Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stash

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 209
1
It's a simple logic like fireworks. Everything was driven by a force source from the center of the bang
Solar system and PHEW Earth ain't compatible with BigBang. Impossible.

Interesting that you're equating a bottle rocket to the big bang theory and essentially the entirety of the solar system.

Please do elaborate on your newest theory. 

2

BigBang means all bodies go straight.

How come the universe in turn has bodies with various non-straight paths?

🤔

Because BigBang doesn't mean all bodies go straight.

If so... That is not a 'bang' then.

Why not?

3
The Lounge / Re: 1089
« on: October 22, 2021, 09:01:14 AM »
6174 is known as Kaprekar's constant after the Indian mathematician D. R. Kaprekar. This number is notable for the following rule:

- Take any four-digit number, using at least two different digits (leading zeros are allowed).
- Arrange the digits in descending and then in ascending order to get two four-digit numbers, adding leading zeros if necessary.
- Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.
- Go back to step 2 and repeat.
The above process, known as Kaprekar's routine, will always reach its fixed point, 6174, in at most 7 iterations. Once 6174 is reached, the process will continue yielding 7641 – 1467 = 6174. For example, choose 1495:

9541 – 1459 = 8082
8820 – 0288 = 8532
8532 – 2358 = 6174
7641 – 1467 = 6174

4
From what I've seen, Bolt can outrun a bullet.

5
The Lounge / Re: Sober october
« on: October 21, 2021, 09:52:49 AM »
I dint know how I got tricked into this.maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am. Only tren days left.

Wha I've discovered is yo, fuck sobriety.!

Alcohol makes movies awesome also, also barbecue, yard work, talking to people.

And finally going to sleep. Some people go to eep sober. Wtf is that all about,

And Dune comes out tomorrow. What lousy timing, maybe if I can firmly tap my head  with a weighted rubber mallet I can get a similar effect.

Seems like you failed it already

Pain killer sleeping pills and paint fumes don't count!

Makes sense to get your kicks in before Noxious November.

6

There are ways to cheat and go faster than light. For example, get a very long spool of fibre optic cable. It will take light a considerable time to go through, and a particle can be shot to go faster.

I could run faster than Usain Bolt if I shot him in the thigh.

I doubt that.

7
I know, just read about it:

"Delta is the UK's dominant variant, but latest official data suggests 6% of Covid cases that have been genetically sequenced are of a new type.
AY.4.2, which some are calling "Delta Plus", contains mutations that might give the virus survival advantages.
Tests are under way to understand how much of a threat it may pose.
Experts say it is unlikely to take off in a big way or escape current vaccines.
It is not yet considered a variant of concern, or a variant under investigation - the categories assigned to variants and the level of risk associated with them.
"
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58965650

Hopefully not a concern.

And yeah, bring on the nanobots. I'm totally enjoying my enhanced internal 5G reception, nary a dropped call or pixel, and I no longer have an AT&T 2 year contract. It's awesome!

8
Also isn't monoclonal antibodies expensive?

It is expensive and apparently you have to qualify to get it; Over a certain age and/or specific co-morbidities and/or immune suppressed. I was talking to an Oncologist friend of mine just this morning about the protocol. She said she had a patient, vaccinated, got Covid. Qualified for monoclonal antibodies treatment. Went to Stanford Med (Big med institution here in the states.) Couldn't get the treatment there because they had so many unvaxxed patients to treat first. The patient ended up having to go to some other place a few hours away and got the treatment. At the other place, in the waiting room, the patient said there were like 20 other people with covid there too. Listening to the staff talking to all the patients she said she was pretty sure everyone she heard talking answered no as to whether they were vaxxed or not. She was seemingly the only vaxxed person there.

9
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Squid Game
« on: October 19, 2021, 09:58:51 AM »
I think Episode 6 is "Marbles". If so, yeah, absolutely soul crushing.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Learn more ......................
« on: October 19, 2021, 09:54:27 AM »
Shia's are not Muslims

You should be ashamed of your bigotry.

