Boston is a farce to take your rights away

[Astralzombie]

Anyway... that was a very entertaining post and had the desired effect. Well done... you appealed to my humorous side.

That makes me happy then.

It's a natural instinct to comfort a crying child and it's one of mine to cheer up a cheerful person when they're feeling down. Of course, there was the potential that you had other reasons to be upset and this could have back fired.

[Jdeadevil]

Why?

Why did you find that interesting. That is exactly the type of brainless, illogical shite that I'm talking about. Utter nonsense. Utter rubbish.

I can supply reasons... I'll list them.. .I'm in a good mood and have 10 minutes to kill.

* I am a special effects makeup artist who does this type of thing. No way can you apply such realistic prosthetic limbs to an actor in 5 seconds. It takes 15 minutes for the glue to dry... but that's irrelevant.

* Where is the wheelchair or prosthetic limbs that he must have been using/wearing to get there. So the guy in the sunglasses removed his harnessed prosthetic limbs then had time to replace them with the most realistic blast ripped limbs potentially seen in the history of gore and special effects makeup?

* look to the right and you will see one of the girls who died, krystle campbell... here she is writhing in pain... having had both her legs blown off and her reproductive organs shredded by shrapnel...



Here is her and a photo taken later when unfortunately and luckily for her... she died... you can see her best friend (in black) in all images... I'll link it rather than show it here...

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac225/bedeekin/boston_massacre_campbell_zpsd27db16d.jpg

* the guy who is apparently Nick Vogt is actually called Jeff Bauman... here he is at the scene...



Here he is when he could walk...



and here he is at the hospital, where after waking up he gave the police a description of one of the bombers.. who coincidentally put the bag next to him...



Do you want any more evidence?

See, the doctor's even played by Bradley Cooper! ... *Looks around at room full of angry people* .. What?

[Mr.Flip]

smh  and now its like the boston bombing and other tragic events around the world didnt even happen

[Stillwater]

If the faked moon landing theories are laid on the table I won't hesitate to call them out on the wealth of obvious evidence we did.

To me, I don't even really need evidence of this one, lol. I have actually seen the calcuations done, and worked though them- getting an object to the moon and back is actually only ever so slightly harder and more fuel-demanding than getting a satellite into orbit- I don't think the people who argue the moon landing was faked understand space travel or orbital mechanics. I mean yeah, maybe the famous footage was faked, but in principle it isn't that complicated to do it for real. There are around 5-7 nations on earth right now capable of doing it if they wanted in 3 years.

[Mr.Flip]

kiss the moon colony good bye if the govern. gets bigger in the world then it will be even harder for some private individual to get the funds and equip. for it

[Bedeekin]

To me, I don't even really need evidence of this one, lol. I have actually seen the calcuations done, and worked though them- getting an object to the moon and back is actually only ever so slightly harder and more fuel-demanding than getting a satellite into orbit- I don't think the people who argue the moon landing was faked understand space travel or orbital mechanics. I mean yeah, maybe the famous footage was faked, but in principle it isn't that complicated to do it for real. There are around 5-7 nations on earth right now capable of doing it if they wanted in 3 years.

ooooh.. you were doing so well till you got to the faked footage part.

Have you seen any science fiction movies from that era?

[Stillwater]

Lol. I am definitely not at all in support of the idea the footage was faked, only that it is possible, however narrow that possibility is. I think you'll see that if you spend enough time with the sort of arguments I tend to make, a common thread is that I am generally very reluctant to discard possibilities, because to do so generally requires a near-godly amount of insight and knowledge. The admission that I might be wrong and the footage is faked is more a statement about the limitations of my insight than about the footage itself.

For instance, it is possible that there is no such country as Ecuador. It might be a fabrication between map-makers and god-knows who. Maybe every person from Ecuador you have ever met is an actor, if you have met any at all. Perhaps the land occupied by Ecuador on the map actually belongs to Columbia or Peru. Maybe the story of Ecuador was created by chocolate companies who want to disguise the fact that their chocolate strains really came from Brazil.

I can't exclude the possibility of the moon footage being faked for the same reason I can't be sure there is really an Ecuador- but it belongs to the same class of possibilities to me... pretty damn slim chance, haha.

[Bedeekin]

Now you are just being silly. 

Good one though.

[Mr.Flip]

what???
Im pretty sure if it was faked we would know for sure by now
cover ups do work but only for so long, eventually the truth comes out

besides this topic brings up a totally different question about taking your rights away which if no ones cares or pays attention to that then say hello to the dark ages again

[Stillwater]

Lol... you guys are getting too fixated on the details of the argument I made, rather than its import.

