"RING OF POWER"

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject: "RING OF POWER"

Step out of the line of sheep - watch it.

search youtube or mininova.org

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:08 pm Post subject:

Oh oh..here we go again Very Happy

Homework for you: do a google search for "emergent behaviour". The TED talks on the subject could be interesting.

After that, try to imagine the emergent behaviour with "money" as an incentive. See if you still need your big boogyman to explain everything (does make life a lot simpler).

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject:

Ah nohachi, i was expecting your response Very Happy

For once i'd like to hear your opinion instead of getting references to other sources. Puh

So if you could elaborate a bit on the subject, that would be appreciated. You're too quick to draw conclusions on my views, i see no boogymen in this documentary, just another side of "truth" which is told in schools/media. What anyone makes of it is his own decision. So please, do share your opinion. Those two lines were far from clarifying to me. Blonde question

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject:

No time now, but the emergent behaviour remark was serious. If you want to understand my views, it helps to understand emergent behaviour. And usually the people at TED or similar seminars do a better and more interesting job of explaining it Smile

By the way, it is quite an interesting subject (emergent behaviour, not the "NWO" BS;)

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject:

Sorry man, but throwing a two word phrase on the table is hardly illuminating. I understand what it means, i read about it when studying for my urban planing course, yet i cant really see the direct connection to my post.

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject:

Ok, but if you really want to battle this out, then its probably better to do so via msn or something. Slowchatting via the forum would take centuries and probably just lead to a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

Basically: Take creationism. People look at the world around them and conclude that it is very complicated. Suspiciously complicated. So they conclude that there must have been someone planning this, some devine hand guiding all the devellopments on the planet. They search for some evidence and conclude that some things are not fully explained yet, so creationism must be true.

On the other hand you have this old geezer that comes up with a simple rule: natural selection, and goes on to explain many (but not all) things we observe in nature (note that this is an other way of providing evidence). The emergent behaviour of natural selection tends towards a world filled with specialised, complicated and intelligent creatures that we see around us.. Through a lot of small steps.

Which one you believe is irrelevant. To me the whole buisiness of conspiracy theorists is similar to creationsm (in fact many conspiracy theorists go on to doubt Darwinism as well. Most of them ending up with "alien intelligence" kind of theories). You take a look at the world around you and conclude that its complicated. In fact some things (like the war on Iraq) can not be understood if you believe the official story. That is all very good. It is VERY stupid to blatently believe what the media tells you. Especially because most "news" these days is generated by a "yournalist" sitting in his hotelroom spitting through the Reuters newsfeeds.
So things are more complicated then governments want us to believe..
Conspiracy theorists then immediately jump to the extreme conclusion: everything is being controlled by a group of mastermind conspiracy leaders that have controlled the world for centuries. Thats the bit that I don't subscribe to..
I believe that you don't need a global conspiracy to explain the world we see around us. That what you see is the emergent behaviour of a world where everyone egoistically strives to enrich themselves as much as they can, combined with a system where money immediately implies more influence and vice versa.

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:37 pm Post subject:

And i agree, in a way. My purpose was just to get people thinking - that is the first step. I do not take every sassy conspiracy by heart, but i do think it makes for a good balance to the downright stupid official explanations, stories and lullabies (Reuters right there on top, as you mentioned).

As far as emergence vs. creationism goes - again i think, both are correct in a way. I think its such a fascinating time we live in, when science and spirituallity are finnally comming together. More and more of the "untangible" spiritual phenomena can be even mathematically prooven. The biggest right now beeing the so called "oneness" in the spiritual or the "superstring/unified field theory" in the physics world. Now does this mean that all the spirituallity in the history of mankind was invane? Quite the contrary in my opinion. Its a time of great change and anyone with some sense can understand how "money" cannot exist anymore in the (near) future, as you mentioned. Not with the intelligence/technology/level of conscioussness that we have.

See i dont believe that the state of the world is as such, becuse everyone acts to be a programmed egoist. Not everyone is like that - i would even dare to say more and more are not. Creationists have been mislead by the church and the (un)holy bible, thinking there must be a god, something superior to us all, that controlls everything. This is very passivising.

On the other hand the so called emergence is also passivising in a sense that people do not see their active roll in the process. Here's where the emergent phenomena gets very scketchy - can consciousness be built with such events? I'm sure time will tell, but none the less, we need to realise the active roll that we have. There is no "GOD" above us, we are the GOD. The whole cosmic consciousness is GOD, all the living and "dead" nature, with all of us included.

This is something else i'd like to talk about. Are we our brain? Is our brain our consciousness? "Emergence" would say yes. It is the growing in complexity that provides soutions to ever growing questions/problems. But the big ditch here is that this phenomena is limited only to the part of the vibration/energy spectre that we can sense. The span of "existence" is so great one can only (literally) dream of. Anyone who's ever given meditation at least a semi-decent effort or has had OBE's or shifts of consciousness etc., knows what i'm talking about.

