Okay here we go again...
Shane, Claude, Big Frank put on your boxing gloves LOL
Dan I will keep bumping this Thread because it should not be near yours really
No, most seem to be under the bridge, so it should be safe enough?
Yes, why keep the mobile phone on it, and if this is legit, (which is seems to be, why stage it) it is in bad taste if fake!
But the balloon moved down and stayed down, as well as moving at her, pretty difficult to pull of with pressurized air here and there.
Clearly someone or something was controlling it, some of the whatever, movements where sharp or intentional.
And if it was outside wind, the balloon wouldn't have stayed in one spot for so long!
The person with the mobile, could have been sensitive enough to know that he or she should be filming this balloon, and her dead Husband, (just assuming) wanted to help her out a bit!
I am leaning towards this being legit, since ghosts can make lights flicker before saying hi, (l have experienced that myself) so psychically moving a balloon, should be more than possible!
Ok, we should get the "anyone who believes in this stuff are idiots" line pretty soon!
Someone filming a closed casket and focusing on one loose balloon?
A child obviously being told (twice) to "get out of the way" of the video.
A grieving mother ready to reach out and take hold of the strong of the balloon - even through she wasn't looking AT the balloon coming toward her?
I vote fake - and totally tasteless. Slow news day?
I could only watch about half of it. I don't know what's worse, that someone would pull a stunt like that, that some percentage of the population will believe it....or that that percentage is really large.
My guess is that the entire thing was staged, and actors used. I can't see how the "Mother" wasn't part of the stunt.
"Let's film that one balloon, that is obviously going to travel over to the grieving mother, and bounce around her"
I could only watch about half of it. I don't know what's worse, that someone would pull a stunt like that, that some percentage of the population will believe it....or that that percentage is really large.
My guess is that the entire thing was staged, and actors used. I can't see how the "Mother" wasn't part of the stunt.
"Let's film that one balloon, that is obviously going to travel over to the grieving mother, and bounce around her"
I agree it kind of makes me ill at my stomach to think people would go to this extent of putting on a stunt like this.
As much as I want to believe things like this ( and trust me I do), my logic and reasoning tells me otherwise
I agree it kind of makes me ill at my stomach to think people would go to this extent of putting on a stunt like this.
As much as I want to believe things like this ( and trust me I do), my logic and reasoning tells me otherwise
Maybe the just knew that this video would go viral. The video has ads to click.
Videos like this always get lots of views.
The effect is clumsily done. If it we done more convincingly, I would understand how more people would think it was 'spiritual".
Maybe the just knew that this video would go viral. The video has ads to click.
Videos like this always get lots of views.
The effect is clumsily done. If it we done more convincingly, I would understand how more people would think it was 'spiritual".
Yeah, I really want to believe it's true as well.
yep approaching the 100K mark. And it may keep gaining traction if more keep sharing like this
What truly amazes me is that there are people who really do not believe that there are others who will go to extreme lengths ( yes, even staging a little boy's funeral) just for the sake of money.
Especially with Viral videos
Who uses a balloon at a funeral ? Balloons are usually used for making people feel happy or cheer up if they are in the hospital... Been to a lot of wakes and funerals over the years but never once seen a Balloon at one.
If this was a real coincidence and it cheered the Mother up that would be good. But this looks stage when the string disappeared.
Several years ago there was a short video posted of a blue balloon.
It was part of a "balloon release" during a child's funeral (outside at the cemetery). The video was done to record the people AT the ceremony and only focused on the balloon when it became clear something was odd.
It's was inexplicable - dozens of blue and white helium filled balloons floated up...except one which floated over the open grave and hovered around the child's mother for almost a full minute.
Since then - I've seen several like this fake. It's the way of the internet and Youtube now - try to copy something that was popular or got attention.... and copy and copy and copy....
Damn you for stating the obvious....that I didn't think of.
Speaking of the obvious, I didn't see any movements that couldn't be accounted for by a piece of clear fishing line or thin thread. In fact, some of the movements clearly looked like a string was being tugged.
At my wife's cousins funeral ( he was 29 and killed in car wreck) my wife's cousin's husband flipped out his Phone going through the pass by of the open casket and sat their for a whole minute making a video of the cadaver.
At my wife's cousins funeral ( he was 29 and killed in car wreck) my wife's cousin'shusband flipped out his Phone going through the pass by of the open casket and sat their for a whole minute making a video of the cadaver.
At my wife's cousins funeral ( he was 29 and killed in car wreck) my wife's cousin's husband flipped out his Phone going through the pass by of the open casket and sat their for a whole minute making a video of the cadaver.
We thought it was way bizarre and disrespectful.
Different strokes for different folks I guess
Originally Posted by MissTerraK
I'm confused.
Terra
Terra, you must be having a brain fart
Nothing to be confused about. My wife has 39 first ( yes first) Cousins
Gotta hope a topic as innocuous as balloons don't blow up outta all proportion.
I can understand the belching one, with me posting revolting videos and Princess, getting close to AO+++ classification levels.
But the glasses one, someone must have gone ferrel for that to get the chop?
Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
Happens all the time with no controlling. Air flow from the AC moves the balloon, the string on the end acts as an anchor at some point (or gets slightly wrapped around an object) and it bobs around within a fixed area. I don't even reject other worldly events but these simplistic cases result in nothing worthy of the conclusions drawn. Either by skeptics or believers in such phenomenon.
Ooooook, l will take your word on that one, but it is still possible?
Hope that someone here finds the outside balloon over the grave one, pretty hard for that to be faked?
Originally Posted by lanfear63
And what am I supposed to glean from that? That you don't have any problems with accepting their existence or you are not even going to consider it to be so?
Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
I don't have a problem with the idea of auras, because I know nothing about them, and have no interest in researching them.... so I can't feel one way or another about it. And that's why I have no issue with the idea.
But these are questions I would ask, if someone brought up the idea of auras..and I wanted to understand what they meant..
What do you mean by aura? Do you mean colors? radiation? Kirlian photography? A bioelectric field? Chi?
Added a tad later; Mark; It isn't that I don't believe in them. It's that I'm not interested enough to research the idea, to arrive at an opinion. And it would take a lot of reading for me to get a real understanding of the subject.
Auras are like "the power of crystals" to me. Just not something I want to dive into.
All of the above!
Some here are questioning your stance on this after the cat, "everyone who believes in Auras are idiots post"!
Yeah, l know a gag, but that doesn't necessary get you off the hook!
How can you say we are all idiots when you, (as you have said) don't want to do any research on it?
Seems that you don't do any research since you have already made your mind up that it is all nonsense, so why bother.
After all prove that one, and it could lead to other ugly truths!
Powered flight is impossible, so why bother, geesh!
It is ok, if you don't want to know about something, but not ok, to negatively label everyone else who has experiences in this area!
How can you say we are all idiots when you, (as you have said) don't want to do any research on it?
Shane, I wasn't saying everyone here is an idiot. I described an idiot cat. Terra just assumed I was describing you.
In Terra's defense, I don't think she was alone.
Powered flight is impossible, so why bother, geesh!
Shane; I think your stance on powered flight being impossible is flawed. We have airplanes, helicopters, hovercraft, and rockets. We have those things now, and they appear to work.
Saying they are impossible is probably premature. I've actually flown in jets many times. Are you saying my experience isn't real? Are you calling everyone who says they have flown in airplanes idiots?
It is ok, if you don't want to know about something, but not ok, to negatively label everyone else who has experiences in this area!
Shane, I wasn't saying everyone here is an idiot. I described an idiot cat. Terra just assumed I was describing you.
In Terra's defense, I don't think she was alone.
No, l didn't take it as being targeted towards, me, but anyone who believes in the Aura thing!
Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
Shane; I think your stance on powered flight being impossible is flawed. We have airplanes, helicopters, hovercraft, and rockets. We have those things now, and they appear to work.
Saying they are impossible is probably premature. I've actually flown in jets many times. Are you saying my experience isn't real? Are you calling everyone who says they have flown in airplanes idiots?
It is ok, if you don't want to know about something, but not ok, to negatively label everyone else who has experiences in this area!
Gag or otherwise!
I mean most people in mainstream science thought that powered flight was impossible, (a noted scientist and mathematician saying it was is a case in point) but it was proven to be wrong, (Wright Brothers)!
I think that the Aura subject should be taken in the same light, neither valid or invalid dependent upon further testing, (if some scientists, ever pull their fingers out).
As for everything else mentioned the powered flight was obviously a past reference, so the latter remarks are invalid!
Yes, l know a gag, or a bad one; l have read a box of books on the mind and motivational stuff, so know about third party remarks and telling storeys, etc.
I mean most people in mainstream science thought that powered flight was impossible, (a noted scientist and mathematician saying it was is a case in point) but it was proven to be wrong, (Wright Brothers)!
You should stop using that example. The Wright brothers (and other aviators of the time. They didn't actually invent flying) understood the laws of physics involved in lifting a heavier than air machine. The laws of physics that allow for this type of flight were well known by then.
It was the people who didn't understand the physics involved, that thought it wouldn't work.
It was a real understanding of science that supported what the Wright brothers were doing, not fringe pseudoscience and superstition. The Wright brothers didn't power their plane with magic rocks, or the power of their aura. They didn't chant their way into flight, or rely on intuition or telekinesis. They used principles of hard science.
You should stop using that example. The Wright brothers (and other aviators of the time. They didn't actually invent flying) understood the laws of physics involved in lifting a heavier than air machine. The laws of physics that allow for this type of flight were well known by then.
It was the people who didn't understand the physics involved, that thought it wouldn't work.
It was a real understanding of science that supported what the Wright brothers were doing, not fringe pseudoscience and superstition. The Wright brothers didn't power their plane with magic rocks, or the power of their aura. They didn't chant their way into flight, or rely on intuition or telekinesis. They used principles of hard science.
You know, the lies that NASA scientists use.
I have not looked into this but did the Wright brothers rely on a Hard Science design for the shape of their wing ( the thing that finally made it happen) or was it by trial and error and they just hit on it?
I have not looked into this but did the Wright brothers rely on a Hard Science design for the shape of their wing ( the thing that finally made it happen) or was it by trial and error and they just hit on it?
They studied the shape of a bird wing and found that the bottom of the wing is basically a straight line while the top of the wing is curved.
This means the air passes over the top of the wing at a higher velocity since it has to travel faster and the higher the velocity the lower the pressure. Pressure above the wing is lower than under the wing, so this causes "lift".
They studied the shape of a bird wing and found that the bottom of the wing is basically a straight line while the top of the wing is curved.
This means the air passes over the top of the wing at a higher velocity since it has to travel faster and the higher the velocity the lower the pressure. Pressure above the wing is lower than under the wing, so this causes "lift".
So are you saying the Wright Brothers (you know, non scientists) observed this themselves and decided to try it. "Let's copy a bird wing and see?"?
Is it just me, or is there a distinct "deja vu" feeling to this thread...?
Of course. In fact Deja vu deja vu. We've been over nearly the identical stuff several times.
If anyone reading this thinks that anyone here believes that anything will be resolved by this discussion...again, they are mistaken. These are mindless arguments...argued by people too lazy to read a Wikipedia article...and I'm proud to participate, and contribute to the nonsense.
Of course. In fact Deja vu deja vu. We've been over nearly the identical stuff several times.
If anyone reading this thinks that anyone here believes that anything will be resolved by this discussion...again, they are mistaken. These are mindless arguments...argued by people too lazy to read a Wikipedia article...and I'm proud to participate, and contribute to the nonsense.
The only exercise here was to bring down the proud prowess that flight was achieved by drawing board, experimentation, more drawing board, experimentation and finally execution. AKA, as you call it, Hard Science. It was not. Whether you said that or not, it was implied.