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Learn more ......................
« on: October 19, 2021, 12:53:41 AM »
Shia's are not Muslims

Yeah, that's fucked up. Shia's would disagree. And who are the Sunni to say. So much for brotherhood peace. So hypocritical.
No wonder why you're killing each other and you both believe in Muhammad. No different than christians. You believe in the same prophets, but can't get your shit together and realize that and end up taking a sword to one another and for what? Pure insanity.

There's nothing "peaceful" when you say crap like "Shia's are not Muslims". Disgusting. You should be ashamed.

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Learn more ......................
« on: October 18, 2021, 10:46:55 PM »
It is a common misconception with some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force.

How come the Sunni and Shia can't even get along and want to kill each other? Let alone Muslim versus other religions. You guys seem to be just as bad at inter-faith co-mingling as Protestants and Catholics.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some reasons I believe FET (prev. "check my FET")
« on: October 18, 2021, 10:40:53 PM »
Here are two videos referencing Virginia Steen Mcentyre getting ousted after she was given the opportunity to renounce her findings and didn't. Also if I remember the story correctly - the actual specimens are kept in an unamed facility off the back side of some campus or museum that has no adress and not even a real road that leads ot it. Some researcher located the the supposed local and reported this hiding away of the artifacts.

Here's Virginia Steen Mcentyre paper, right there out in the wide open, not "hidden":

Geologic evidence for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco archeological site, Vasequillo, Mexico
VirginiaSteen-McIntyrea, RoaldFryxell, Harold E.Maldea
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0033589481901241

Here's another paper with her name on it:

The stratigraphic debate at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo, Mexico
Harold E. Malde, Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Charles W. Naeser,
and Sam L. VanLandingham
https://www.uv.es/~pardomv/pe/2011_3/27_malde/27_malde.pdf

Apparently she couldn't originally get it published due to all kinds of infighting. That's academia for yah. It happens. But nothing of her work seems to be suppressed, at least not for the last 40-50 years or so. Seems like much ado about nothing.

I think she is the poster child for alternative history of this sort because she did that Chuck Heston hosted show. Otherwise, as JB pointed out, there was already all kinds of controversy around the site years before she even got there. For example, before they even attempted to date the site some archeologist thought some of the artifacts were planted. Infighting ensured. Then of course years later, after the dating commenced, more infighting.

It doesn't seem to be a story of "oooo...conspiracy...", more a story of academics can't getting past their own egos. But all the intrigue makes for a saucy story, no doubt.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Authoritarianism
« on: October 18, 2021, 11:47:41 AM »
In Afghanistan I would be killed because I'm a Jew by blood and Christian by religion, because I'm both Jew and a Christian I would probably get killed twice. LOL
I don't need to go to a Muslim country to seek conservativism I can just go to  red state that will secede God willing. I predict there will be a massive exodus out of United States if some red states actually do become independent.  Let the far left give each other their stupid vaccine boosters and mandate face diapers till all eternity, while true Americans will migrate to the states that are truly American and free.

What's the definition of a true American?

15
Conspiracy is not a theory, theory is something that is not a fact, but it is indeed a fact that the elites and government is lying to us. Whenever you have half truth or misleading information to protect the real objective then it becomes a conspiracy. 9/11 was an obvious conspiracy that has been proven.

Proven? How so?

If you listen to the major news from other countries they openly say that 9/11 was an inside job. Used to just Alex Jones and other non conventional journalists but now they say this on Russian new stations publicly.

Is Alex Jones a journalist? You trust Russian state sponsored news?

And there are many many so called conspiracies. Every government of every nation have conspiracies. Every county is hiding information and giving us fake news. Covid is a conspiracy mainly because its not a virus.

What's your evidence that it's not a virus? Is this coming from one of your "visions"?

16
Sorry to hear all that.

It's strange, we went from like 90+% efficacy with the vaccines in preventing infection pre-Delta. Then the focus shifted away from that to some percent in preventing hospitalization and death. It seems that, perhaps because of Delta, infection prevention isn't really a "thing" anymore.

17
Interesting vid from Wired regarding "How Online Conspiracy Groups Compare to Cults".

The Sociologist teases out 4 main elements of a cult:

- A transcendent belief system
- Systems of control
- Systems of influence
- A charismatic leader

Nothing really new here, just an interesting summarization and comparison.