So again, i'm on neither side, because i think its just two sides of the same coin, as clichee as it sounds. But with advances in science on one hand and spirituallity/consciouss awakening on the other both of these will come together, I think. But the emphassis here is that this roll of ours or the role of all the parts in the system is a very active one.

Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:28 am Post subject:

Zeitgeist is way better and less boring

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject:

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

Some background on Zeitgeist, with some references that (should the impossible occur and someone becomes interested in something as boring as facts) allow people to cross check them.

No kidding-> the fact checking bit is boring stuff. I guess thats why most conspiracy nuts don't bother. Smile

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject:

Interesting site. I'm loving the fact that somebody took so much time for this topic, but unfortunately, just the same as zeitgeist this guy is highly motivated to draw (pre-set) conclusions. I gave a site an hour or two and it soon becomes pretty clear that the "research" aspect is far from neutral. I also checked his references and its not very convincing. In my opinion, you can make the same thing look good or bad, choosing or twisting the evidence as see fit.

We people just love to take sides don't we? Very Happy

When it comes to theese conspiracies, you always have two major groups of people; one group will believe everything by default and the other will reject or frown upon everything by default. But this has less to do with what people really belive, than with peoples personalities (or ego). And so, its impossible to get constructive/objective resoults or opinions (well actually there is no such thing as objective opinion is there).

Its a shame that both of these parties work as enemies, where if they would work together, a combined research/discussion would surely bring out the truth - that is what they were set out to find no?

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject:

conspiracy...no conspiracy

...It's all about the Benjamins anyway.

Cash is king Crying or Very sad

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:47 am Post subject:

i like the quote of Michiu Kaku (physicist) on weather we're alone in the universe or not. He said: "either we are alone or we are not, either thought is scary" Very Happy

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:42 am Post subject:

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:51 am Post subject:

I don't think the site I linked to is authorative, but I think its always good to hear other sides to a story.

Both sides are keen to prove a point. It is your responsability to check their logic, check their facts and make up your own mind. If you don't do that and just blindly follow propaganda thats fed to you....well wouldn't that make you the sheep that you are making other people out to be?

Apolan: you checked some references and didn't find it very convincing. Now THAT is a good start. Check some facts/references outside of the conspiracy community and you are on your way to becoming better informed.

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject:

I am checking. As I mentioned, I take into account everything from scientific researches to old mythologies and shamanic chants/stories, because i believe theese are all just different views on the same thing. In between is a gray area, where margin for misinterpretation is ironically the largest (enter conspracy vs. government propaganda). I think we all agree on that.

It only makes sense to believe in what ever makes sense to you the most. The whole officiall explanation of 9/11 for example just doesn't cut it for me. i'm studying to be an architect so i do have some knowledge in structural engineering/mechanics, and from what i've seen.. well nothing is impossible, but sure seemed highly inprobable to me, regardles of what firefighters/witnesses saw. That guy just claims "believe it or not" (so much for scientific approach huh Very Happy

) there arent many ways for a building to go down. Actually there are many ways; controled demolition is not only to make the building collapse properly, not to damage other buildings, but also to actually bring it down completely. Its not as easy to bring the whole thing down efectively without the knowlidge.

That smaller building (tower 7 or whatever) was specially suspicious, and as for the towers.. when you're designing such a project, the safety margin is doubled. Unless theese planes were packed with explosives, i just cannot see a way for the thing to go down. Speed of the plane is irrelevant in my opinion, as the horizontal forces in case of wind or earthquakes are thousant times greater. As for fire.. well if the burning rugs and paper documents weakened the steel core, than those were some very lousy structural engineers..

The whole "landed on the moon thing" is also a bit sketchy (if we landed there 50 years ago, hey why arent we up there making serious research, instead ofhaving geologists still foriging for "interesting stones that might be similar to those up there" in nevada desert or the like).

The money part i the most unsure of, as i'm an economy-faculty dropout Very Happy

But it doesnt take much research to see how money corrupts people.. also you can see that the more wealth acumulated, higher the greed.. so anything is possible really. Not too sure about them lizard people tho Very Happy

So this is jsut my logic, without witnesess' reports or balsy theories..

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:26 pm Post subject:

1: Twin towers? To me totally believable..but then I'm just a civil engineer who has studied 7 years on building mechanics..All those things about fire safety..you're just guessing arent you? Wink

2: Building #7? Now THAT was weird..

3: Moon landing? Dude..you really need to do some research..that means reading something other then conspiracy sites. You really believe all that shit they feed you without actually checking some references yourself?

Now its just a matter of waiting for all the other parts of the religion to pop up... blah blah blah AIDS (but never ever speak to an actual doctor to get some background), blah blah blah Zionism,...vapor trails..The list is endless. Amazing what just the illusion of research will get people to believe.