You know, other than one friend in the UK, you're the only guys on the planet who I can have a dam good discussion or argument with, and right or wrong, I appreciate that.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree and wasting your time there. Claude is on record saying there are things that most people believe that he will never believe regardless of any evidence - that he would flat out reject even the most blatantly obvious evidence were it available. So what can you really hope for pursuing such close mindedness? to each his own at that point I would say.
Claude is on record, l don't remember that!
All of his current speeches about believing in something if proof is given, was what l got!
He did believe in the Tesla circuit one, so l will give him credit for that!
Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
You should stop using that example. The Wright brothers (and other aviators of the time. They didn't actually invent flying) understood the laws of physics involved in lifting a heavier than air machine. The laws of physics that allow for this type of flight were well known by then.
It was the people who didn't understand the physics involved, that thought it wouldn't work.
It was a real understanding of science that supported what the Wright brothers were doing, not fringe pseudoscience and superstition. The Wright brothers didn't power their plane with magic rocks, or the power of their aura. They didn't chant their way into flight, or rely on intuition or telekinesis. They used principles of hard science.
You know, the lies that NASA scientists use.
No, but mainstream science at that time, and noted scientists, and mathematicians, said it was impossible.
Most likely if you were around back then, you would blindly believe in the papers, and books on the subject of powered human flight, not being possible!
But it was dead wrong!
Auras, as well as other things could be proven tomorrow, but mainstream media and scientists don't want to know about it!
Not because it can't be proven, but because it would upset the masses!
Never spook the herd, you want to control!
As for NASA, we have covered, the Mars blue sky thing, well after posting 1997, Hubble image of Mars with a blue haze around it, for the 6th time!
NASA is a lie fest, but if you are happy to believe in lies, fair enough!
Originally Posted by Frank Donovan
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but I'm not understanding your point. Science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Why are you separating science and nature? .
Yes, nature, l have observed a flock of small birds when l lived on the farm, flying at high speed in perfect unison, dong sharp turns!
This strongly implys a shared consciousness. Some people will investigate this, and others won't
The ones that won't, hold back society, and the ones that do, usually having to put up with the ravings of the ones that don't, push society forward!
All of his current speeches about believing in something if proof is given, was what l got!
Yep you must have missed it indeed...I think it might have been in the free will thread which has been edited a bit by mods removing disallowed subjects (I think you can guess which would be in that thread). Its a fact though. Both I and Dennis commented on it for its obvious lack of open mindedness.
Yes, nature, l have observed a flock of small birds when l lived on the farm, flying at high speed in perfect unison, dong sharp turns!
This strongly implys a shared consciousness. Some people will investigate this, and others won't
The question has already been answered about the birds changing course in unison. It isn't a shared consciousness. It's what happens when each individual bird follows the bird in front of it. And each bird sees most of the birds in front of them, so it looks like they move in unison.
To be fair, humans do the same thing. If you've ever been on a stage in front of a large crowd, you see them act as one unit in a wave motion. It can be unsettling, when you see it the first time. It looks like they have one shared consciousness...or no consciousness.....
The one or two people in that crowd that aren't part of the wave? They are the ones that are self aware.(and aware of what's happening in the room)..that are not part of the mob. I speak from experience.
So are you saying the Wright Brothers (you know, non scientists) observed this themselves and decided to try it. "Let's copy a bird wing and see?"?
They may not be scientists by profession. But it wasn't guesswork. They understood the principles involved.
Actually, the way wings provided lift was known at that time. The Wright brothers invented a better way to control the plane in flight. It was the way they controlled the wing's surface to keep the plane steady and steer it, that they contributed. Others were flying planes in test flights by then.
There were already wind tunnels and tests to design wings by then. The Wright brothers had better data than most...and a better understanding of the physics involved in controlled flight. There were already gliders, and the Wright brothers had extensive practical experience with motors , bicycles, mechanics, and how gliders worked.
There were lots of aviators experimenting with aircraft by that time. The Wright brothers just had better control of their plane.
To say they invented heavier than air flying would be wrong.
So are you saying the Wright Brothers (you know, non scientists) observed this themselves and decided to try it. "Let's copy a bird wing and see?"?
I didn't say they weren't scientists. They followed the scientific method. They had a theory and tested that theory. Their claims have been demonstrated and duplicated and repeated by others.
I didn't say they weren't scientists. They followed the scientific method. They had a theory and tested that theory. Their claims have been demonstrated and duplicated and repeated by others.
So a couple of regular guys (mechanical engineers at best perhaps) looked at nature and what worked in the natural world flight department and said, yep, that bird wing shape should provide lift. And then we have that other component, the propellor. The original design of which was laid down by Leonardo Da Vinci who probably got the idea from watching a Sycamore leaf spin to the ground.
Just a few weight and size, wingspan ratios to work out. Take from nature and claim it to be a scientifically derived breakthrough.
Perhaps not the best example of independant, drawing board conceived, Hard Science at work. But then, to be fair, most scientific discoveries are made and built upon from observing and dissecting the interactions of the natural world.
So a couple of regular guys (mechanical engineers at best perhaps) looked at nature and what worked in the natural world flight department and said, yep, that bird wing shape should provide lift. And then we have that other component, the propellor. The original design of which was laid down by Leonardo Da Vinci who probably got the idea from watching a Sycamore leaf spin to the ground.
Just a few weight and size, wingspan ratios to work out. Take from nature and claim it to be a scientifically derived breakthrough.
Perhaps not the best example of independant, drawing board conceived, Hard Science at work. But then, to be fair, most scientific discoveries are made and built upon from observing and dissecting the interactions of the natural world.
What's with all the spin such as "regular guys" and "claim it to be a scientifically derived breakthrough"?
If you don't think flight was a huge breakthrough, whether you think it was science or not, then we have differences of opinion that won't be settled. And you won't change my mind that mechanical engineering is science.
You do realize that belittling what the Wright Brothers achieved has zero impact on auras, correct?
What's with all the spin such as "regular guys" and "claim it to be a scientifically derived breakthrough"?
If you don't think flight was a huge breakthrough, whether you think it was science or not, then we have differences of opinion that won't be settled. And you won't change my mind that mechanical engineering is science.
You do realize that belittling what the Wright Brothers achieved has zero impact on auras, correct?
Good one about the Aura's. Kudos to the Wright brothers for being first. Kudos to their perseverance and observations. There inspiration and and line of thought to get to that point however was inspired and dictated by Nature. The answers were already out there, worked, and was demonstrated by nature on a daily basis. So I would say: Kudos to their adaptations.
Kudos to the Wright brothers for being first. Kudos to their perseverance and observations. There inspiration and and line of thought to get to that point however was inspired and dictated by Nature. The answers were already out there, worked, and was demonstrated by nature on a daily basis. So I would say: Kudos to their adaptations.
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but I'm not understanding your point. Science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but I'm not understanding your point. Science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Why are you separating science and nature? .
I know how you feel. I regret getting involved. All I did was try to be helpful and answered a question and responded by stating nothing but a fact. Then I was drawn into a debate about the contributions of the Wright Bros. and whether or not they were scientists, as if that was relevant in any way to my post.
Observing something that occurs in nature, and replicating it mechanically seems to fit into the broad tapestry we call science. Engineers definitely have to have a working understanding of scientific principles, particularly physics (gravity, motion, etc., etc.).
This type of thing (observation of nature -> replication) is also done in the medical field. Medicine certainly resides under the science umbrella.
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but I'm not understanding your point. Science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Why are you separating science and nature? .
I totally understand that being the core, however now we are taking various components of nature and mixing them up, producing synthetic versions of them, producing new materials, all sorts of shenanigans going on and labelled science or scientific research/innovation/discovery. The original definition has been changed in its connotations.
We understand how a lot of it works and are now simply playing with it.
PS I acknowledged what you said in an earlier post..
"To be fair most scientific discoveries are made and built upon from observing and dissecting the interactions of the natural world."
Added: Speculation: If there had never been any flying creatures on the Earth would we have ever had the notion to want to fly, and if so, how much longer would it have been until we achieved that aim with no point of reference?
Added: Speculation: If there had never been any flying creatures on the Earth would we have ever had the notion to want to fly, and if so, how much longer would it have been until we achieved that aim with no point of reference?
As long as there was a breeze we would have had the notion to fly. Wind picks up a piece of paper and the light bulb would have gone off. BTW the idea that they simply studied birds is not entirely accurate or complete. They used wind tunnels to gather data. the basic aerodynamics of flight is actually quite old being used in several glider designs going back over a thousand years before the Wright brothers.
As long as there was a breeze we would have had the notion to fly.
Aerated bones would be a great advantage, but you gotta figure alla the things that might stop us from doin' -- like heavy duty contact sports an' other brawn-based stuff.
The question has already been answered about the birds changing course in unison. It isn't a shared consciousness. It's what happens when each individual bird follows the bird in front of it. And each bird sees most of the birds in front of them, so it looks like they move in unison.
To be fair, humans do the same thing. If you've ever been on a stage in front of a large crowd, you see them act as one unit in a wave motion. It can be unsettling, when you see it the first time. It looks like they have one shared consciousness...or no consciousness.....
The one or two people in that crowd that aren't part of the wave? They are the ones that are self aware.(and aware of what's happening in the room)..that are not part of the mob. I speak from experience.
No, doesn't answer it for me!
This is high speed perfect turns, and the 6 small birds where looking straight ahead, with zero chirps!
"To be fair most scientific discoveries are made and built upon from observing and dissecting the interactions of the natural world."
Added: Speculation: If there had never been any flying creatures on the Earth would we have ever had the notion to want to fly, and if so, how much longer would it have been until we achieved that aim with no point of reference?
I don't know how often that's true. Airplanes don't have wings that flap like a bird's. The landing gear is far more efficient as wheels instead of claws.
Transportation is better on wheels than on mechanical legs. Natures gives ideas on things that work, but there are lots of instances where the mechanical version is much more efficient...and may not work on the same principle at all.
One reason for this may be that a living organism has thousands of functions, where the mechanical version may have only one. And wheels may not be found often in living creatures. That's just a thought, I don't really know.
Believe it or not, I was eating a jelly bean when I read that, and I don't often eat jelly beans. I think that means we have similar auras.
Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
I don't know how often that's true. Airplanes don't have wings that flap like a bird's. The landing gear is far more efficient as wheels instead of claws.
...or maybe not. In humans, I believe 'aerated bones' are referred to as 'osteoporosis'.
Most great inventions like planes come about because of a few rare humans who challenge "conventional wisdom" and have the ability to apply reason to a problem. Some great inventions (rubber) were a fluke or accident - but even then someone had to be smart enough to say "aha!".
As a child I thought the bravest people in history were those challenged the "earth is flat" belief of the times. To sail off toward a horizon (and convince others to act as your crew) when all the wise men around you predicted you would fall off the world - was really something to me.
...or maybe not. In humans, I believe 'aerated bones' are referred to as 'osteoporosis'.
Most great inventions like planes come about because of a few rare humans who challenge "conventional wisdom" and have the ability to apply reason to a problem. Some great inventions (rubber) were a fluke or accident - but even then someone had to be smart enough to say "aha!".
As a child I thought the bravest people in history were those challenged the "earth is flat" belief of the times. To sail off toward a horizon (and convince others to act as your crew) when all the wise men around you predicted you would fall off the world - was really something to me.
If you use it as a metaphor, these people are my real heroes even today. On the COSMOS series, the last ten minutes of the last episode shows a montage of the string of dedicated scientists who fought the ignorance of their times, and dedicated their entire lives to discover the next step in knowing how the universe works.
I can't watch it without crying. Those people are my heroes.
And air currents, (water ...) explains flying formations, and maybe fish doing a slow runner, but at high speed, in response to a predator, not really!
The fish isn't going to try to stay within water currents or eddies created by the fish in front, instincts to get out of there, as fast as possible would be the dominant action!
And this is done in perfect synch, in response do possible death!
And air currents, (water ...) explains flying formations, and maybe fish doing a slow runner, but at high speed, in response to a predator, not really!
