yet George Carlin (as a 3rd section) is giving some reality. He is lionised as a truth giver, but when I see him performing this routine, I wonder to what degree he acted as controlled opposition (perhaps unconsciously, but perhaps not, I don't know). I find the laughter of the audience strange for George as his invective is angry, isolating and not actually funny. He is interesting, his points well made and accurate, but alas, not funny. One wonders if he was used to drip drip drip elements of truth that were framed to go to a prescribed limit, just as Chomsky laid out his five filters in Manufacturing Consent all those years ago. Perhaps he produced no real threat as he explains 'what we have', yet sheds no light on how this is happening (the real magicians trick). We know the money is moving from public to private hands, but we don't see the actual transfers and how they are enacted and we can't describe them well enough. Anyway, yet another video showing a Hollywood insider mobilised with deliberate intent.

The documentary, 'Jim & Andy': The Great Beyond (2017), featuring Jim Carrey is described thus,

Using 100 hours of footage from the set of "Man on the Moon," filmmaker Chris Smith documents Jim Carrey's transformation into legendary performance artist and comedian Andy Kaufman.

It is interesting as it shows Carrey's mental debenture and complete psychological destruction. Some might argue, his own personality is fractured to achieve the perfect caricature of Andy Kaufman in much the way David McGowan warned about in his disturbing book, 'Programmed to Kill'. Perhaps this is a hint at the mental degradation encouraged, promoted and necessary to become a hit in Hollywood? Either way, he does not seem a healthy specimen at all when you watch him.

Edited once for readability
thisisunreal
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby ICfreely on Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:58 am

I never got Jim Carrey's “comedic genius” as an actor or stand-up comic. Anyhow, Andy Kaufman’s biopic came to mind today when I heard R.E.M.’s “Man On The Moon” on the radio.


R.E.M.’s “Man On The Moon” Lyrics Meaning
by Jessica Shelton • Published May 23, 2019 • Updated May 23, 2019

For the most part R.E.M.’s “Man On The Moon” serves as a tribute to the late musician Andy Kaufman (1949-1984), though in varying capacities. For instance, Mr. Kaufman had an affinity for professional wrestling and Elvis Presley impersonations, both of which are referenced in this track. But the writer of lyrics, R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe, also used his recollections of Kaufman as an impetus to bring up some facets of his own childhood, such as giving a shoutout to the rock band Mott the Hoople and old school board games such as “Twister” and “Risk”, as well as other unrelated historical figures such as Isaac Newton, Moses and Charles Darwin.

Song’s Title

However, of more significance is the title of the track, for it has nothing to do directly with Andy Kaufman. “Man on the Moon” is actually a reference to the moon landing on 20 July 1969. That was when American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first people to ever step foot on that celestial object. Well many people (i.e. conspiracy theorists) believe such was a hoax. Likewise some thought that Andy Kaufman, who was a well-known prankster, faked his own death from lung cancer. And that is why R.E.M. decided to name this song such – to draw a parallel between the theorized fake moon landing and the supposed faked death of Andy Kaufman.



https://www.songmeaningsandfacts.com/r-e-m-s-man-on-the-moon-lyrics-meaning/



Still not sure of the meaning of Michael Stipe’s lyrics. Did he mean to mock/discredit “moon landing” skeptics?


Steph Curry Tells Former Astronaut Scott Kelly Moon-Landing Comment Was 'Made in Jest'
By Mike Wall December 17, 2018 Human Spaceflight

Steph Curry is sorry for all the trouble his moon-landing comments have caused.

On a podcast that aired last week, the NBA superstar said he doesn't believe that humanity actually landed on the moon. The offhand remark (which was echoed by several other NBA players on the podcast) went viral, prompting a wave of reaction from folks imploring Curry to clarify or repudiate his stance, and to educate himself about NASA and spaceflight history.

One of the people who reached out was former NASA astronaut Scott Kelly, who spent 520 days in space across four different missions. [Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories That Won't Die]



Curry also apologized to the former astronaut.

"I did not want in any way, shape or form to demean the significant accomplishment that you and people that you work with on a daily basis were able to make a reality," Curry said. "I’m obviously genuinely sorry for how that came across."