I never once argued the moon landings were faked- I argued that my reasoning is not up to the task of knowing the truth when I could be deceived 90 different ways.

[Volgerle]

I don't know but it really lookes somehow faked to me ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB3hcOjy6Zs

[dotster]

The fool believes; the wise man perceives. Beliefs can inhibit you from seeing beyond those beliefs. As humans we do have the option to take the middle road. True and false aren't always useful views to have of the world. At the end of the day you can read up on something and look at all of the information gathered about a subject, but unless you are the one who gathered all of the evidence and did all of the field work, all of the information you have is still second-hand knowledge. To me, taking the middle road is really about just being a good skeptic and holding everything in question until you yourself have a personal experience or revelation that allows you to feel comfortable with the fact the the belief comes from within you, and not from outside influence. Even then a good skeptic will hold their personal beliefs not to be true or false to anyone else except themselves, and even then they are fluid beliefs, able to be molded and adjusted based on later experiences.


dotster

[dotster]

Lol. I am definitely not at all in support of the idea the footage was faked, only that it is possible, however narrow that possibility is. I think you'll see that if you spend enough time with the sort of arguments I tend to make, a common thread is that I am generally very reluctant to discard possibilities, because to do so generally requires a near-godly amount of insight and knowledge. The admission that I might be wrong and the footage is faked is more a statement about the limitations of my insight than about the footage itself.

For instance, it is possible that there is no such country as Ecuador. It might be a fabrication between map-makers and god-knows who. Maybe every person from Ecuador you have ever met is an actor, if you have met any at all. Perhaps the land occupied by Ecuador on the map actually belongs to Columbia or Peru. Maybe the story of Ecuador was created by chocolate companies who want to disguise the fact that their chocolate strains really came from Brazil.

I can't exclude the possibility of the moon footage being faked for the same reason I can't be sure there is really an Ecuador- but it belongs to the same class of possibilities to me... pretty damn slim chance, haha.

Sounds like you have a healthy sense of skepticism to me

[Wi11iam]

The fool believes; the wise man perceives. Beliefs can inhibit you from seeing beyond those beliefs. As humans we do have the option to take the middle road. True and false aren't always useful views to have of the world. At the end of the day you can read up on something and look at all of the information gathered about a subject, but unless you are the one who gathered all of the evidence and did all of the field work, all of the information you have is still second-hand knowledge. To me, taking the middle road is really about just being a good skeptic and holding everything in question until you yourself have a personal experience or revelation that allows you to feel comfortable with the fact the the belief comes from within you, and not from outside influence. Even then a good skeptic will hold their personal beliefs not to be true or false to anyone else except themselves, and even then they are fluid beliefs, able to be molded and adjusted based on later experiences.


dotster

Wise - although it does underline that there is really no need at all for belief.  Full stop.  I think your 'fluid belief' is really better described as perception in regard to that saying "The fool believes; the wise man perceives." and it is perception which propels and is allowed to transform as understanding develops...


..."This is how I perceive it now, based on what I have experienced...if anyone can expand on this or offer another way of looking at it which I have not obviously (through my account of it) thought about, I am open to new data, even if that data provides information which  causes me to doubt altogether or change significantly my perceptions of it."

We are here to learn, and this is better achieved together, open-mindedly and rationally/logically etc...to the best of our immediate abilities.

[dotster]

The last post in a nut-shell is me simply expressing the thought that beliefs interfere with perception, which therefore interferes with progression through said perception. It's not to say that logic doesn't still doesn't play a part however. As mentioned in Stillwater's post previously, having never been to Ecuador how could I possibly say without a doubt that it even exists? Logic tells me that it should exist because pictures of the country, people, and culture exist as well as stories from people who have been, but I simply don't let logic decide my beliefs for me, even though the chance that it does not exist is a lot less logical. Now, I have actually been to Ecuador and I know it does exist, but would you take my word for it if I were the only person who had ever been there? How many people would it take to make you believe that it does in fact exist without actually going there yourself? For me personally the answer will always be one. It only takes one to convince me, and that is myself. Information from other people aids my logic, not my beliefs.

We are here to learn, and this is better achieved together, open-mindedly and rationally/logically etc...to the best of our immediate abilities.

Beautifully put. All of you here on this forum help me to expand my knowledge and grow on a day-to-day basis as a person, and for that I am sincerely grateful to you all.

[Mr.Flip]

who cares when its was made we have better rockets now!!