The fish isn't going to try to stay within water currents or eddies created by the fish in front, instincts to get out of there, as fast as possible would be the dominant action!
And this is done in perfect synch, in response do possible death!
Oh poor little dear Tag. Playing a victim again because people disagree with him.
Wikipedia is your friend and there is plenty of information on why fish shoal and school. Schooling has numerous benefits and one of those is to evade predators. It's far easier for predators to grab a lone fish than to tackle and pick out a fish from a well synchronized school.
And air currents, (water ...) explains flying formations, and maybe fish doing a slow runner, but at high speed, in response to a predator, not really!
I'm not in agreement with your ideas this shows a shared consciousness but i think you weaken your point when you too quickly connect dots whereas your point would be stronger (and the discussion more interesting) if you didn't directly make such quick connections but built towards it .
the flying formations you have in mind are not explained by the decisions of birds to follow the leader or even currents. There are no "decisions" at that speed as I think you are alluding to. You instantly go to consciousness but that need not be the case - instead its instinctual (which is not part of a deciding process as we refer to it). Does instinctual completely destroy your argument? Not really.
You could argue that the shared consciousness is built in on a deeper level THROUGH instinct and that instinct as a feature of the universe gives a kind of shared consciousness. No doubt you would still get objections but the whole issue of instinct is so poorly understood and peculiar in its wide prevalence in every species alive today that the objections would not be conclusive or even terribly persuasive.
Just going straight to a shared consciousness is new agey but not really sound or interesting for those who are not new age inclined.
If you use it as a metaphor, these people are my real heroes even today. On the COSMOS series, the last ten minute of the last episode shows a montage of the string of dedicated scientists who fought the ignorance of their times, and dedicated their entire lives to discover the next step in knowing how the universe works.
I can't watch it without crying. Those people are my heroes.
In some cases you wept in vain. Those are the dangers I've warned about before of letting TV instruct on science and history
Tag goes overboard to me and sometimes off the deep end but merely following an establishment, TV personalities or modern dogma doesn't require high level thinking either.
As a child I thought the bravest people in history were those challenged the "earth is flat" belief of the times. To sail off toward a horizon (and convince others to act as your crew) when all the wise men around you predicted you would fall off the world - was really something to me.
As stated a totally mythological tale in and of itself
In 1828, Washington Irving's highly romanticised biography, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,[13] was published and mistaken by many for a scholarly work.[14] In Book II, Chapter IV of this biography, Irving gave a largely fictional account of the meetings of a commission established by the Spanish sovereigns to examine Columbus's proposals. One of his more fanciful embellishments was a highly unlikely tale that the more ignorant and bigoted members on the commission had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical.[15]
The disputed point was not the shape of the Earth, nor the idea that going west would eventually lead to Japan and China, but the ability of European ships to sail that far across open seas.
Remarkably and instructive of how total falsehoods can be invented when there is a strong agenda - the myth that the earth was considered flat and not spherical was propagated primarily by people who wanted to demonstrate a particular group as being backward and anti-science.
As a child I thought the bravest people in history were those challenged the "earth is flat" belief of the times. To sail off toward a horizon (and convince others to act as your crew) when all the wise men around you predicted you would fall off the world - was really something to me.
Oh, they weren't really that brave. They were the early remote viewers. They travelled through time and space in their mind's eye and had seen the earth was round from their vantage on high.
Of course, they weren't called "remote viewers" back then, they were known as "Academics Leveraging Intuition for the Exploration of Neural Space" ...that's right, ALIENS!
Oh, they weren't really that brave. They were the early remote viewers. They travelled through time and space in their mind's eye and had seen the earth was round from their vantage on high.
Of course, they weren't called "remote viewers" back then, they were known as "Academics Leveraging Intuition for the Exploration of Neural Space" ...that's right, ALIENS!
And now you know the rest of the story.
What most people don't know is that ALIENS (as described above) still exist, although they've changed their name to NASA. It's still the same Illuminati Lizard People from Planet X, just under a different name.
Thankfully, we now have The League to expose their nefarious deeds.
...or maybe not. In humans, I believe 'aerated bones' are referred to as 'osteoporosis'.
Most great inventions like planes come about because of a few rare humans who challenge "conventional wisdom" and have the ability to apply reason to a problem. Some great inventions (rubber) were a fluke or accident - but even then someone had to be smart enough to say "aha!".
As a child I thought the bravest people in history were those challenged the "earth is flat" belief of the times. To sail off toward a horizon (and convince others to act as your crew) when all the wise men around you predicted you would fall off the world - was really something to me.
A more relevant question would be what do you think about it as adult ?
Personally, I don't see how thatt equates with being the "bravest" people.
I may have admiration but I wouldn't go far to say that were incredibly brave.
There were many people at that particular time who couldn't worry about things of that magnitude and wanted to just survive everyday. And they had to defend their lives and their families' lives just to see another day.
He's generally a smart guy and very smart in his field but his errors underline two popular myths
1) Scientists are not versions of Mr Spock without emotion or bias. They have biases and they affect how they view things. Tyson has a bias that has him aligned with Dawkins, Harris, Krauss etc in a war against an ideology that science is silent on. Most of his glaring errors are because of that war agenda he has.
2) smart is not universally smart. We have the wide belief that because someone is smart in one area they are smart in all areas. Why we have this is not clear. Most of us went to school with people that were good in science and not so much English. Good in history but lousy in Biology. In fact some of the brainiacs were the stupidest people in social and practical situations. They could figure out how to do quadratic equations easily but couldn't handle practical philosophical calculations.
Take Tyson's most horrible gaffe in the who named the stars alleged speech - beyond him getting almost everything wrong the point itself is a rather stupid one - the fact that arabs named the stars in no shape or form rebuts that anyone named them before. its an even more idiotic point when you realize that the Babylonians hundreds and hundreds of years before Arabs tracked the movement of stars. Many different cultures have had names for stars and constellations - they after all have been there since man walked the planet!
So the point is just silly. Yes today we have arabic names for stars but stars were named long before Arabs came around. who named them first and what they were named first is beyond us knowing.
He's generally a smart guy and very smart in his field but his errors underline two popular myths
1) Scientists are not versions of Mr Spock without emotion or bias. They have biases and they affect how they view things. Tyson has a bias that has him aligned with Dawkins, Harris, Krauss etc in a war against an ideology that science is silent on. Most of his glaring errors are because of that war agenda he has.
Dawkins and others like the late Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris are really smart individuals. But they have literally developed an incredible Living based on ONE topic and ONE topic alone. Iam not saying they are NOT well respected scientists in their chosen fields but they make way more money attacking over and over again the same groups. And it is pretty much the same diatribe over and over again. It's funny to see Dawkins get his thoughts confused as he has been stumped many times. Iam not saying he is right or wrong but the more he speaks and the more I hear him the more I realize how easily he gets really flustered. And I have been a witness in seeing to how his Points are becoming weaker and weaker the more he talks in a Public Setting. Of course there are others on the opposite side like Frank Turek who does the exact same thing. And he is somewhat of a nutso in his own right. But where Dawkins lost a lot of my respect was when he changed his mind in an actual interview ( it's on Youtube) saying there was no man/entity named J%@#s but then at the end of interview he actually rescinded his claim and said that there was a man/entity named J%@#s and he did exist. Whether he did or not exist is not relevant to me. What is relevant is a man of Dawkin's stature making the money from his books and engagements that he does and not having enough Conviction and being wishy washy about a Subject that he profits from. You either have to go one way or the other instead of changing your Mind in the middle of a Interview. Just unbelievable. And very "Unscientific " to say the least. His credibility shot in my eyes
2) smart is not universally smart. We have the wide belief that because someone is smart in one area they are smart in all areas. Why we have this is not clear. Most of us went to school with people that were good in science and not so much English. Good in history but lousy in Biology. In fact some of the brainiacs were the stupidest people in social and practical situations. They could figure out how to do quadratic equations easily but couldn't handle practical philosophical calculations.
Tis amazing how true this is. I know of many people who are geniuses in some respects but not in other areas. One of my closest friends is a Cornell grad. who has a environmental engineering degree and a Masters in Creative Writing. Highly intelligent and well educated. But ask him how to ask a girl out or ask him about basic common sense stuff and he does not have a clue.It's quite amazing He is book smart but got hit hard with the Common Sense hammer. Or should I say the lack of it. LOL
I have observed this with a few characters over the years here at WF.
Robert, by chance do you have a link to the video of the Dawkins' interview you referenced?
Well I did put the link here but it put out the whole video. And I do not want to infuriate the Mods with this type of stuff so I took it off. lol
But you can go to Youtube. And put in KY phrase "Dawkins admits there was a j#@$@" and view the video there.
He says , "Maybe I alluded to the possibility that some historians believe that j#@$@ did not exist, I take that back j#@$@ existed "
Notice it didn't or doesn't make any difference whether he referred to him as just a Man or God.
Doesn't matter to me.
The relevant part is that he is so wishy washy (and even said " I take that back " ) in his assertions and convictions on such a fairly important matter in this example. Thus it takes away part of his scientific
credibility imo
There is no doubting the veracity of what that author wrote, however he also has his own set of prejudices which shine through loud and clear.
The website itself seems to have its own prejudices as well.
Just like FoxNews appeals to an audience who have a set point of view, and MSNBC appeals to another audience with a set point of view, The Federalist has a target audience who have a set point of view. None of them are particularly objective and they all publish information that provides confirmation bias to their target audiences.
The website itself seems to have its own prejudices as well.
Just like FoxNews appeals to an audience who have a set point of view, and MSNBC appeals to another audience with a set point of view, The Federalist has a target audience who have a set point of view. None of them are particularly objective and they all publish information that provides confirmation bias to their target audiences.
Multiple sources including the Washington post and Discover magazine have been cited not just the Federalist. If someone cites CBS,ABC, CNN and Fox there is little point in talking about the readership of just one of them except as a smokescreen.
I'm not in agreement with your ideas this shows a shared consciousness but i think you weaken your point when you too quickly connect dots whereas your point would be stronger (and the discussion more interesting) if you didn't directly make such quick connections but built towards it .
the flying formations you have in mind are not explained by the decisions of birds to follow the leader or even currents. There are no "decisions" at that speed as I think you are alluding to. You instantly go to consciousness but that need not be the case - instead its instinctual (which is not part of a deciding process as we refer to it). Does instinctual completely destroy your argument? Not really.
You could argue that the shared consciousness is built in on a deeper level THROUGH instinct and that instinct as a feature of the universe gives a kind of shared consciousness. No doubt you would still get objections but the whole issue of instinct is so poorly understood and peculiar in its wide prevalence in every species alive today that the objections would not be conclusive or even terribly persuasive.
Just going straight to a shared consciousness is new agey but not really sound or interesting for those who are not new age inclined.
Geesh, best l can do at 3am, and l won't mention the 100 monkeys washing sweet potatoes on an island, then the ones on the mainland starting to do the same thing, might put the shared consciousness thing on a 50/50 benchmark!
There is no doubting the veracity of what that author wrote, however he also has his own set of prejudices which shine through loud and clear.
The website itself seems to have its own prejudices as well.
Just like FoxNews appeals to an audience who have a set point of view, and MSNBC appeals to another audience with a set point of view, The Federalist has a target audience who have a set point of view. None of them are particularly objective and they all publish information that provides confirmation bias to their target audiences.
Well, I don't know about you, but this isn't fun anymore to me. Honestly, it's just a few here. But how many have to piss in the pool, before you just want to get out?
I see that I'm the one that started the conversation about Neil deGrasse Tyson. And I tend to bring out the worst in Mike Anthony. So, I feel responsible. And it will happen again...and again. It's like a dog that won't stop trying to hump my leg. He won't stop, and I'll never get used to it.
The people I'll miss know who they are. They people who I won't miss know who they are.