Kelly accepted the apology but also stressed how dangerous it is to feed conspiracy theories :ph34r: , even low-level or silly ones. Doing so can undermine confidence in science as a whole, with potentially disastrous consequences :ph34r: , he said.

"What happens is, then, when people believe those things [e.g., the moon-hoax conspiracy], they believe the other things that are more important, like climate change not being real, and vaccines [causing autism], and 9/11 being a government conspiracy theory," Kelly said.

Curry, a three-time NBA champion, said he now has a better appreciation of how much weight his words carry.

"I never want my comments to put that in question, in terms of people doubting science, even, and how important it is for us to keep moving our society forward," Curry said.



https://www.space.com/42763-steph-curry-moon-landing-scott-kelly.html



How pathetic. The fact that Inquisitor Kelly and his ilk feel the need to constantly shout down anyone who dares to question the big lies is quite telling. IMHO, these cowards live in a constant state of fear. Fear that they, in turn, project onto John Q. Public in order to save the sacred cows of Scientism, thereby maintaining their positions of perceived “power.” These people aren’t to be hated but pitied.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Nathan Draco on Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:40 am


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AIpPlzM_qs

It's surreal how this is achieved in real-time .

Also note this video was posted back in 2017. Who really knows how long this technology has been around though... ;)
Nathan Draco
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:13 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:55 pm

[Moved to THE CHATBOX by SCS.]

Peter » July 5th, 2019, 8:41 am wrote:It has now been shown that change can come from the environment which travels “back” the route changing RNA which then changes DNA.

There were many interesting points in your post over in the "smart people fooled" thread, but for now I have singled out the statement above. If true and scientifically sound, the environment-to-DNA hypothesis would breathe new life (or hope) into the evolutionist movement. In fact, evolutionists have long been eager to replace the irksome random mutation paradigm with the conveniently vague environment-does-it model. All they need is to postulate a mechanism.

If you have time, I would like to hear more about the experiments you refer to.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Peter on Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:45 am

Flabbergasted » July 6th, 2019, 12:55 pm wrote:[Moved to THE CHATBOX by SCS.]

Peter » July 5th, 2019, 8:41 am wrote:It has now been shown that change can come from the environment which travels “back” the route changing RNA which then changes DNA.

There were many interesting points in your post over in the "smart people fooled" thread, but for now I have singled out the statement above. If true and scientifically sound, the environment-to-DNA hypothesis would breathe new life (or hope) into the evolutionist movement. In fact, evolutionists have long been eager to replace the irksome random mutation paradigm with the conveniently vague environment-does-it model. All they need is to postulate a mechanism.

If you have time, I would like to hear more about the experiments you refer to.


Thanks. I heard Ray Peat discuss it but didn't note the particular studies. However it should be possible to find. Peat is interesting as he is a bona fide scientist and bases his conclusions on published research but often uncovers the real meaning of experimental results otherwise ignored if they go against established views. Many of his interviews are on youtube and his articles are at raypeat.com. Just search for genes / genetics.

Also check out epigenetics.
Peter
Member
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby ICfreely on Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:09 am

Peter wrote:
Flabbergasted » July 6th, 2019, 12:55 pm wrote:[Moved to THE CHATBOX by SCS.]

Peter » July 5th, 2019, 8:41 am wrote:It has now been shown that change can come from the environment which travels “back” the route changing RNA which then changes DNA.


There were many interesting points in your post over in the "smart people fooled" thread, but for now I have singled out the statement above. If true and scientifically sound, the environment-to-DNA hypothesis would breathe new life (or hope) into the evolutionist movement. In fact, evolutionists have long been eager to replace the irksome random mutation paradigm with the conveniently vague environment-does-it model. All they need is to postulate a mechanism.

If you have time, I would like to hear more about the experiments you refer to.


Thanks. I heard Ray Peat discuss it but didn't note the particular studies. However it should be possible to find. Peat is interesting as he is a bona fide scientist and bases his conclusions on published research but often uncovers the real meaning of experimental results otherwise ignored if they go against established views. Many of his interviews are on youtube and his articles are at raypeat.com. Just search for genes / genetics.