By the way..this isn't aimed at anyone here in particular. So please don't feel directly offended.

Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:53 am Post subject:

Pardon me for going offtopic, but about that moonlanding, it just isnt convincing some people went to a place called the moon in 1969 with 1969 supercomputers having the same amount of power than our average calculator... plus that moon rover, the lunar module actually lifting again from the moon and gathering with the main module, and other crap...

I know what you'r thinking, you saw that mithbusters special on apollo 11 but to me that is just plain old crap and they proved NOTHING being their experiments directed to prove the man was on the moon...

Im sure if there was a russian mithbusters they would prove the opposite.

I believe Yuri Gagarin and Leika went to outter space, that wasnt hard in the 60's, but going to the moon and actulaly coming back is just proposterous.

Anyone with a common sense of mechanics and phisics should know better, plus you have to really frame this in the cold war era, america just couldnt bear with being number two...

in my opinion: STAGED in some studio.

PS: There's some guy on youtube stalking the apollo 11 and other apollo crews making them swear on the bible they really went to the moon... funny they have a real problem doing that, only Buzz did it...

Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:55 am Post subject:

So basically because you believe it was difficult and astronauts wouldn't talk to someone stalking them, the moonlanding didn't happen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be a lot of belief (are rather more unbelief Smile

) involved.
While the "belief" approach is one method, after the beliefs-system days of glory (the dark ages - medieval times) most of the world has switched to the scientific method: gathering and weighing the evidence from various sources. Mostly because it produces better results. One good source to try out that approach would be this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_eviden...llo_Moon_landings

It shows some "evidence", but more importantly, also their references. So like the zeitgeist debunk, you don't have to believe anything, but go and check one or two pieces of evidence provided. The missions were observed from a few places in Europe (and some of the things they left behind are still in use today), so you don't have to visit the US to talk to some people who are involved in the whole thing. I'll bet that there are even some forums, totally unrelated to Apollo or NASA, where you could talk to some people yourself. I work with an Astronomer and if you are really interested, I can try and put you in contact with some people working on laser rangefinding.

To me, if the whole thing was a conspiracy, the sheer complexity of the hoax, the mindblowing number of people involved (almost millions if you include design, manufacturing, tracking, Coms, telescopes, etc), the fact that everyone has managed to keep their mouths shut: That would be an achievement more impressive then the whole moon landing Smile

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:57 am Post subject:

NoHachi i'll leave it to you and your scientific approach, to each his own as i said. I have my own ways of making opinions, scientific approach beeing just one part.

Believe it or not, i never actually read any conspiracy site, because it gets very clear very soon that they are trying very hard to convince people to believe their story. Almost kinda like you trying to present your beliefs, on top of your references and experience. This is not a muscle brawl, of whos got more cred to talk about this, simply what you believe. I've seen many buldings burn for a lot longer than the towers have and they got renewed and the structure is still in tact to see another day. The officiall explanation was that the carpets, furnutire and paper documents fueled the fire. Just how hot do they burn? To me its a sign of terrrrrrrriiible fire proofing, or it just didnt happen that way. Again, not saying its impossible, just superhard for me to accept that. To you it might be different, after all you got 2 years on me in the field.

As for the moon, most of my opinion is based on my common (non)sense. Its just rediculus why wouldnt we go back there to do reaserch or maybe even start developing some structures there etc. And judging by the time this happened, i see every reason to go to extreme lengths and costs to duplicate something like this.

Again, you can have your beliefs and i'll have mine. Wink

And i will much rather listen to your opinion, instead of getting diverted to various references, i can find much of it myself when i feel the urge.

The evolution is exponential so the amount of information and choice is also increasing with an exponential rate. The human mind already cannot cope with it and it will get harder and harder to grasp to something. There is however another mechanism built into us, which is much better than the rusty mind - intuition. This does not discard the "scientific reasearch" only brings it to another level. At this stage that we're in you can challenge every belief, every proof, every evidence and always get different outcome. Thus relying only on "scientific proof" just doesnt seem very provident to me.

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:43 am Post subject:

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject:

no because the ussr is in the conspiracy too Puh

about the towers, what was that massive explosion on the impact? i could swear its the several tons of kerosine going up in flames. sorry man, i just cant take that explanation. to bring down the entire steel core structure, fire proofed, in what an hour or so?

And the fact that building 7 just imploded on itself by a force of god just makes the whole deal alot more suspicious. unless they had some serious amount of archives there too.. Very Happy

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject:

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:06 am Post subject:

Thanks, i'll definatelly have a looksie, i like to listen to smart people. Smile

Btw, just went to see Brüno in the movies. Holly bazookas! He took Borat and exponated it million times. It is ofcourse funny as hell, i was crying and stomping my feet, rediculous.. but somehow i just had this paralyzing feeling inside me at the end. Please somebody tell me that those sceenes were staged. If not, than i have little hope left for american people Neutral