Take care. This will make the third member of this forum that has left, largely because of one member.
Well, I don't know about you, but this isn't fun anymore to me. Honestly, it's just a few here. But how many have to piss in the pool, before you just want to get out?
I see that I'm the one that started the conversation about Neil deGrasse Tyson. And I tend to bring out the worst in Mike Anthony. So, I feel responsible. And it will happen again...and again. It's like a dog that won't stop trying to hump my leg. He won't stop, and I'll never get used to it.
The people I'll miss know who they are. They people who I won't miss know who they are.
Take care. This will make the third member of this forum that has left, largely because of one member.
Claude in all due respect, am I missing something?
I went back over the Posts. I did not see anything or anyone crossing the line. ( In all honesty, I did see where you initiated what could be construed as a little slight towards Midnight Oil and his Sig.)
I have made it known that I do not always agree with Mike's abrasiveness but all I see is he and Dennis giving their opinions about Tyson and how he might have been in error or maybe he is not credible in their views .
I do not see anything overly abrasive or anything that I would call crossing the line in this Thread at least.
Maybe Iam wrong and not comprehending something ????
I have made it known that I do not always agree with Mike's abrasiveness but all I see is he and Dennis giving their opinions about Tyson and how he might have been in error or maybe he is not credible in their views .
Please don't put words in my mouth. All I said was, "Quite a different view of him from what I'm used to seeing." I didn't give my opinion about him or his credibility, or the veracity of the authors of those articles for that matter.
Please don't put words in my mouth. All I said was, "Quite a different view of him from what I'm used to seeing." I didn't give my opinion about him or his credibility, or the veracity of the authors of those articles for that matter.
Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. My sincere apologies.Your right I was fooled . After looking back over it, it wasn't your opinion of him. Next time I should look a little more closely
I went back over the Posts. I did not see anything or anyone crossing the line. ( In all honesty, I did see where you initiated what could be construed as a little slight towards Midnight Oil and his Sig.)
I have made it known that I do not always agree with Mike's abrasiveness but all I see is he and Dennis giving their opinions about Tyson and how he might have been in error or maybe he is not credible in their views .
I do not see anything overly abrasive or anything that I would call crossing the line in this Thread at least.
Maybe I am wrong and not comprehending something ????
No you are not wrong and you really are not missing anything. Apparently he is is just terribly hurt that some things have come up about what I take it is one of his heroes so he is now trying the gambit that to disagree with him on who should be highly esteemed is automatically to be abrasive.
all that is in this thread I see where we even engaged was hIm taking a sarcastic (his own admission) swing at Midnight and me responding to that and then the conversation continued.
I see that I'm the one that started the conversation about Neil deGrasse Tyson. And I tend to bring out the worst in Mike Anthony.
Nope....pointing out some failure by Tyson is not the worst in anyone. Its just pointing out facts about a public figure who I even stated is a smart man. The man is not even related to you (more likely to be related to me) and you are trying to act like a criticism of a public figure is some personal affront to you personally. That's your issue not mine as is all the rest of your post comparing me to a dog (few weeks ago I alone was was referred to as an animal) and the whole violin playing technique of how my stating Tyson has had some issues is "humping your leg" (not that blind yet) and driving you away.
But hey its Claude so its quite okay to play those theatrics and comparisons of human being to dogs etc merely because you are hurt at Tyson taking criticism in this thread. Anyone else got that nasty and legions (well more like a few down these parts) would be hitting the report button but Its not like anything he says to anyone could ever be rude or abrasive right?
A more relevant question would be what do you think about it as adult ?
Personally, I don't see how thatt equates with being the "bravest" people.
I may have admiration but I wouldn't go far to say that were incredibly brave.
There were many people at that particular time who couldn't worry about things of that magnitude and wanted to just survive everyday. And they had to defend their lives and their families' lives just to see another day.
That imo is much more braver.
Robert; The difference is that these scientists didn't have to do any of this.
Dedicating your life to discovering a new piece of information, with no real hope of personal reward, may not be the same as the bravery of those who are just trying to survive...Some of these scientists were persecuted, some were not. But their dedication is something I really admire. I certainly don't have it.
To dedicate your life to the advancement of knowledge, without an agenda (in most cases) is about as honorable a way to spend your life, as I can imagine.
Originally Posted by discrat
Claude you bad boy you. I saw that lol !!
No baiting and switching
I thought better of it. But now that you mention it, I think I'll post it anyway.
Originally Posted by Midnight Oil
Yep.
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth . . ."
Isaiah 40:22
Finally, someone is learning science the way it was always meant to be taught.
Robert; The difference is that these scientists didn't have to do any of this.
Dedicating your life to discovering a new piece of information, with no real hope of personal reward, may not be the same as the bravery of those who are just trying to survive...Some of these scientists were persecuted, some were not. But their dedication is something I really admire. I certainly don't have it.
To dedicate your life to the advancement of knowledge, without an agenda (in most cases) is about as honorable a way to spend your life, as I can imagine.
I can agree it is noble and honorable what you say but honestly imo it is NOT the MOST honorable
way :>)
Remember being sincerely Empathetic is ALWAYS Honorable but being Honorable is NOT ALWAYS being Empathetic
Did you really think it was cute? I was going for sarcasm, but I'll take Cute....unless you were just trying to be sarcastic. In which case, you just wanted to go personal for whatever reason.
Because it's funny. For example, this is an excellent example of well thought out sarcasm.......
Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
Yep just like the majority of the founders of science felt. You've finally turned off the TV and gone did you some reading on the history of science eh?
good for you
The intention is unimportant. Sarcasm is evolved humor. Do you see how Mike took my post and turned it against me? That's what I did to you. Nearly every post with my name mentioned is an example of sarcastic humor. How I survive the onslaught is a mystery to me.
It's a literary reference that predates the flat earth hokum.
But I'm pretty sure you know that and just wanted to go personal for whatever reason.
Actually there's quite a bit of them. That one would have been several hundred years BC but its not even the clearest one which goes back several hundred years more. The whole flat earth being held by a wide group is a classic in smear campaign tactics. It was created by skeptics of a position to create conflict and as a false example by which to fool the masses. Now a hundred years later its still being heralded as fact when its been proven to be utterly false.
Finally, someone is learning science the way it was always meant to be taught.
Yep just like the majority of the founders of science felt. You've finally turned off the TV and gone did you some reading on the history of science eh?
I don't know how often that's true. Airplanes don't have wings that flap like a bird's. The landing gear is far more efficient as wheels instead of claws.
Transportation is better on wheels than on mechanical legs. Natures gives ideas on things that work, but there are lots of instances where the mechanical version is much more efficient...and may not work on the same principle at all.
One reason for this may be that a living organism has thousands of functions, where the mechanical version may have only one. And wheels may not be found often in living creatures. That's just a thought, I don't really know.
Of course, flying animals have much better braking power. They have no need for runways or wheels, take the Harrier Hawk for example.
Anyway, I was more interested in some speculation on my second paragraph.
"Added: Speculation: If there had never been any flying creatures on the Earth would we have ever had the notion to want to fly, and if so, how much longer would it have been until we achieved that aim with no point of reference?"
Shane; I think your stance on powered flight being impossible is flawed. We have airplanes, helicopters, hovercraft, and rockets. We have those things now, and they appear to work.
Saying they are impossible is probably premature. I've actually flown in jets many times. Are you saying my experience isn't real? Are you calling everyone who says they have flown in airplanes idiots?
It is ok, if you don't want to know about something, but not ok, to negatively label everyone else who has experiences in this area!
Gag or otherwise!
"I've actually flown in jets many times."
Lifting off the toilet seat slightly after an attack of wind does not count, unless you're flying "Pan" Am.
Ooooook, l will take your word on that one, but it is still possible?
Hope that someone here finds the outside balloon over the grave one, pretty hard for that to be faked?
More people are aware of adobe photoshop than they are Adobe's video products Premiere and After Effects. We are probably the last or second to last generation that will be moved by videos and especially not Youtube videos.
Again I am not anti to these experiences. I just think the proponents of them terribly weaken their case by using weak examples. When you do that you open the door for skeptics of ALL such phenomenon to say the evidence is all of the same quality.
How can you say we are all idiots when you, (as you have said) don't want to do any research on it?
Seems that you don't do any research since you have already made your mind up that it is all nonsense, so why bother.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree and wasting your time there. Claude is on record saying there are things that most people believe that he will never believe regardless of any evidence - that he would flat out reject even the most blatantly obvious evidence were it available. So what can you really hope for pursuing such close mindedness? to each his own at that point I would say.
Someone filming a closed casket and focusing on one loose balloon?
A child obviously being told (twice) to "get out of the way" of the video.
A grieving mother ready to reach out and take hold of the string of the balloon - even through she wasn't looking AT the balloon coming toward her?
I vote fake - and totally tasteless. Slow news day?
Fox news, LOL!
Yeah, it does look fake after further viewings.
I think they were hoping that the pure emotions of those that desperately want to believe such things (especially a child's funeral) would "overshadow" the obvious bloopers, if you will.
The kicker for being a fake for me was this was a funeral, yet there was no minister officiating, and very few in attendance.
Disclaimer - I do not for one second believe that this is anything but a balloon in a draft...but...
It happened in the Philippines in September. The kid was called Trebby Vibar-Alamares. His mother posted the video around a month later on her facebook page, with a sad message saying goodbye.
In the Philippines, wakes can last for up to one week. This was a wake, not a funeral. The family gathers round. They eat. They play. They talk.
The kid did die. That's public record. It can be verified on the mother's facebook page.
I fully believe that there is nothing spiritual, supernatural or otherwise ghostly about this video...but let's not start speculating about it being actors, stooges or a staged money-making scheme.
A mother lost her son. She posted this video without hype, merely because it happened. The media have made this a story about a ghost. The mother simply posted a poignant video from her son's wake with a message to say goodbye.
Maybe the just knew that this video would go viral. The video has ads to click.
Videos like this always get lots of views.
The effect is clumsily done. If it we done more convincingly, I would understand how more people would think it was 'spiritual".
Yeah, I really want to believe it's true as well.
Yes, you don't want to believe in Auras, (eventhough science has proven it) but want to believe in this,...ok!
Originally Posted by discrat
I agree it kind of makes me ill at my stomach to think people would go to this extent of putting on a stunt like this.
As much as I want to believe things like this ( and trust me I do), my logic and reasoning tells me otherwise
I still tend to believe that this is legit instead of fake, as keeping a hot air balloon at a certain level for long periods of time, with some sort of overhead fan, etc, is very difficult to pull off!
The balloon tends to squirm about and wants to float up.
The balloon constantly headbutting her, could have been faked with pressurized air, (l used to have one for airbrushing).
But keeping at a certain height, for extended periods, considerably harder!
I don't think that anyone here, can say that it is definitely fake!
I mean l saw a real 2 rotor, military helicopter, hit a bridge in high winds, burst into flames and crash, and it looked like a crappy toy model, but it was real! This was a video.
Yes, you don't want to believe in Auras, (eventhough science has proven it)
Could you provide a link to this proof from a genuine scientific source?
All I've been able to find is evidence, but no actual proof.
Evidence ≠ Proof.
Oh, and please don't post a link to "A group of Japanese scientists from the University of Tokyo under the supervision of Mio Watanabe...", as that has been thoroughly debunked already.
Could you provide a link to this proof from a genuine scientific source?
All I've been able to find is evidence, but no actual proof.
Evidence ≠ Proof.
Oh, and please don't post a link to "A group of Japanese scientists from the University of Tokyo under the supervision of Mio Watanabe...", as that has been thoroughly debunked already.
Seems that this was taken out of context and it went viral...
I did a thorough search, on the molecular biology part of their campus, but no papers were posted and no studies done. Crap!
I will admit that l was wrong, on this rare occasion.
But Claude saying that the number of people believing in this stuff is disturbing and then saying that he wants to believe in it.