Also check out epigenetics.



A Super Brief and Basic Explanation of Epigenetics for Total Beginners
Epigenetics, as a simplified definition, is the study of biological mechanisms that will switch genes on and off. -_- What does that mean? Well, if you are new to this whole thing, we first need a quick crash course in biochemistry and genetics before learning exactly what is epigenetics:

In other words, DNA gives the instructions for various functional proteins to be produced inside the cell — this process is also known as the central dogma of molecular biology. <_< Now that you understand genetics, let’s learn about epigenetics…

Here’s an analogy that might further help you to understand what epigenetics is, as presented in Nessa Carey’s Epigenetics Revolution. Think of the human lifespan as a very long movie. The cells would be the actors and actresses, essential units that make up the movie. DNA, in turn, would be the script — instructions for all the participants of the movie to perform their roles. Subsequently, the DNA sequence would be the words on the script, and certain blocks of these words that instruct key actions or events to take place would be the genes. The concept of genetics would be like screenwriting. Follow the analogy so far? Great. The concept of epigenetics, then, would be like directing. The script can be the same, but the director can choose to eliminate or tweak certain scenes or dialogue, altering the movie for better or worse. After all, Steven Spielberg’s finished product would be drastically different than Woody Allen’s for the same movie script, wouldn’t it?

https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/


Meh...

I concur with Flabbergasted's summation.

I'm not familiar with Ray Peat but I just read "Cancer: Disorder and Energy" and found it very intriguing.


Cancer: Disorder and Energy


The cancer industry has been flexible and imaginative in ways of presenting "age standardized" death rates to show that they are making progress against cancer, but there are philosophical and scientific problems in "oncology" (i.e., the study or treatment of lumps) that should be considered by anyone who plans to do business with that profession.

Recent medical textbooks reveal no major change in the understanding of cancer since Virchow's time, except that "genes" (which weren't known during Virchow's life) gradually became the most important aspect of cells…
...
The "cellular basis of cancer" was developed simultaneously with the germ theory of disease, and in the case of cancer, the deviant cells came to be considered an alien substance, "not-self," analogous to infective germs…
...
Applied to cancer, the gene theory made it seem clear that the changes occurring in tumor cells were irrevocable, and it has seemed self-evident to oncologists that the only hope the cancer patient has is for the physician to destroy every bit of the alien substance. The recurrence of a cancer that has been removed has been evidence to them that fragments had remained, or that the cancer had distributed its seeds into other parts of the body. This seems to be the necessary conclusion if cancer is "caused" by defective genes.

As long as the lump is defined as an alien material, killing it by any means seems reasonable, but if it is seen as the body's attempt to repair itself, then killing it is no more reasonable than it would be to cut the spots out of someone with smallpox.

Preventing injury should be a basic consideration, but the medical slogan, "first do no harm," just doesn't apply to the cancer treatment industry, and this results from the doctrine of "the cancer cell," which is something to be destroyed or kept from multiplying. In the process of diagnosing a cancer, and during the course of treating it, the patient is usually subjected to multiple x-ray examinations, sometimes given radioactive drugs that supposedly concentrate in hidden tumors to emit positrons, and often has toxic contrast agents injected even for MRI examinations. These procedures, even before the destructive "therapies" begin, are adding to the body's inflammatory burden, interfering with the body's ability to complete a healing process. Decisions about pain control usually disregard the effects of the drugs on tumor growth and general vitality--for example, the opiates stimulate histamine release, which increases inflammation and tumor growth.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cancer-disorder-energy.shtml



Thanks for the link, Peter. Very interesting stuff!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby kickstones on Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:25 pm

kickstones » March 18th, 2019, 1:26 pm wrote:There have been a few commentators on the internet suggesting the upcoming Royal birth (Meghan Markle) is fake, the following clip does little to dispel those rumors.....

lisajanefox

Közzététel: 2019. márc. 9.