18
The Lounge / Re: Reddit paranormal and /x/ narrations
« on: October 17, 2021, 10:59:31 PM »
Do you know what the scp = secure contain protect "foundation?"....what is that?

Here's a primer:



And before you fall down a rabbit hole:

The web's creepiest fictional wiki is now a mind-bending video game
Max Payne developers Remedy Entertainment has based its latest game, Control, on the SCP Foundation, a huge collaborative fiction project written by hundreds of contributors
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/control-game-scp-foundation

Emphasis on "fiction".

19
So far students & scientists still think “an object cannot go beyond the speed of light”.

This is nonsense, even a ‘thought scandal’ resulted from a habit of memorizing the lesson without questioning.

Speed is speed, you can go as fast as you can, even beyond the speed of light.

The continually speeding for the earth by 1 g will go beyond the speed of light, even mind blowing speed.

Just an illustration based on earth age:

Trillions kps is not impossible at all.

Just for 6000 years (if considered the Adam era) the speed have reached trllion mps.

what if millions years? WOW. It’s unimaginable.

Interesting video. However, you're missing some nuance. See here at 5:44, her editor asks, "How is it possible that something is moving faster than the speed of light if the speed of light is the fastest thing in the universe, the fastest thing like the ultimate speed limit, the universal speed limit?

She responds:

"What you're referencing is Einstein's special theory of relativity which says that nothing can move through the universe through space faster than the speed of light and that's true, but space itself can expand and the space between two objects can expand such that it moves those objects apart faster than the speed of light,
So nothing is actually violating special relativity, nothing is moving through space faster than the speed of light.
"

Kind of mind blowing all around.

Here's the video:


20
He's just one example. It pretty much applies to all of the opinion talking heads, left, right, and center.

21
Precisely!

My personal favorite Tucker Carlson reference: use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

22
In a way, this is nothing new, just perhaps exacerbated by the internet's immediate and vast access to "info" and methods of monetization coupled with a 24 hour news cycle (Thx Ted Turner...)

Yellow Journalism:
W. Joseph Campbell describes yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers around 1900 as they battled for circulation.[4] One aspect of yellow journalism was a surge in sensationalized crime reporting to boost sales and excite public opinion.[5]

Frank Luther Mott identifies yellow journalism based on five characteristics:[6]

- scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
- lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
- use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
- emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
- dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.


It all sounds prescient in 2021.

I mean Hearst got us into the Spanish-American war back at the turn of the last century purely by sensationalizing events through his newspapers. Literally, we went to war because of the media.

23
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Midnight Mass
« on: October 16, 2021, 10:39:55 AM »
I'd say so. I'm 3 episodes in and it's really good. Very talkie, but in a good way. Lot's of suspense, good back stories, bleak, interesting themes, lots in the puzzle box that it is to unpack and discuss.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some reasons I believe FET (prev. "check my FET")
« on: October 16, 2021, 02:01:15 AM »
More video evidence



Haven't double checked this fellows numbers myself and I am not actually sure what this is showing but he says it is too flat If I understand correctly.

Mike, firstly, is the content of this video one of the reasons you believe in flat earth theory? Secondly, if so, do you believe everything in the video like it's gospel, or are there some things you believe more than others? Thirdly, is there anything in this video you don't believe at all?

A glaring problem for it being a flerfer video is the camera lens is not on the surface of the earth, and proved horizontal. He looks to be at quite an elevation either in a high rise building, or standing on a mountain, and everybody knows, the higher you go, the further you can see.

I did some poking around.

- Using an altitude map the Tree of Utah is at 4222.4' above sea level
- I80 running under the overpass where the video was taken is at 4261.8'
- A difference of 39' - Already the video poster is wrong, he states he was at 25'
- The standard vertical clearance of an I80 overpass is 16' 6"
- So now we're up to 55', more than double what the video poster claimed
- There's approximately 6' from the vertical clearance to the roadbed on the overpass
- Now we're up to 61'
- Then I'm assuming the camera height is, for easy numbers, at 5 feet above that if standing

- So now we have a total of 66' above the bottom of the statue. That's a lot more than 25' as claimed.