If static electricity was keeping the balloon near her, or fans, than her hair would be showing it. I see no signs of either, and as said before very difficult to pull off. But the balloon drifting down to her, could have been done 10 times til it got close enough to her....
But someone who is legitimately grieving to BS, everyone, unlikely. This is leaning more towards legit than fake.
And unlike some here, if l find good evidence to show that l was wrong about something, l will admit it and move on, not dismiss, ignore and use school yard bully tactics, to prove that l was right, (or try do dilude myself into believing that l am right)!
I will believe in where the evidence trail leads me, and/or personal experience.
Hopefully that means that if the Tokyo Univer, really did the experiments and did a paper on it, for their website, that you would believe it?
Shane; About Auras, it's not a matter of belief for me. I'm just not interested in the subject.
Added a tad later;
Shane, just because I don't believe something, doesn't necessarily mean I believe it isn't true. I don't know anything about auras to base an opinion on,
Shane; Just because I want to believe something, doesn't mean I do.
For example, I want to believe that you'll actually understand what I just said.
On the subject of Aura's I really don't see why you should have any issue's with them. They do not prove or disprove anything supernatural. The body (or in fact anything living) generates a small amount of electrical energy and it may in certain circumstances be able to be picked up by certain types of camera or electronic imaging configurations emanating or dissipating outwards from the body.
Call it Bioluminescence if you like. The brightness and colors of the emanations have been found to vary and loosely connected with moods and degrees of tiredness. Even spots of variance appearing where there are physical afflictions.
Now of course you also hear of the dreaded psychics claiming to see them and perhaps commenting, you must be tired, your aura is flat. Remember I talked about my brother in law Tim who walks with his head down because he see's ghosts all the time and wants no part of it. He never attends graveside funerals. He reports that he see's a thin line of radiance around everyone.
It may just be that everyone to some degree picks up on this radiance and it's brightness/frequency. When you walk into a room full of people for example, some people you inexplicably fail to notice easily, it's like they are not there. Others seem to stand out, and before you say it, it's not always because they are attractive to you, are boisterous, outspoken or attention seekers. They just seem to stand out more. Perhaps it's just a more radiant Bioelectrical field that you are subliminally picking up on.
Nothing Supernatural.
Added: The expression: "You seem to radiate positive energy" or: "There is a glow about you" may actually have some foundation.
On the subject of Aura's I really don't see why you should have any issue's with them. They do not prove or disprove anything supernatural. The body (or in fact anything living) generates a small amount of electrical energy and it may is certain circumstances be able to be picked up by certain types of camera or electronic imaging configurations emanating or dissipating outwards from the body.
Call it Bioluminescence if you like. The brightness and colors of the emanations have been found to vary and loosely connected with moods and degrees of tiredness. Even spots of variance appearing where there are physical afflictions.
Now of course you also hear of the dreaded psychics claiming to see them and perhaps commenting, you must be tired, your aura is flat. Remember I talked about my brother in law Tim who walks with his head down because he see's ghosts all the time and wants no part of it. He never attends graveside funerals. He reports that he see's a thin line of radiance around everyone.
It may just be that everyone to some degree picks up on this radiance and it's brightness/frequency. When you walk into a room full of people for example, some people you inexplicably fail to notice easily, it's like they are not there. Others seem to stand out, and before you say it, it's not always because they are attractive to you, are boisterous, outspoken or attention seekers. They just seem to stand out more. Perhaps it's just a more radiant Bioelectrical field that you are subliminally picking up on.
Nothing Supernatural.
Added: The expression: "You seem to radiate positive energy" or: "There is a glow about you" may actually have some foundation.
You forgot to mention that a person seeing different colored auras may have an eye condition...
Halos are caused by light, passing through water in or on the surface of the eye, being broken down into its spectral colors. This results in rainbow-like colored rings around lights or objects. Acute angle-closure glaucoma is the most common and the most clinically significant cause. It is a sight-threatening condition. However, there are a number of other causes:
Excessive formation of tears.
Edema of the corneal epithelium from any cause (eg, contact lens over wear).
Corneal dystrophies in their later stages.
Chronic open-angle glaucoma.
Early cataracts (glare of headlights making nighttime driving impossible).
Pigment dispersion syndrome.
Vitreous opacities.
Drugs (eg, digitalis and chloroquine).
You forgot to mention that a person seeing different colored auras may have an eye condition...
Halos are caused by light, passing through water in or on the surface of the eye, being broken down into its spectral colors. This results in rainbow-like colored rings around lights or objects. Acute angle-closure glaucoma is the most common and the most clinically significant cause. It is a sight-threatening condition. However, there are a number of other causes:
Excessive formation of tears.
Edema of the corneal epithelium from any cause (eg, contact lens over wear).
Corneal dystrophies in their later stages.
Chronic open-angle glaucoma.
Early cataracts (glare of headlights making nighttime driving impossible).
Pigment dispersion syndrome.
Vitreous opacities.
Drugs (eg, digitalis and chloroquine).
Just sayin' is all.
Terra
I was talking about imaging them with camera's generally, eye's not in the loop. If some have some extra sensitivity in this area and can see them however then the interpretation of the colors seen could be brought into question.
And what am I supposed to glean from that? That you don't have any problems with accepting their existence or you are not even going to consider it to be so?
And what am I supposed to glean from that? That you don't have any problems with accepting their existence or you are not even going to consider it to be so?
I don't have a problem with the idea of auras, because I know nothing about them, and have no interest in researching them.... so I can't feel one way or another about it. And that's why I have no issue with the idea.
But these are questions I would ask, if someone brought up the idea of auras..and I wanted to understand what they meant..
What do you mean by aura? Do you mean colors? radiation? Kirlian photography? A bioelectric field? Chi?
Do you mean auras you can photograph? Do you mean auras that only certain people can see? Can anything have an aura? Only living thing? Only animals? Only people? Does the subject with the aura have to be alive?
Does the aura change at different times of the day? Does it change with mood?... Health?.... What you eat?
Is it radiating heat? Electricity? Could it be chemical in nature? What would cause it? Why do you think that?
I have a feeling that "auras" can mean several different things, depending on who you are talking to. That's just a guess.
Added a tad later; Mark; It isn't that I don't believe in them. It's that I'm not interested enough to research the idea, to arrive at an opinion. And it would take a lot of reading for me to get a real understanding of the subject.
Auras are like "the power of crystals" to me. Just not something I want to dive into.
I don't have a problem with the idea of auras, because I know nothing about them, and have no interest in researching them.... so I can't feel one way or another about it. And that's why I have no issue with the idea.
But these are questions I would ask, if someone brought up the idea of auras..and I wanted to understand what they meant..
What do you mean by aura? Do you mean colors? radiation? Kirlian photography? A bioelectric field? Chi?
Do you mean auras you can photograph? Do you mean auras that only certain people can see? Can anything have an aura? Only living thing? Only animals? Only people? Does the subject with the aura have to be alive?
Does the aura change at different times of the day? Does it change with mood?... Health?.... What you eat?
Is it radiating heat? Electricity? Could it be chemical in nature? What would cause it? Why do you think that?
I have a feeling that "auras" can mean several different things, depending on who you are talking to. That's just a guess.
Added a tad later; Mark; It isn't that I don't believe in them. It's that I'm not interested enough to research the idea, to arrive at an opinion. And it would take a lot of reading for me to get a real understanding of the subject.
Auras are like "the power of crystals" to me. Just not something I want to dive into.
If you read up on them you will see a lot of mystical references of course. However, as always, I am trying to rationalize it to something natural, something that until recently was not seen until the advent of certain types of photography. The fact that they have been and are always captured is interesting because the alleged psychic types have been reporting their existence forever and being able to see them with their own eyes. Now it is photographed!
If you go along with this for a second and put a scientific connotation on it then these people may have some sort of slightly radiation/frequency boosted enhancement over the rest of us in there seeing capabilities. Of course, many of these are often the type of people who report seeing Ghosts as well. It would be interesting to do some extensive eyesight testing on them to see if there is any credence to that. I have never heard of anything like that being suggested or done before.
If you ever look into the ghost hunters these days, many have far more sophisticated recording camera equipment that look at stuff, in infrared, ultraviolet and other frequencies that allegedly pick up more anomalies than conventional or digital camera's.
I am interested in the possibility that some people may have a different or improved light/frequency (whatever you want to call it) gathering range going on with their eyesight than the rest of us.
If you read up on them you will see a lot of mystical references of course. However, as always, I am trying to rationalize it to something natural, something that until recently was not seen until the advent of certain types of photography. The fact that they have been and are always captured is interesting because the alleged psychic types have been reporting their existence forever and being able to see them with their own eyes. Now it is photographed!
If you go along with this for a second and put a scientific connotation on it then these people may have some sort of slightly radiation/frequency boosted enhancement over the rest of us in there seeing capabilities. Of course, many of these are often the type of people who report seeing Ghosts as well. It would be interesting to do some extensive eyesight testing on them to see if there is any credence to that. I have never heard of anything like that being suggested or done before.
If you ever look into the ghost hunters these days, many have far more sophisticated recording camera equipment that look at stuff, in infrared, ultraviolet and other frequencies that allegedly pick up more anomalies than conventional or digital camera's.
I am interested in the possibility that some people may have a different or improved light/frequency (whatever you want to call it) gathering range going on with their eyesight than the rest of us.
For me l have learned to use my third eye, and or sixth sense and or my eyes?
Hard to say with any certainly, but what l have seen others in the same room have also, so it isn't fake or a magic trick or a delusion!
A shared delusion, perhaps, but that would imply a shared consciousness, gulp, can't use that one l guess?
I have tought someone who was into this stuff, but couldn't see anything to see Auras!
It took several weeks, and she got pretty frustrated, but was stoked when she finally did it!
And l didn't mention the color she should see, if she, did, so it was legit!
Clearly someone or something was controlling it, some of the whatever, movements where sharp or intentional.
And if it was outside wind, the balloon wouldn't have stayed in one spot for so long!
Happens all the time with no controlling. Air flow from the AC moves the balloon, the string on the end acts as an anchor at some point (or gets slightly wrapped around an object) and it bobs around within a fixed area. I don't even reject other worldly events but these simplistic cases result in nothing worthy of the conclusions drawn. Either by skeptics or believers in such phenomenon.
Okay here we go again...
Shane, Claude, Big Frank put on your boxing gloves LOL
Dan I will keep bumping this Thread because it should not be near yours really
No, you've got it all wrong.
Believe it or not, they showed this on the six o'clock news. I thought it was interesting so I looked to see if it was on YouTube and it was.
The news spun it as the title read, but I wasn't so sure, so I posted and asked for everyone's thoughts.
Anyway, I'm sure the Mom believes it was her son's spirit and will never ever forget it. I'm sure it gives her a peace and will help her through this tough time of grieving and beyond. Quite possibly for the rest of her life.
I had several odd things happen after my mom passed and then after my Dad passed and again after my Grama passed.
Were they coincidence? Perhaps, but just the same, perhaps not. I still remember each and every one of them quite vividly. So this is something I really wanted to see what others thought about.
Only thing convinces me here is Suzanne's great new marketin' idea.
Inflatable factotums could be the new drones.
Less scary than robots, easier to order around than traditional maids, they are the ideal halfway house between slavery an The Singularity.
Hey, forget huggin' grievin' mothers — I would want mebbe 50 small balloons to sync up an' massage my shoulders evry once in a while.
Even if the floaty mechanism was switched off (an' I figure this is where the heavy duty thinkin' on this concept is mebbe gonna be a problem), it would be cool to know that you could grab yourself a secret squeako or make your hair go weird any time of the day.
Less scary than robots, easier to order around than traditional maids, they are the ideal halfway house between slavery an The Singularity.