Meghan Markle is supposed to be pregnant. This video is from March 8, 2019. Watch as Markle walks forward and the baby "bump" swings from side to side. No pregnant woman has a belly that swings like that. Something very odd going on here.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vcBe9IjmU4


Sat 6 Jul 2019 16.46 BST
Last modified on Sat 6 Jul 2019 19.57 BST

First images released of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's christening

Duke and Duchess of Sussex release pictures from their son’s private ceremony at Windsor

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/06/first-images-released-of-archie-mountbatten-windsors-christening


The first images of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor at his christening have been released.

Two pictures taken by fashion photographer Chris Allerton were issued on Saturday.

A family photo inside the Green Drawing Room at Windsor Castle shows the Duke and Duchess of Sussex sitting with their child alongside the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Cambridge.

Image


At first glance it would appear a nice family photo shoot, however, if the evidence pointed out by the researcher below is valid then apparently all is not as it seems.

And bearing in mind...

- Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are breaking royal tradition by having a private christening for their son Archie
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-decided-private-christening-archie/

From gofakeyourselfmeghan site....

https://gofakeyourselfmeghan.tumblr.com/

FYI, the exif data shows the official christening photo originated on MAY 8, 2019. That was the same day as Chris Allerton’s LAST photos of Archie. Can anyone in the media explain this? Will they?


Photo including exif data found here (of all places) for anyone wanting to see for themselves: http://www.meghansmirror.com/wp-content ... 955374.jpg

Exif data viewers can be found on the web and there are even apps for smart phones. I used the ‘File Info’ feature in photoshop.

May 8, 2019…10:56 p.m. to be exact.

The room appears artificially lit and William and Kate are unusually blurry compared to the others, in the photo, AND the background.

May 8, 2019. Of all the dates to find in the exif data!

Taken from the comments section....

Comment from a professional photographer

A friend of mine has been a professional photographer for more than twenty years. He has photos with preisdents, heads of state, playboy models (obviously his favorite), politicians and executives. He is a working photographer who is mostly based in the US, and he takes photos of people making speeches.

Here is his insight on the “date time created” on May 8, 2019.

“The create date is the date/time he downloaded this version of software.”

I did not bring this next thing up: He did notice the time discrepancies: “the time also says it is 10:56 pm. I doubt the photo was taken at almost 11 p.m. The clock in the mirror looks like the second hand is near 11 but the actual time is not visible. Prince William’s watch has roughly 10:55 am, so we can say this photo was taken on July 6, 2019 at about 10:55 am.”

*It also states the picture date is Saturday, July 6, 2019

* so there you have it, folks. Knowledge is a beautiful thing.


Reply....

gofakeyourselfmeghan

And I am a professional graphic designer with 25 years of experience, a BFA with a concentration in graphic design, I graduated at the top of my class, I’ve run two in house design departments, and I can tell you that the date has NOTHING to do with a firmware or software update.
It indicates the date and time the original photo was taken before being moved to a computer and any modifications were done. Period.
May 8th. The same date the photo of HM, Archie, MM, Doria, etc.. . was published. THAT DAY.
Wow. There is some bizarre reaction to this revelation. So telling!

EDIT: And BTW…far too many people have checked for themselves to be fooled by this.

The photo was taken on May 8, 2019. What was done after that – who knows? It was moved to a computer and last modified on July 6.

People can see for themselves…And THEY have.

THAT is real knowledge, “folks.”

More info.....

https://gofakeyourselfmeghan.tumblr.com/post/186176855789/fyi-the-exif-data-shows-the-official-christening
kickstones
Member
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: New topics

Unread postby sharpstuff on Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:54 am

Note to admin:

I've got myself a bit lost here what with all that has been happening to me recently.
I wanted to start a new post entitled:

PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance

but am unable to remember how to do it! I wonder if it is possible for you to create this for me in a relevant forum?

**************************************************
PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance



Introduction

Note: this is a work in progress.

'Magnetic fields'

Consider two 'regular' magnets. Let us say that they are two disc-type magnets.
According to theory they have a 'North pole' and a 'South pole'. According also to the theory the North pole attracts a South pole (and vice versa). If the North pole of one is put in proximity to another North pole, they push each other away (repel). The opposite is a truth (South-south repel).

Fascinating stuff, one might agree.