Tree of Utah is 87' tall according to the video. According to the artist's diagram of the sculpture, it's 83'.



The video person is 15.3 miles away standing on an overpass

According to an earth curve calculator, 15.3 miles away, target 83', observer height 66' = 19.1' hidden.

Around the sculpture there is a hurricane fence and some other sculptures on the ground:



What's a normal car height? About 5'? The fence looks twice that in comparison to the car, so say 10'.

In the video, I can't make out the fence and the pretty intense refraction is distorting the sculpture in general.

In conclusion:
- 19' feet should be hidden (not 57' as claimed by the poster)
- I can't see the fence so looks like at least 10' is hidden
- So we have 9' leftover that should be hidden but we can't really tell due to the distortion

All in all, not a very good example of a flat earth at all. Especially considering the poster presents terribly wrong data.

Edit: I hadn't seen JB's calculations before I posted - Looks like we came out to within a foot of each other.

Edit #2:
- With adding in "weak" refraction (.1191) I get 13' hidden. And there is definitely some refraction there based on the distortion in the images (My first calculations of 19' hidden included no refraction)
- With adding in "standard" refraction (.1744) I get 10.43' hidden. Which basically gets it down to the top of the fence we can't see that is hidden.

In essence, if you go with standard refraction, this actually matches perfectly with a globe earth.

25
Quote from: Stash
Yeah, and it looks like LinkedIn kicked Principia Scientific dummies to the curb:

LinkedIn Bans Principia Scientific International Without Warning
Written by John O'Sullivan on October 9, 2020. Posted in Current News
https://principia-scientific.com/linkedin-bans-principia-scientific-international-without-warning/

I guess LinkedIn is factual.

LinkedIn's users are posting factual information about themselves and are acting as the primary source for that information. What LinkedIn's content managers do to censor their users is unrelated.

34% of Respondents Lie to Some Degree on Their LinkedIn Profiles
"The majority of participants, 64 percent, answered “Completely accurate, I only add things that I’ve actually done.”

Contrarily, 23 percent responded with “There are a few lies.” While 11 percent stated “My profile is almost entirely made up of things I have never done.”

https://lendedu.com/blog/drawbacks-deceptions-linkedin/

Censoring Principia Scientific is relevant because it shows they were punted by LinkedIn for violating their terms of service by spreading their garbage. So now LinkedIn & and a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage. And according to your previously mentioned quotes and below regarding your defense of another article and journalist at a large British news source, all you need is a large British news source as evidence.

Quote from: Stash
Are you qualified to discredit physicists and healthcare professionals? Seems you attempt to a lot. What makes you qualified to do so?

I rarely ever present myself as a source. I directly cite the physicists and health professionals making the argument.

You're joking, right? The wiki is chock full of your narrative without citing anyone else. As well, chock full of your mis-interpretation/mis-representation of cherry-picked quotes from other people's work.

Quote from: Stash
Where's the paper? Where's the data? Has it been peer reviewed?

I did not assess the physicist's claims or work in that off-topic article that you decided to criticize by posting an unqualified source for. It doesn't matter. He could have written something completely wrong by scientific standards. But the source you posted does not demonstrate that. The fact remains that you can't contradict a physicist by quoting unqualified sources.

I'm not talking about the Guardian article. I'm asking about the "professors" who held a "press conference" regarding their "findings" that Principia Scientific wrote about.
Where is their paper? Where's their data? Has it been peer reviewed?

Quote from: Stash
For someone who has nothing to do with science and lies about his credentials and is the founder and CEO of the site, he sure seems to have a lot of articles by him. Here's a recent one:

Doctor: Heart Failure From MRNA Jabs “Will Kill Most People”
Written by John O'Sullivan on July 10, 2021. Posted in Current News

What are his credentials for authoring such an article?

Here are a bunch more from John O'Sullivan:
https://principia-scientific.com/?s=o%27sullivan

Seeing that he is not a scientist nor a Professor, is he an "acceptable source"? He seems pretty prolific on his site.