Unless, of course you suffer from globophobia, an irrational fear of balloons most often caused by the noise associated with them (as in one popped in your face, thereby causing an irrational fear of balloons). Then there's the fear of the noise they make when you let the air out slowly, making a squeaky farting sound, which is called fartophobia.
I have been huntin' round for balloons for the past half hour but I got none from Christmas.
Now I really wanna blow one up and make farty sounds or score a direct hit on some goof on the TV from 10 paces.
Does that make me a globophiliac?
How in hell can I not have balloons?
That is so lame.
While the fartophobic sounds are really cool and fun, I much prefer the heliosucky noises caused by sucking up helium and then attempting to speak. lol.
Careful. It looks like your burpy thread was nuked, and that was only about mouth gas.
The PrincessBelchExtra and the Eyeglasses thread were inexplicably nuked. Neither were about religion or politics. They were completely and ridiculously a match for the Off Topic section. I can only assume there's a new mod trying out the delete button.
But hey -- which side of the balloon divide are you on?
Squeaker or farter?
Phobe or phile?
Taut or baggy?
I got a love-hate thing with these things.
I'm a helium-sucker, so that's always fun.
But at the carnival, where they've got that game where it's a race to shoot the water gun at the target and be the first to pop your balloon to win... oh god, I hate that effing popping sound.
But on another note, Princess...
Originally Posted by Princess Balestra
I would want mebbe 50 small balloons to sync up an' massage my shoulders evry once in a while.
LOL....you just had to go give her a whole new angle
Is that angle called Bodybuilder Lungs?
Hey, I figure I am an optimist an' all, but rubber glove inflation is kinda beyond me.
Even if I could get one up, there would prolly be blowback of an injurious nature.
Thing about the birds is, it is kinda no different to jets flyin' in formation.
They are jus' handlin' intel in a cool way.
There could be avian psychic stuff we don't know about goin' on behind the beaks, but the rest is no different from jets, or Broadway musicals where the dancin' girls don't end up kickin' the shit outta each other by accident.
Also -- an' this is so shamelessly ignorant of me -- please come back, Claude.
It would be the cruellest irony of all if you left us with a vacuum.
(Especially if it was my vacuum, cos then my life would be in a real mess.)
Hey, I figure I am an optimist an' all, but rubber glove inflation is kinda beyond me.
I have full confidence in your self experimentation skills..even if they end up with you in the hospital you will persevere for the greater good of science
Thing about the birds is, it is kinda no different to jets flyin' in formation.
They are jus' handlin' intel in a cool way
The vast difference is its not merely learned its instinctual which is interesting given how pervasive that kind of instinct is .
Also — an' this is so shamelessly ignorant of me — please come back, Claude.
Claude is gone nowhere. As I typed this his green I am logged in dot is on again. As at least one person honest enough to admit it has stated nothing was said in this thread to legitimately illicit his MA is like a dog tirade . He just didn't like some facts being stated about Tyson (Which has nothing to do with Claude) so trumped up something to turn the thread into a gratifying "please don't go Claude" discussion.
not the first time using that strategy but definitely the most obvious.
The vast difference is its not merely learned its instinctual which is interesting given how pervasive that kind of instinct is .
That is the deal here.
They have been birds long as there have been birds, an' before that, they were proto-birds, so alla their birdability has had time to work out some cool stuff.
Hoomans?
Uhm...
...lemme see...
...uhm...
...oh yeah -- we invented pizza.
I knew there was sumthin' in our communal eurekatrunk.
They have been birds long as there have been birds, an' before that, they were proto-birds, so alla their birdability has had time to work out some cool stuff.
.
Not really an explanation. instinct is pervasive in almost all life forms and species As has become increasingly clear natural selection is not the main driving force in evolution. It basically comes down to mutations. the idea that mutations alone can adequately explain why almost every species developed highly "skilled" instincts (in addition to their more standard anatomical features) is not adequately addressed in present day science.
In one respect instinct is more impressive than intelligence. Once you have the ability to learn then the various abilities needed to survive can be "manufactured" (we could learn in days weeks or months new skills to survive).with instinct each species has to have that particular instruction set and hard coded into the species.
There's a lot of just so stories about evolution and instinct but little of it is based on hard science for the simple reason that instincts leave no significant fossil records.
And l am not knocking scientists, just saying that it would be much easier for 100 birds to do a high speed turn, thinking the same action at the same time.
You are so dedicated to your meandering "what if's" you discount scientific proof because "how can they know".
I doubt very much you READ those links - because if you did you might actually understand what causes the 'phenomenon' and your theories would be dead on arrival.
Flock behavior is not magic nor a mystery - but explanations only work for those with open minds.
------
You link to DailyMail? Seriously - that is your source?
Tellya, when I am toes-over the edge of wherever, feelin' on out for first time touch of gratuitously beyondo-spawnin' smacko, gotta figure the power of flight beats THE PLASTIC SPOON INCLUDED IN THE PRICEA YOUR KWIK-O-MEAL LUNCHY PASTA PLUS MEBBE TUNA SHITTY EARTHBOUND STOOPID MF DEAL bundled as a special offer in most stores alongside the abominably bruised bananas.
Of course it's possible to find a reasonable explanation. But I think it's not necessary for such cases. No matter was this mother a pragmatist or not in those mimute she believed for sure.
Yes, l won't mention a large school of Tuna, swerving away from a threat at great speed, without tripping over themselves or banging into each other!
Eventhough they have tiny minds and nothing was preplanned!
Should be impossible if only the physical mind is used, study nature for long enough, and all of this so called new age nonsense, becomes less so!
Shane; I wish you would not think these things are unexplained phenomenon...when you can easily look up the real answer online. Why are the tuna not banging into each other? The same reason the birds don't bang into each other. They follow the currents generated by the one next to them.
Many of the mysteries you ascribe to weird unexplained phenomenon, have been explained in 8th grade biology class. And...Wikipedia is our friend.
The context of that quote is pretty funny. If I remember correctly, it was by a member of the Flat Earth Society arguing that there were a lot of members.
I drop by to hit on wit an' sarcasm's romp only to discover a graveyard fulla popped balloons.
There is only one cure for this dismal display of self-obsessed petulance an' mania:
gonna slip off my bra an' rub my own balloons together, see if I can get a spark offa the rubber to reignite the joy and wonder that is Off Topic an' bring cartoon birds an' animals flappin' an' gambollin' o'er its magnificent sod once more
jus' hang on while I peel the duct tape offa my strawbos
(it is an experiment from another thread, possibly even this one)
I drop by to hit on wit an' sarcasm's romp only to discover a graveyard fulla popped balloons.
There is only one cure for this dismal display of self-obsessed petulance an' mania:
gonna slip off my bra an' rub my own balloons together, see if I can get a spark offa the rubber to reignite the joy and wonder that is Off Topic an' bring cartoon birds an' animals flappin' an' gambollin' o'er its magnificent sod once more
jus' hang on while I peel the duct tape offa my strawbos
(it is an experiment from another thread, possibly even this one)
Yes, they seem to be going on a Tyson bender here, whoever he was?
And yes, Princess, add some whipped cream, and it would be perfect!
Originally Posted by Princess Balestra
Hey, Disco -- I am gettin' zero flames outta my strawbos here, so mebbe you should light a cigar an' use it as a kinda beacon for wildlife.
As for my health, Mikey, I am rockin' out right now.
Tellya, this balloon boobie workout is serious fun.
Forget the rubber, I jus' like jigglin' em' as a way of tonin' my galpecs.
But if you guys wanna hit on sumthin' of the sensation here, you could mebbe try hangin' your chimp brains (an' I am bein' delicate here for the mods) over the edge of a washin' machine an' flippin' the switch to a fast cycle.
This kinda vibrational tonin' has been around for decades, so I figure no kids are gonna be corrupted by the news.
So come on, let's all jiggle an' shake, jiggle an' shake!
Bust those carbs! Wobble all your gobblables!
We can do it, people!
Now, l think that l need some therapy?
Or go and watch Deadpool again?
Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
Its not smoke...the liquor cabinet is empty though
Yes, sold out of giant gummybears and Vodka, at the local supermarket!
Ok, I figure my CreamoCheeko workout initiative gotta a lotta potential.
I realize bein' in a washroom cubicle sans cream is nuthin' like the real thing gonna be, but I tried the slide an' glide deal with a rangea fabrics an' it worked out ok.
Skirt or tights were a doozy, but when I tried jus' panties, my skin dragged on the door whenever I moved sideways (they got the heatin' on) so as long as you got plentya cream I figure you are gonna be ok for friction on a non-fabric ticket.
So, yeah, full deal is gonna involve cream, but this whole regime would also work out OK fully clothed (an' tights are especially zippy).
Marketingwise, I figure this would be cool cos I guess guys are gonna be put off by the cream an' the bare butt.
2nd problem I had was I could only write one letter at a time, but that is cool cos I maintained contact.
An' before you ask, yeah, I put the seat down so I did not fall in the pan.
I am not stoopid.
Also, I did not cheat an' hold on to the seat.
(I see a Princess Balestra signature support rail here for the senior butt cream workout enthoosiast gonna struggle with somea the bendin'.)
Thing is, after I wrote the first letter of my name, I really wanted to step out after the loop, an' that is my experiment for later.
I figure if you got good at this, you could mebbe write out stuff to a beat, like line dancin' or any kinda thrustocise variant.
Only problem there is that somea the letters take longer to write out, so you would maybe need jazz to mix it up some.
Oh yeah, an' y is super cool to do.
That loop up at the end is real neato, an' I leaned right into it, kinda arms out.
V is cool also, as is K, an' the dot on a lower case i.
j is my favo.
Dooooown, an' swoop, an' alla the way back up for the boop.
Best thing of all is that I had visitors, an' I was able to proceed without interruption, so this whole workout got potential to be super portable if you stick to the tights or skirt model (an' mebbe jeans for guys).
I figure if you are havin' a crappy day at the office, you can take mebbe five to go write out your affirmation of choice an' drill down on some positive energy as you tone up.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WEIRD HUMAN BEING
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
THIS FEELS SO COOL
Hey -- you could even microwrite jus' sittin' at a desk.
Tee hee -- pelvic squirmin' with clear health benefits, physical an' mental.
Uh oh. I cannot sit still, an' I am gettin' looks.
Ha!
Insufficiently micro.
*RESULT*
Oh, this is a cool game.
No more gettin' stiff from sittin' for me!
Hey -- imagine if you got it so good you could buttwrite along in real time.
P r o v i d e v a l u e i n w o r d s a s y o u l o o s e n e d u p d o w n b e l o w .
Gotta tellya, I am a jiggler, but this has got some purpose to it beyond the usual.
Long as you got a body part an' a surface, allied to mebbe a cool poem, you got an instant exercise regime with cerebrum-enhancin' possibilities
(I jus' leant forward there an' stomached a g on the edge of the desk, which is kinda different from buttwritin' on a wall cos the g came out all upside down -- paper movin' on a pen, I guess.)
Omc Taggo -- look what you done to me.
I am microwritin' in my seat like alla the repression in a Jane Austen novel suddenly discovered a vibrator.
But hey, that is not the purpose of the exercise. Trust me.
Originally Posted by tagiscom
I won't post any YT video's, don't want to close down Terra thread!
Please do not let me have mobbed a thread here.
Now is prolly not a good time to check in on your spasmin' buttocks, Terra -- but I hope they are OK.
Hmmm, so, yeah...mebbe I should jus' go blow my brains out...
Hey, Disco — I am gettin' zero flames outta my strawbos here, so mebbe you should light a cigar an' use it as a kinda beacon for wildlife.
As for my health, Mikey, I am rockin' out right now.
Tellya, this balloon boobie workout is serious fun.
Forget the rubber, I jus' like jigglin' em' as a way of tonin' my galpecs.
But if you guys wanna hit on sumthin' of the sensation here, you could mebbe try hangin' your chimp brains (an' I am bein' delicate here for the mods) over the edge of a washin' machine an' flippin' the switch to a fast cycle.