My questions would be:
1. At exactly what point, do these two magnets attract or repel?
2. Which comes first, attract or repel (pull or push)?
3. Where does the 'push' or 'pull' come from?

So far as I am able to discover, magnets we regularly see (as opposed to lodestone) come in many forms viz. Bar, circular, bar, and horse-shoe. I have yet to discover a ball magnet.

The experiment of placing a magnet under a sheet of paper and pouring iron-filings over the magnet produces patterns of what is commonly called the 'magnetic field' (whatever that is and whatever that means in tangible terms).

It seems that a ball magnet (sphere) and which apparently the planet Earth is (for example) has two opposing 'poles' (i.e. North and South). My question is: what is the 'magnetic field' of the Earth?

Many years ago, I posed this question to the University of Western Australia Physics Department (where I was living at the time (W.A. not the University)) and they were unable to give me an answer. It has always intrigued me as to why they could not (or would not) answer this question.

I am unable to find spherical magnets anywhere (if they exist at all and I must ask why not?) so I am unable to conduct any experiments as to their 'magnetic field/s' should they exist.

The enigma of spherical 'magnetic fields' , for me, remains.

However, it is sure that something is happening to iron filings (or some-such) but what is it? What does it actually mean in terms we might understand without trying to read reams of non-sensical mathematical symbols that mean nothing to the uninitiated? And why cannot we be initiated into symbols (words or pictures) that we might comprehend?

My own belief (in embryo) is that whether some sort of 'magnetism' or some-such is involved (æther, plasma or the behaviours of such) we must be pulled from a past to a possible future (that which we readily understand as yesterday, today and tomorrow. What impels us from one until the other?

Philosophy should not be denigrated to unusable mathematical symbols.
PUSH/PULL


Whether our personal 'universe' is push/pull or pull/push may be open to question, however, since whatever universe we inhabit must have been before us (since we arise from 'something'), then it is likely that the push/pull notion is more apt.
How that is accomplished can be forever questioned.

However, we appear to be mired in a notion that the Universe-As-We-Perceive-It comprises from 'digital' creations. That is to say that the universe is constructed from some sort of 'particles'.

We might consider what 'particles' are, however. As human creatures, and given our particular propensities, we define these 'particles' as some sort of 'solid' substances (however large or small) as entities in themselves. We are unable (to certain personal extent) to imagine that any 'particle' may be any given 'size' that we can resolve into something we can react to, in an actuality.

For example, a grain of sand may be seen as a small particle but breaking it into smaller pieces does not help us understand the grain of sand that we perceive before us as a grain of sand. The pieces are merely smaller pieces of sand. This does not help us in understanding the whole grain of sand we perceived before its destruction into smaller pieces. Is it not Euclid who apparently noted that the 'whole' is more than the sum of the parts?

We seem to be locked into the notion that all the 'matter' of the universe is some sort of 'solid' object (however small) and its destruction into smaller 'solid' objects must lead us to construct the 'universe'. Thus the notion of 'particles'. That these smaller 'solid' objects may comprise of 'fields', 'forces' or any other amorphous substance belies in itself the nature of the 'particles' thus formed.

It is my thesis that any so-called 'solid' objects are a manifestation from that which we perceive at any given moment and is a product of the æther from which they derive. The 'æther', of course, is not something that we can perceive except through our senses. I do not believe it is describable in 'words' as any object that we can perceive as anything 'solid'.

I might suggest that the 'æther' is yet another convenient term to which we can attach no real meaning or understanding in any tangible form such as 'solid' objects that we can actually perceive with our particular senses. That other flora or fauna might be able to do so, would be complete conjecture.

Thus, it is our 'resolution' of a certain state of the atmosphere (as part of the æther from which it may derive) in our atmosphere and under certain 'conditions' which might resolve itself into a 'fog' or what we call 'rain' depending on our resolution of that æther at any given moment to our continuous movement into a possible future.

The notion, in my view, is important in two major aspects, the so-called 'atomic' or 'particle' theory of the universe and the so-called 'germ' theory of 'disease'. Both are contentious issues given our 'education' into believing these to be 'facts'.