Did your careless mother drop you on your head as a child? It says right in the tile of the article you posted that he's citing a doctor. The source for the claim is the doctor.

I gave you the link above. John O'Sullivan has 8 pages or articles he wrote or are attributed to him (That's 15 entires per page). The first of which is him speaking for 25 minutes regarding his crazy thoughts about the pandemic, vaccines, the whole shooting match. He's a known liar and the founder of Principia Scientific and its main contributor. He is not a scientist, nor a lawyer. Is he qualified to speak on such matters? According to you, he is not qualified, yet he is main editor vetting the articles posted on his publication.

Quote from: Stash
So I guess, according to you, I too can claim that a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage.

What a British news service thinks about a scientific work is notable, but its journalists who went to University for a single year for a diploma in Journalism are unqualified to contradict a physicist on a scientific level.

It takes a science professional to contradict a science professional on matters of science and physics. Why do you keep arguing that you should be able to use unqualified non-science sources?

Oh, wait, it's because you have nothing else and actually have no evidence.

Remember, you're the one who was arguing that a British journalist named Rod Liddle, who wrote an opinion piece in the Sunday Times regarding how he thought the US election was rigged as some sort of "evidence" that it was rigged. Remember, you said:

Incorrect. That article did go through editors for endorsement. Can I publish an article about the earth being a dinosaur on that newspaper?

No. I cannot. The newspaper editors vet the articles and publish the ones they see fit to endorse. Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.

AND...

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

He also writes about covid & football. Is Rod Liddle qualified to write about such things? According to you, no, because it takes a covid or football professional to contradict a covid or football professional on matters of covid and football.
Now all of a sudden a journalist for a major British publication is unqualified yet your journalist from a major British publication is qualified to write about the intricacies of US media and election procedures and how, somehow, our election was rigged. That was your evidence, an opinion piece and went on to argue the validity of the piece because it was published and, according to you, defacto endorsed by the publication. Now, all of a sudden, your argument doesn't apply. Could you be more hypocritical?

You said, "Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.".

And here we have John O'Sullivan as CEO and founder of Principia Scientific and the major contributor, and a known liar about his credentials, according to you, any article in his publication is the voice of the publication. I guess that makes sense coming from a liar and a piece of trash website like his.

Do you have no shame regarding your hypocrisy?

26
Quote from: Stash
You complain about "anonymous sources" yet you cite Prabook? It's basically like a LinkedIn. Anyone can post their own CV, so to speak, and it's not vetted by anyone. When you create your profile, you can flag it so only you can edit it, like only you can edit your Linked In profile. It's not necessarily "collaborative" at all. Would you want anyone to have edit access to your profile?

You can create your own profile for yourself and put anything you want in it describing how learned you are. How is that unbiased and authoritative?

LinkedIn is also presented as factual information, dummy.

Yeah, and it looks like LinkedIn kicked Principia Scientific dummies to the curb:

LinkedIn Bans Principia Scientific International Without Warning
Written by John O'Sullivan on October 9, 2020. Posted in Current News
https://principia-scientific.com/linkedin-bans-principia-scientific-international-without-warning/

I guess LinkedIn is factual.

It's presented as fact from the a source who claims to be qualified to know this, which is evidence, and so if we are considering it as source of evidence LinkedIn should be taken as fact barring no other contradictory information.

Your anonymous piece that you presented was presented as an opinion that certain science is bad. It is not presenting factual information like PraBook or LinkedIn claim to do. Therefore it must be taken as an opinion. In order to give that opinion any credence we must know the educational status of the author. We can't know, because he's anonymous.

For your second source who is criticizing a physicist he claims to have gone to university for a single year and received a "diploma in journalism", which he was apparently too ashamed of to list on his about page on his website. Laughable. Does this allow him to credibly criticize the science of physicists? No. He is still unqualified.

Are you qualified to discredit physicists and healthcare professionals? Seems you attempt to a lot. What makes you qualified to do so?

You wouldn't know an acceptable source if it bit you on your arse. You continuously post utter garbage. None of that is acceptable to call a scientist's work bad science.