This kinda vibrational tonin' has been around for decades, so I figure no kids are gonna be corrupted by the news.
So come on, let's all jiggle an' shake, jiggle an' shake!
But if you guys wanna hit on sumthin' of the sensation here, you could mebbe try hangin' your chimp brains (an' I am bein' delicate here for the mods) over the edge of a washin' machine an' flippin' the switch to a fast cycle.
This kinda vibrational tonin' has been around for decades, so I figure no kids are gonna be corrupted by the news.
OK, I tried that and got all wet an' almost fell in. Then I figured out you meant on the outside. Thanks for the tip.
IF UR GONNA TEABAG, AVOID THE SPEEDILY ROTATIN' DRUM.
That woulda been helpful. That's probably why I got all those strange looks at the Oasis laundromat! They musta figured I was a rookie or something. I'll know better next time.
That woulda been helpful. That's probably why I got all those strange looks at the Oasis laundromat! They musta figured I was a rookie or something. I'll know better next time.
It's one thing to argue whether a scientist is qualified/right/wrong/crazy - quite another to hold forth that scientific explanations don't exist...when they can be easily found.
Others observed the same bird phenomona - and they DID investigate and research it.
That's how they came up with the explanation for 'flocking' behavior. I studied it in school years ago - it's not new information.
It's one thing to argue whether a scientist is qualified/right/wrong/crazy - quite another to hold forth that scientific explanations don't exist...when they can be easily found.
Fair enough, but none of us here can state that is all they are using!
And l am not knocking scientists, just saying that it would be much easier for 100 birds to do a high speed turn, thinking the same action at the same time.
Ok, I figure my CreamoCheeko workout initiative gotta a lotta potential.
I realize bein' in a washroom cubicle sans cream is nuthin' like the real thing gonna be, but I tried the slide an' glide deal with a rangea fabrics an' it worked out ok.
Skirt or tights were a doozy, but when I tried jus' panties, my skin dragged on the door whenever I moved sideways (they got the heatin' on) so as long as you got plentya cream I figure you are gonna be ok for friction on a non-fabric ticket.
So, yeah, full deal is gonna involve cream, but this whole regime would also work out OK fully clothed (an' tights are especially zippy).
Marketingwise, I figure this would be cool cos I guess guys are gonna be put off by the cream an' the bare butt.
2nd problem I had was I could only write one letter at a time, but that is cool cos I maintained contact.
An' before you ask, yeah, I put the seat down so I did not fall in the pan.
I am not stoopid.
Also, I did not cheat an' hold on to the seat.
I figure if you are havin' a crappy day at the office, you can take mebbe five to go write out your affirmation of choice an' drill down on some positive energy as you tone up.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WEIRD HUMAN BEING
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
THIS FEELS SO COOL
Hey -- you could even microwrite jus' sittin' at a desk.
Tee hee -- pelvic squirmin' with clear health benefits, physical an' mental.
Uh oh. I cannot sit still, an' I am gettin' looks.
Ha!
Gotta tellya, I am a jiggler, but this has got some purpose to it beyond the usual.
Long as you got a body part an' a surface, allied to mebbe a cool poem, you got an instant exercise regime with cerebrum-enhancin' possibilities
(I jus' leant forward there an' stomached a g on the edge of the desk, which is kinda different from buttwritin' on a wall cos the g came out all upside down -- paper movin' on a pen, I guess.)
Omc Taggo -- look what you done to me.
I am microwritin' in my seat like alla the repression in a Jane Austen novel suddenly discovered a vibrator.
But hey, that is not the purpose of the exercise. Trust me.
Hmmm, so, yeah...mebbe I should jus' go blow my brains out...
Hmmm, maybe you shouldn't go and see Deadpool, don't want to add another glow in the dark, banana to the 70's throwback orange dish?
I am tryin' to lay my hands on sumthin' Dan Dennett said about the eyeball in response to the idea that such a complex mechanism could only have arisen thanks to a benign creator — a kinda evolutionist's response — but I got some fool buggin' me in a PM, sayin' how "...no offense, but your posts come across as spam and rambling and it isn't cute." so I may have to duck out on trackin' down the book to go slay a footsoldier of Ignoramo. Dear Lord, what is the point of that?
Gotta hope you are familiar with the reference, Mikey.
If not, I will dig it out.
Main idea (as I recall): if it is possible for sumthin' to mutate into existence, an' that mutation is really frickin' useful, then it may 'randomly' happen again an' again.
But hey, gotta be careful here, cos we are edgin' toward a theophilosophical guillotine zone — in much the same way poor ol' dmaster555 did when he figured I would PM him an apologetic explanation insteada outin' him with scant regard for either his/her existence or opinion.
Alla which has saved me some time as I try to figure out a buttock regime for my kitchen wall later.
I am tryin' to lay my hands on sumthin' Dan Dennett said about the eyeball in response to the idea that such a complex mechanism could only have arisen thanks to a benign creator — a kinda evolutionist's response .
Yeah you are kind of going off into disallowed territory I wasn't going toward. Its a different issue all together. Its one thing to talk about how an anatomical structure evolved but another to talk about the "instruction" sets involved in instinct and how the structures are used in "preprogrammed" ways
to use a crude probably inadequate analogy its the difference between the car evolving and the instruction manual in the car evolving with (or after) it.
Main idea (as I recall): if it is possible for sumthin' to mutate into existence, an' that mutation is really frickin' useful, then it may 'randomly' happen again an' again.
The general gist except mutations do not care a lick about useful and are not random. You probably mean random in regard to function. The bottom line with explanations of instincts is that theres no hard evidence. You can't look at "proto bird" fossils and know they didn't have such instincts.
Yeah, prolly we are headin' astray on what began as a post about balloons -- the instruction manual for which I clearly did not read.
You blow 'em up, an' you let 'em down, occasionally evidencin' fun kinda fartin' sounds from 'em.
Form an' function co-exist, an' breath of life is granted by lungs unseen, even if the balloons got fingers an' the lung owner is not a bodybuilder.
My only outstandin' dilemma is how to continue my CreamoCheeko investigations.
I got no cream!
Will yoghurt suffice?
Right now, I got no manual.
Prolly I should go crazy an' boil up some cheese -- or bypass the animal world entirely an' run with shampoo.
Only thing for sure right now is that my butt has the potential to be a writin' implement alongside its other duties.
Mebbe I should grip a pen in my a-hole, an' mebbe I should squat over a book, cos both these options combine a use of my cool mutations better suited to the relatively late arrival on the scene of writin's uninstinctively deployable toolkit -- but the original deal ran with cream and quasi-yogic workouts, an' if I am gonna write the manual for alla this stuff an' fill gymnasiums worldwide with descriptions of each letter like Whatto said, I gotta figure pens up poopers is no cool USP.
I am thinkin' aloud here, btw.
This is not a treatise on the merits or demerits of creationism or evolutionary theory.
I jus' wanna write my name on a wall in cream with my ass.
You could construct a much stronger argument than relying on what ifs or balloons at funerals.
Genuine question - why not go that route?
Well, good article, but it doesn't translate to shared consciousness, and you almost need a PHD to figure out what they are saying!
Originally Posted by Kay King
You are so dedicated to your meandering "what if's" you discount scientific proof because "how can they know".
I doubt very much you READ those links - because if you did you might actually understand what causes the 'phenomenon' and your theories would be dead on arrival.
Flock behavior is not magic nor a mystery - but explanations only work for those with open minds.
Gee, get a tranquilizer!
And l am not discounting anything, but physical measuring has its limits!
And unlike some here, l do click on links links!
True, if shared consciousness, exists, as the 100 monkey ex, hints to, then it is likely that they use it!
I would say that you should go and click on my link, (above) read the monkey experiment, and then we will see who is closed minded!
You link to DailyMail? Seriously - that is your source?
referencing untitled/unaccredited/unlinked "reports from 2010" and then runs to explain Durkheim's theories from the 1800's.
You need better sources.
Ok, l am sure you could find a better site, but the 100 monkey thing did happen, and wasn't made up!
And l did read some, of your links, but it all boils down to "do animals share consciousness"?
If they do, then isn't it a lot easier for 1000 birds to think as one, than to see into the distance to gauge what the birds in front are doing, or stay within the wind currents of the birds in front, or act on instinct?
If they do, then isn't it a lot easier for 1000 birds to think as one, than to see into the distance to gauge what the birds in front are doing, or stay within the wind currents of the birds in front, or act on instinct?
Well, good article, but it doesn't translate to shared consciousness, and you almost need a PHD to figure out what they are saying!
No it doesn't. Just takes an hour or two of reading about QM. Anyway shared consciousness is your argument not mine. I was just suggesting a way to make it a better argument. No QM doesn't get you the whole way to your premise (I don't know that anything does) but good logic doesn't always work the easy way .sometimes you establish point one, build on it in point two add to it in point three and then you end up with a more cohesive reasonable argument.
You can make a decent argument with QM that elements of nature are connected and then try to build on that. What you have now is nothing. I am not even opposed to your ideas (on shared consciousness - some of your others stuff is just malarkey and obvious malarkey) as some are but balloons and monkey stories that are dubious as to the details are convincing to no one but you.
Its not just people opposed to your viewpoints that are put off by your logic its that you don't seem to have any reasonable standards for proof or evidence
If you want to make up your own scientific explanations, go for it. You'll be a party of one, though.
It's good to watch nature and wildlife and wonder at what happens and what causation is. For me, it leads to a library and studies and discussions with people I know in science - so I can understand what I'm seeing.
For you, it seems to be making up an explanation and sticking to it in spite of available scientific proof. Whatever. It's your mind to wander around in.
I don't make up anything, neither did the scientists who watched the 100 monkey event!
But clearly some here can't handle some of the things l have discussed, eventhough open mindlessness, and self experimentation will prove most of it!
I don't make up anything, neither did the scientists who watched the 100 monkey event!
But clearly some here can't handle some of the things l have discussed, eventhough open mindlessness, and self experimentation will prove most of it!
But water under the WF bridge!
Shane,
Not one person in this forum, or anywhere else, is ever, ever, going to completely understand how nature works.
Scientist have given explanations as to certain things that happen in nature, but to my knowledge, there is not book on how all of nature works.
When scientists and study's come out, and offer up a proven explanation to something, it doesn't mean that there aren't other factors, possibly, involved. It simply means that science has given an explanation.
The scientist's explanation is researched, years of study go into this Shane. It's not like they just monkey something up to submit to Wikipedia. Now, here is where all of this is going...
You continually submit other ideas. We get that. I really don't think that ANYONE here wouldn't be open to learning something new. However, you continually post links to websites that don't, either:
Are credible
Have back up links to other credible sites
And, you appear to disregard what other people post! Then.... you wonder why you meet such opposition. MA said it as well. "why not show more credible links to your findings?"
Monkeys are just one, just one, species (not counting all the species in the monkey family here folks, work with me!). Every species, even humans, have a flight or fight instinct. Fight will cause one, possibly more, to react and confront their predator, or the fear they feel. Most, especially in groups, will, by instinct, flee. Preserve their group.
Now, as to your monkeys. Every "group" has an alpha. The rest, will follow. Period. It's nature Shane. Not every bird gets to lead the pack. Not every fish gets to lead, either. Those with the strongest instinct are there to protect the rest. Combined thinking? Their instinct is to follow the leader. Every other link posted is HOW they do this, effectively.
*Just for you Shane* Humans are as different as animals. Not every human possesses the same skills, instincts, learning abilities, and so on, as others. Because you experience something, does NOT make it real to OTHERS. They have DIFFERENT instincts than you do. It never makes them wrong! Your arguments make you wrong for not trying to learn something new, that others are trying to share with you, give you another avenue to learn.
That's my two and half cents for a Wednesday afternoon.
Don't worry Terra, my post has quieted things down a tad, and probably shocked some, I was personally surprised that l found anything, but glad l did!