Both (in my view at least) are tantamount to the demise of the human creature in many ways, not to be explored in this essay.

Both notions are spurious because we do not perceive anything except through what senses are available to us at any given continuous progress of an instant (which is indefinable, since it is a quality of 'time'). Our personal universe is a continuous perception. of one 'event' followed by another, continuously.

One might be reminded that 'life' as we personally know it, is an iterative process that is both continuous and infinite until we are no longer able to perceive it.
Iteration is defined: the process of doing something again and again, usually to improve it, or one of the times you do it. However, it is more than that. It is the process by which everything in the universe is constructed since it is the process of one thing and repeating it forever (infinitely) into something else. Hence CHAOS Theory and what are called Strange Attractors (which I cannot explain here).

Iteration is continuous in the respect that if we awake from sleep tomorrow we continue existence until such time as it may be terminated (at any time) for any one reason or another.

Reducing our personal universe (with whatever senses we possess as individuals) to a set of digits (ON/OFF) makes no sense at all, however quickly we process those digits to produce a moving picture (our existence). There must always be a movement from off to on and vice versa in an analogue realm. Since where is the exact point when 'On' is 'Off' and vice versa?

It is the 'step' from one until the other, however small, that is the progress of movement. The 'movement' is the dynamic of the universe.

It is this concept of the persistence of movement from 'off' to 'on' that is the crux of the pull/push or push/pull theory that I wish to explore.

Our personal universe is not a projected film of individual (static) frames created into a movie as variable frames per second (or whatever) but is a continuous motion, unbounded and therefore uninterrupted.

A 'universe' (the totality of our perceptions) is a personal experience of infinite 'matter' (something, we might perceive with whatever faculties we have at any given 'time'). 'Time' itself is, I believe is a perception of movement.

CHANGE

What was I a second ago?
That which I am now?

What will I be
In a second from now?
Surely not that which I am now.
Peter K. Sharpen

We might talk of the 'persistence of vision' that which allows us to view frames of a motion picture (24 'frames per second', for example) into a coherent/complete movement with which we, as humans, for example, are familiar. I firmly believe that this 'persistence' can be applied to all of our senses. Why not? Maybe other animals experience differing 'persistencies', of which I am sure.

Whatever our concept of a 'universe' (the whole of any apparent structure we are able to conceive) it is a continuum (or analogue) of events to which we are able to react. Our reaction is our motion from one place to another continuously in a direction which we call 'forwards'. It might be said that we are 'pulled' from a previous event to a future event.

However, I believe that we may be 'pushed' (in some way) from past to present and future states. This we might call 'life' or a progress to something in a future (of which we can have little or no knowledge) since we are not yet 'there'. The future is never with us, we can only move towards it.

Whatever our personal construct of a 'universe' is, it must be continuous; it cannot be constructed of individual 'particles' (or 'bits' of non quantifiable anything), since there must be a continuum from one 'particle' to another (in some way). Our thoughts flow from one to another, as one might perceive.

Let us take an example of the æther in which we apparently exist. We might conceive this as the 'atmosphere' which extends in all directions but only part of which is conducive to our ability to exist within it.

A 'radio' is a tool created to 'tune into' a particular 'wave-length' of the æther which surrounds us in all dimensions, continuously and infinitely from and to (or indeed to and from).

To 'tune in' to a particular 'wave-length' one might move an analogue 'dial' to find a particular wave-length and receive the 'signal' to which we wish to listen. Anything outside that particular 'wave-length' will (in simple) not be 'connected'.
We may conceive that we have a 'digital' dial/radio but it remains only that the 'steps' are smaller on an analogue plane.

The creature 'Man' has the ability, (via his tool-making abilities (and amongst others), to be able to 'home-in' on particular frequencies for this purpose and is often successful. Take for example a 'radio'.

As an aside, I might mention the notion that 'love at first sight' may be an example of this. I believe we 'give out' certain 'biological' frequencies (or whatever) that others are able to locate and 'home' into. Thus do relationships exist between all flora and fauna in some way. They may, of course, work in two or more directions, either pull/push or push/pull or anything else.