Where's the paper? Where's the data? Has it been peer reviewed?

Quote from: Stash
More on Principia Scientific as a source. John O'Sullivan is the Chief Executive Officer & Founder Member. He seems to have a sorted past as a climate change denier and a liar...

What are you talking about now? You were criticizing the work of multiple scientists with illegitimate sources written by anonymous and unqualified authors. Now you want to talk about someone else who runs the website and who has nothing to do with the science.

For someone who has nothing to do with science and lies about his credentials and is the founder and CEO of the site, he sure seems to have a lot of articles by him. Here's a recent one:

Doctor: Heart Failure From MRNA Jabs “Will Kill Most People”
Written by John O'Sullivan on July 10, 2021. Posted in Current News

What are his credentials for authoring such an article?

Here are a bunch more from John O'Sullivan:
https://principia-scientific.com/?s=o%27sullivan

Seeing that he is not a scientist nor a Professor, is he an "acceptable source"? He seems pretty prolific on his site.

The owner of The Guardian newspaper, for example, has nothing to do with the qualifications of its authors to comment on certain works. Pathetic.

What's completely pathetic is you contradicting yourself when it's convenient. Over here, you recently said:

Incorrect. That article did go through editors for endorsement. Can I publish an article about the earth being a dinosaur on that newspaper?

No. I cannot. The newspaper editors vet the articles and publish the ones they see fit to endorse. Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.

It seems that you consider a newspaper endorsing the articles written by their journalists in one case, but not in this case? Oddly hypocritical. And ironic that this is in regard to the same publication, The Guardian.

You went on...

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

So I guess, according to you, I too can claim that a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage.

Quote from: Stash
Overwhelming evidence has been shown over and over again regarding your cherry-picking. It's a well known fact that that's your MO.

Show where one of the articles has been contested with "overwhelming evidence". You have shown none and only dismiss sources.

Check out the site tfes.org. You'll find plenty of overwhelming evidence that contests your ever-present cherry-picking & hypocrisy.

27
Quote from: Stash
So you can google. Good for you. So he's a Professor. So what?

So you responded to an article written by a qualified professional with an anonymous source. School children get scolded for submitting sources like that. I am embarrassed on your behalf that you attempted to criticize a source with anonymous sources.

Ummm, where's the article of the Prof's study? Peer reviewed? They held a press conference. Wow, a press conference!

Quote from: Stash
What's "Prabook". Oh yeah, it's a service where anyone can create an account/profile of someone (even themselves) and post information about them. Cool. Maybe you should create a profile for yourself. And you question my sources?

Actually Prabook is user-collaborated factual informational. Your source was opinionated. It is possible for the Prabook entry to be a falsity, however if taken as fact it is further evidence for the information provided. Your source which claims to identify certain sites and authors as uncredible pseudoscience is pure opinion, and cannot be taken as fact for evidence for the information provided.

You complain about "anonymous sources" yet you cite Prabook? It's basically like a LinkedIn. Anyone can post their own CV, so to speak, and it's not vetted by anyone. When you create your profile, you can flag it so only you can edit it, like only you can edit your Linked In profile. It's not necessarily "collaborative" at all. Would you want anyone to have edit access to your profile?

You can create your own profile for yourself and put anything you want in it describing how learned you are. How is that unbiased and authoritative?

Seeing that you admit that he's a professor in your message above discredits you and shows that Prabook provided information supporting other informational sources.

"Praybook" does not provide the info, people do. And people can provide info about themselves. Get it?

So let me get this straight, if I reference something coming from a "Professor", that's all I need to do to show that I'm right? So if I reference some virology professor's article stating that the vaccines are safe and effective, you'll accept it because it came from a virology Professor?

Quote from: Stash
Yes, unlike you, I check my sources. Regarding Principia Scientific International:

"Then there's The Australian newspaper which earlier this month concocted a story of a fake debate between scientists about a coming ice age.
The newspaper quoted a Russian physicist who is a member of Principia Scientific International – a group of contrarian scientists led by a man who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

Yeah, Principia seems legit...