Concrete proof that my new age ravings aren't all ravings, but based on hard science!
I would say that our credibility has gone up a notch!
Time will tell if a predictable pattern will emerge, l expect another gag, cat thread at the very least?
Now Shane, I told you I believe in the spiritual realm, but I'm not into "new age".
Anyway, yeah, the aura discoveries was a find indeed. Good job! Although I must tell you that I've never seen an aura before in my life. I've seen some very interesting things in the spiritual realm, auras just aren't one of them.
Oh, and don't gloat, it might come back to bite ya in the rear, lol!
Now Shane, I told you I believe in the spiritual realm, but I'm not into "new age".
Anyway, yeah, the aura discoveries was a find indeed. Good job! Although I must tell you that I've never seen an aura before in my life. I've seen some very interesting things in the spiritual realm, auras just aren't one of them.
Oh, and don't gloat, it might come back to bite ya in the rear, lol!
Terra
Sorry Terra, too tired, "new age, covers all of this nonsense, or is that garbage?"
Yeah,l know, l will behave, but it is a plus!
Science confirming what mystics have been saying for the last couple of thousand years, about human Auric fields and Chakras, pretty big stuff!
This forum seems more quiet than usual, but major paragrim shifts usually do that?
Or an all nighter at the local pub?
PS l have chatted to Sal, elsewhere about seeing Auras, so....
Don't worry Terra, my post has quieted things down a tad, and probably shocked some, I was personally surprised that l found anything, but glad l did!
Concrete proof that my new age ravings aren't all ravings, but based on hard science!
I would say that our credibility has gone up a notch!
Time will tell if a predictable pattern will emerge, l expect another gag, cat thread at the very least?
Shane, your post didn't quiet anything down, seriously. I won't speak for the rest, but I was talking about animals doing things in unison. You went from that to auras. BTW, I read the thread between you and Sal, and I think she explained it very well.
I think, for me, you left me scratching my head, sorry I responded and forcing me to put a sticky note on my monitor. "Do not have a beer and post in the WF!"
Not one person in this forum, or anywhere else, is ever, ever, going to completely understand how nature works.
Scientist have given explanations as to certain things that happen in nature, but to my knowledge, there is not book on how all of nature works.
Yes, exactly!
When scientists and study's come out, and offer up a proven explanation to something, it doesn't mean that there aren't other factors, possibly, involved. It simply means that science has given an explanation.
The scientist's explanation is researched, years of study go into this Shane. It's not like they just monkey something up to submit to Wikipedia. Now, here is where all of this is going...
You continually submit other ideas. We get that. I really don't think that ANYONE here wouldn't be open to learning something new. However, you continually post links to websites that don't, either:
Are credible
Have back up links to other credible sites
And, you appear to disregard what other people post! Then.... you wonder why you meet such opposition. MA said it as well. "why not show more credible links to your findings?"
No, l don't disregard anything, but if someone accuses me of not clicking on links, etc, it won't initiate a positive response!
That is the thing certain people don't get, they think that science explains it all, and to a lesser or greater degree it does, but based on my experiences and others, a shared consciousness, is more than possible.
And as such explains it better than, observable data!
Monkeys are just one, just one, species (not counting all the species in the monkey family here folks, work with me!). Every species, even humans, have a flight or fight instinct. Fight will cause one, possibly more, to react and confront their predator, or the fear they feel. Most, especially in groups, will, by instinct, flee. Preserve their group.
Now, as to your monkeys. Every "group" has an alpha. The rest, will follow. Period. It's nature Shane. Not every bird gets to lead the pack. Not every fish gets to lead, either. Those with the strongest instinct are there to protect the rest. Combined thinking? Their instinct is to follow the leader. Every other link posted is HOW they do this, effectively.
*Just for you Shane* Humans are as different as animals. Not every human possesses the same skills, instincts, learning abilities, and so on, as others. Because you experience something, does NOT make it real to OTHERS. They have DIFFERENT instincts than you do. It never makes them wrong! Your arguments make you wrong for not trying to learn something new, that others are trying to share with you, give you another avenue to learn.
That's my two and half cents for a Wednesday afternoon.
~ Theresa
Find a reputable site to back this up, l wish!
The a*** that run society, tend to put a lid on all of this, but that doesn't mean that it is nonsense!
If some here went to some new age festivals, hoping for a room full of magicians, psychotics and con artists, they would be in for a shock!
The opposite is true, and if they went there for long enough and ran some tests on individuals they would have their proof, or at least start to doubt, their beliefs!
Ok, l did some more research, and to my surprise found this....
I read about some scientist who developed this and his equipment got confiscated! Gets back to big brother crap!
But this piece of equipment has been developed since the 1930's.
And can measure our magnetic fields, and electromagnetic recently, or human Auric fields!
Being used in MRI machines, and new microscopes, ect, so this isn't airy fairy crap, but a real device widely used!
they are also used as precision movement sensors in a variety of scientific applications, such as the detection of gravitational waves.[16] A SQUID is the sensor in each of the four gyroscopes employed on Gravity Probe B in order to test the limits of the theory of general relativity.[1] A modified RF SQUID was used to observe the dynamical Casimir effect for the first time.[17][18] SQUIDS are used in finding a submerged submarine ..radio waves nor light penetrates more than few metres into sea water.sound travels further than light but changes density of water reflect back sound waves.the problem boils down to one of transparency. To magnetism ,sea water remains crystal clear.submarines have lots of iron laden steel..so presence of ferromagnetic material strongly distrort the earth magnetic field as submarines passes by..
Gravitational waves, which science recently proved, more or less!
The papers consist of research materials of Harold Saxton Burr relating to the electrodynamic fields of trees.
Electrodynamic fields, sound like Auras again!
Electro-radiation shown as colors is Auric fields, so there is plenty of research, that most don't hear about!
Two links above are from prestigious universities, so yeah, concrete proof that human beings, and most likely everything else emits very small electromagnetic fields.
And these fields, as the heart studies have shown, can change dependent on what someone is doing.
Which if shown in color,....l won't state the obvious!
The heart and head are the strongest sources, and helps to even substantiate energy centres, or Chakras!
Good now that science has helped substantiate, some of my Auric visual claims, it might initiate some intelligent conversations.
Unless some here can prove that MIT and YALE are scammers, LOL!
How could anyone forget about you Dennis? WE all know that you know what you know! Speaking of nature, um, and horses, Dennis, have you ever been out in a field with the horses as they were all running wild? I'm pretty sure you have, but man, is that not one of the most amazing and awe inspiring feelings there is?
Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill
That's only because I haven't taken the time to write it yet. It would be a short book consisting of one question and a two-word answer:
Q: How does everything in nature work?
A: It's magic.
You're welcome.
It is magic!!!! I do hope that some scientist, somewhere, will do some research on the phenomenon of Stretch Monsters. We simply cannot deny their existence any longer!
**Stretch Monster** Unable to see them with the human eye, these tiny, yet powerful, creatures are responsible for sneaking up on animals and humans, usually after a long slumber, and grabbing them! They grab their victim, two at the head, two at the feet, and they take turns pulling!! It's cruel and there's no way to stop them.
...
It is magic!!!! I do hope that some scientist, somewhere, will do some research on the phenomenon of Stretch Monsters. We simply cannot deny their existence any longer!
**Stretch Monster** Unable to see them with the human eye, these tiny, yet powerful, creatures are responsible for sneaking up on animals and humans, usually after a long slumber, and grabbing them! They grab their victim, two at the head, two at the feet, and they take turns pulling!!
Oooh Theresa, that sounds like they do hands on manual traction. In my case, it's not cruel at all. I want some, need some even, lol!
Oooh Theresa, that sounds like they do hands on manual traction. In my case, it's not cruel at all. I want some, need some even, lol!
Terra
It is cruel Terra. Because you never, ever, have a choice. And, just when you are starting to enjoy it, they leave. It's even worse if you're standing! You get a head rush and no one is around to catch you if you get dizzy!
They don't care. When I'm done, I'll post proof of the damage that they do.
It is cruel Terra. Because you never, ever, have a choice. And, just when you are starting to enjoy it, they leave. It's even worse if you're standing! You get a head rush and no one is around to catch you if you get dizzy!
They don't care. When I'm done, I'll post proof of the damage that they do.
So you can't train them, huh? That's not good, I mean I need the traction and all, but I don't want to end up looking something like these.
Shane, your post didn't quiet anything down, seriously. I won't speak for the rest, but I was talking about animals doing things in unison. You went from that to auras. BTW, I read the thread between you and Sal, and I think she explained it very well.
I think, for me, you left me scratching my head, sorry I responded and forcing me to put a sticky note on my monitor. "Do not have a beer and post in the WF!"
True, but l couldn't find anything on shared consciousness, but if auras, have been proven, then it add's more credibility to new age stuff in general!
True, but l couldn't find anything on shared consciousness, but if auras, have been proven, then it add's more credibility to new age stuff in general!
Read the part about instincts, especially ! Then, look at the date of the original study and consider this subject isn't new age, at all! There are a lot of other links and references in there. Study til' your heart's content!
There are many other sites out there where people share and discuss this subject. Perhaps you'll find a place that you enjoy and can participate?
terra kern !!
I didn't think you had a mean bone in ya !
Some of the females rubbing off on you in here I see lol
I don't have a mean bone in my body. I don't understand how you interpret posting a photo of a girl with an unusually long neck to go with a body stretcher is mean. You don't think her neck is longer than average?
Now, if I had said "Look, I found ET's twin" and posted this pic next to hers...
I don't have a mean bone in my body. I don't understand how you interpret posting a photo of a girl with an unusually long neck to go with a body stretcher is mean.
I think you need to recalculate and recant.
Terra
No recanting here. It's funny to me and I don't have a problem with the picture. Just a bizarre looking girl.
But as I said earlier just struck me as a little "un-terra-teristic " of you
After all Im sure if your own daughter looked like that you would so much appreciate people Posting it on the World Wide Web to get a few laughs comparing her to a cartoon character, huh ???
But you're showing promise ,Terra. And I like the warped persona you are finally starting to embrace like the rest of us twisted people here LOL
No recanting here. It's funny to me and I don't have a problem with the picture. Just a bizarre looking girl.
But as I said earlier just struck me as a little "un-terra-teristic " of you
After all Im sure if your own daughter looked like that you would so much appreciate people Posting it on the World Wide Web to get a few laughs comparing her to a cartoon character, huh ???
But you're showing promise ,Terra. And I like the warped persona you are finally starting to embrace like the rest of us twisted people here LOL
I didn't post that pic on the web, someone else did. I just accidentally found it while searching for something else and re-posted it.
Wait! What? ET isn't real? Whaaaaaaaa! Sniff, sniff. Now that's mean. Disillusioning my disillusions!
Oh, and what Dennis said.
I take it you don't remember my deformed thread. Part of my restrictions are no twisting, thereby making me not twisted. So there!!
Speaking of nature, um, and horses, Dennis, have you ever been out in a field with the horses as they were all running wild? I'm pretty sure you have, but man, is that not one of the most amazing and awe inspiring feelings there is?
Oh yeah! The thundering hooves, manes and tails flying, often a whinny or two after they stop. I miss that.
It is magic!!!! I do hope that some scientist, somewhere, will do some research on the phenomenon of Stretch Monsters. We simply cannot deny their existence any longer!
I like a gal with a sense of humor that can "stretch" to absurd lengths.
Edited to add: Theresa, I thought you'd enjoy this horse sculpture made out of driftwood:
out in a field with the horses as they were all running wild? I'm pretty sure you have, but man, is that not one of the most amazing and awe inspiring fe
Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
You can earn 10% average annual returns on your investments - https://app.groundfloor.us/r/m2aa7b
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
You can earn 10% average annual returns on your investments - https://app.groundfloor.us/r/m2aa7b
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.