The better the 'homing-in' capabilities of his tools, the more 'radio stations' (for example), he might receive via his auditory perceptions.

This notion also works in the 'homing-out' by 'sending waves' since of course, one needs to send out (push) before a receiver can 'pull'.


Human animals, having acquired (by whatever means) their ability to turn a means of communication (language/s, which include verbal, aural and gesticulations (and others which are less tangible)) have devised what we call 'nouns'. Nouns are names of 'things'.

This 'nounification' (as I call it) is useful, so long as it is understood by those who can recognise the object to which the noun refers.

It is all a question of semantics.

Nouns (names of 'things') are only useful when they are interpreted by the receiver of the perceptions by whatever means are available to them. Thus a simple 'table' will be interpreted by the sensual apparatus of the receiver of the perception of 'table' using the senses available to the receiver (at any given time, place etc.).

Thus, any event (as in an actual happening to which we may respond in our own individual way), one is limited to the senses available at any one particular time or place.

In short, naming something does not make it 'real' to the observer except depending on the senses available at a particular time or place.

If we are intent on a 'digitised universe' we have destroyed the notion that the 'universe' is continuous, that is, without 'beginning' or 'end'.

A 'digitised universe' is created from the invention of 'atoms' (constantly being particularised into smaller and smaller dimensions to engineer a view of the 'universe'). (This same notion is also related to a so-called 'germ' theory of 'dis-eases'). That is, particular 'objects' have particular 'objectives'.

If we consider that our 'particular' (i.e. personal) 'universe' is continuous, there cannot be any 'particles' (of any size) that do not have a connection with other 'particles' in some way.

Everything is connected in some way to everything else.

I state this categorically.

Whatever, our 'universe' is (personal or otherwise), it is not a moving picture of separate frames (digits) but a continuity of manifestations according to our individual proclivities of discernment and according to our sensual apparatuses at a particular time and place.

FURTHER THOUGHTS

We are familiar with the notion of what we call 'gravity'. This is to all intents and purposes, a 'pulling'. Given the notion that their is a 'push', we may conjecture that there is a point at which there is some sort of 'buoyancy'; what I might call a question of balance. Since there is always 'movement' in the Universe this constant movement (oscillation?) between push and pull is what we conceive as Nature and our means of existence within it.

How do/can we know that perhaps things are 'pushed' and not 'pulled'?
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby kickstones on Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:40 pm

There are many people on social media outlets pointing out the picture below was obviously photoshoped and badly at that, for example....

#RoyalBabyScam
https://twitter.com/hashtag/RoyalBabyScam?src=hash

https://twitter.com/wizkid101uk

https://twitter.com/FurrryPotato/status/1147691812032614400
Válasz neki: @RoyalReporter

Richard, for the love of God, why is this pic so photoshopped?
A quick glance and I spotted these inconsistencies.
I'm sure I can find many many more. There is even evidence behind Camilla's shoulder. Would you like me to point it out?

Image

A few other commentators are stating 'it is if this has been put out on purpose, a blatantly badly photoshoped image that just happened to have original date time stamp left on for all to see, the question is why?'
kickstones
Member
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:31 pm

*

Dear Sharpstuff,

I have made a thread titled "PUSH-PULL theory - a question of balance" as requested of you.
Here it is: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2120
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6773
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Kham on Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:22 am

Kickstones,

RE: Photoshopping in the media

I might also add that one should expect that an image of the royals would be manipulated so as to get the best representation possible for public consumption, as is the practice of nearly all media in this current climate.

Further more, is it necessary that members of an image be in the same room at the same time in the first place? With peoples busy schedules it’s common practice nowadays to photoshop people into images to make a complete group ‘photograph’.

Once an image gets digitized we should expect that it will be manipulated. Thank you for showing the evidence that points this out.
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby ICfreely on Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:00 am

That the change in the CF tag from “media fakery” to “mass deception” was not a fortunate one seems in this thread apparent. The deceptions in religious matters throughout history are, I think, outside the scope of this forum. To confuse them with current media sensations (conspiracy theories with “historical perspectives”) would make the discussion utterly senseless.*


Sorry but I don’t follow your logic, Mansur.