Well you just did it again. Give the author of that article a search.

https://www.readfearn.com/about/

Graham Readfearn isn't even claiming to have a college degree. You are quoting someone with no degree on the quality of a physicist's work.

How stupid is that?

Honestly, do you really think that you have an acceptable source?

How do you know he doesn't have a college degree? Again, you don't do your research.

Just like Praybook, anyone can post whatever they want as their CV, like linkedIn. Here's Graham Readfearn's CV on linked in, for example:


https://au.linkedin.com/in/graham-readfearn-0753871a

Feel free to check with the University.

Now how stupid is that that you couldn't even find this?

More on Principia Scientific as a source. John O'Sullivan is the Chief Executive Officer & Founder Member. He seems to have a sorted past as a climate change denier and a liar...

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan

"Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and self-styled "legal advisor" has misrepresented his credentials and endured some significant legal embarrassments of his own.

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

- that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
- that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
- that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
- that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
- that he is a member of the American Bar Association.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581

Feel free to check the affidavits in the article.

Principia Scientific is the furthest thing from credible.

Quote from: Stash
That's rather rich considering you are the cherry-picker in chief. Anyone with half a brain can see your wiki is a hot mess, a master class in using wildly out of context quotes, phrases, interpretations and swirling them into a vat of sewerage. Something which has been pointed out to you endlessly.

Nope, wrong. If you think it's cherry-picked evidence you need to show overwhelming of the opposite. Since you have not done so, and have continuously failed at doing so over the years the Wiki has been up, it is not cherry picked and remains as evidence.

Overwhelming evidence has been shown over and over again regarding your cherry-picking. It's a well known fact that that's your MO.

28


That's why I said rumor. I mean, they are you tube comments. Not the most reliable source for anything. I just thought it interesting that some people may think hospitals are the real evil.
It's not surprising though is it?  Youtube comments are whackado land and these guys are flat earthers - not the most rational of people.

To your point, it shouldn't be surprising. I just hadn't heard that sort of argument that the hospitals (Dr's, Nurses', etc.) are The Problem.

A lot of the tribute posts out there for the guy are sort of of the same ilk, "The hospital's protocols would (did) kill him..." Kinda begs the question as to why he went to the hospital in the first place. He could have stayed home and horse de-wormered himself.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Authoritarianism
« on: October 14, 2021, 09:43:51 PM »
There is nothing illegal for states to secede.

Wrong again.

"After the Civil War, Texas was readmitted to the Union in 1870.

Yet even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession was not legal, and thus, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state. In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.

If there were any doubt remaining after that, late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest more than a century later with his response to a letter from a screenwriter in 2006 asking if there is a legal basis for secession."

“The answer is clear,” Scalia wrote. “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/

Texas actually can secede at any time, its written in Texas law.

Wrong again. Texas cannot lawfully secede from the Union, as shown above. However...

For More Than 150 Years, Texas Has Had the Power to Secede…From Itself
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-has-had-power-secede-itself-180962354/

Texas does have the unique ability to split itself into 5 states max (Why the limit of 5, idk). It does not have the lawful ability to secede from the Union.

30
Here's a detailed map view of stations real-time triangulating lightning strikes from the link above, www.lightningmaps.org:

Looks globe-ish to me.

I'm glad to see that view. Yes, it appears globe-ish to me, too. Nice graphics.

I guess lightningmaps has several presentation styles available to display their data. They do have that highly touted "spherical-triangulation" software hanging around, ready to be used for something. They may as well use it to generate maps that plot (observed) straight lines as curved ones, in order to keep things "looking globe-ish." The RE narrative must need the help.

Either way, the passive collection of line-of-sight radio waves is a clever way to gather information from all over the disc.

Yes, I'm sure the lightning maps folks spent a lot of time faking the renderings so that they can maintain a "globe-ish" view just to try and fool FEr's. I'm pretty sure that's their sole objective. Same with all of the airlines with their fake great circle routes.

If you want more info on the triangulation bit, check out the people that compile the underlying data at https://www.blitzortung.org/en/whats_new.php

They also have a forum which may be useful.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 209