1- Media fakery perpetuates mass deception.

2- The media is predominantly owned by people of one particular religious background.

To ignore these facts and the history of said religion in world affairs (prior to modern mass media) would make the discussion of “current media sensations” utterly senseless. But that’s just my opinion, of course. We can respectfully agree to disagree.

That said, I’m less interested in what you think shouldn’t be discussed and more interested in you, not just stating what you think should be discussed, but actually doing it (i.e. advancing current topics and/or creating new topics and developing them).
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby heniek1812 on Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:09 am

ICfreely » June 29th, 2019, 7:58 am wrote:
Kelly accepted the apology but also stressed how dangerous it is to feed conspiracy theories :ph34r: , even low-level or silly ones. Doing so can undermine confidence in science as a whole, with potentially disastrous consequences :ph34r: , he said.

"What happens is, then, when people believe those things [e.g., the moon-hoax conspiracy], they believe the other things that are more important, like climate change not being real, and vaccines [causing autism], and 9/11 being a government conspiracy theory," Kelly said.



I for one completely missed this story. Amazing !!!

My personal confidence in "science" is constantly falling into a black hole every time I visit a new beach around the globe or think back about the "solved" problem of Fukushima which has completely disappeared from Public Media. One thing for sure, things can only get better.

Regarding "Moon Landing" : I observed several discussions on a couple of websites regarding the Moon landing and my take away was that it seems that there is an organized group that will do everything possible to shut down any reasonable discussion about this subject. They won't attack the commentator if the subject is "flat earth", "lizard people", "Federal Reserve" but just try attacking Apollo and it is just as though you were being attacked by wasps.

I had no idea the lengths to which these people will go to until I just happened to step on this video when trying to find out more about who "Jay" Windley was as I was following the following discussion,

discussion
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/327357-belief-in-apollo-hoax-conspiracy-could-grow/
video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmTLzTJ4TuU

Thanks to the video I found the interesting story of Dr. Astronaut Brian O'Leary.
heniek1812
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby ICfreely on Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:57 pm

Oprah speaks out on mass shootings: 'What people are missing is a core moral center'

Oprah Winfrey addressed the mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, that took the lives of dozens of people over the weekend.

The famous talk show host said in a new interview she feels the reason behind the latest string of violence is that people are "missing" a "core moral center."
"I think what people are missing is a core moral center," Winfrey told Extra's Renee Bargh.

"Churches used to do that… It was a central place you could come to and there was a core center of values about a way of living and being in the world," she added. "Until we can return to that, however that is, in whatever form, we will continue to be lost."

This isn't the first time the 65-year-old opened up about mass shootings. In May 2018, Winfrey penned an article for her magazine titled, "Why 'It's Time To Stand Up' to Gun Violence."

"All people belong to someone’s family. So can we agree that all people deserve protection from senseless killings? Can we agree that all families deserve and have the right to safety, in addition to the right to bear arms," Winfrey wrote at the time.

She concluded: "I hope and pray that you agree: It’s time to stand up, and stand together, for the sake of us all." :puke:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/oprah-mass-shootings-missing-core-moral-center


Touching, isn’t it? How can anyone disagree with St. Winfrey?

I remember a few years ago here at CF some were saying we should avoid discussing scientific fakery.

Others say we should avoid discussing religious fakery.

The fact of the matter is the same cast of characters that produce media fakery have been scripting scientific and religious fakery for centuries.

Personally, as a Christian, I can’t wait for the dynamic duo (Jesus & Mehdi) to come and set things straight once and for all. Can you imagine all the people blissfully living together under the kingship of the messiah, based in Israel, for a thousand years (Third Reich)?

SMH <_<
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:59 pm

ICfreely wrote:I remember a few years ago here at CF some were saying we should avoid discussing scientific fakery.
Others say we should avoid discussing religious fakery.
The fact of the matter is the same cast of characters that produce media fakery have been scripting scientific and religious fakery for centuries.

You are right. The great deceiver has not left anything out of the travesty. You might even say that fakery in the areas of science and religion are much more important in the long run.

The only problem is, you need entirely different toolboxes to unmask lies in media, science and religion.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests