Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered

Author Topic: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered  (Read 70318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #80 on: March 29, 2012, 03:43:32 PM »
Example 20

Statistics are used to trick you.





Go figure: Why nothing is really news at all

Michael Blastland By Michael Blastland

GO FIGURE - Seeing stats in a different way

Seen the news today? It's all about what happens. In his final Go Figure column, Michael Blastland wants to know about what didn't.

Say it's reported that candy floss doubles your risk of dying suddenly. Sounds bad.

Now flip this risk around so that it's expressed as the chance of nothing happening.

The first way of looking at it is a 100% increase in risk.

The second might mean a fall in your chance of nothing happening of 0.00001%.

This is because the actual daily risk of sudden death from accident, violence or poisoning and the like is about one in a million. Double it and you get two in a million. That's your 100%.

Meanwhile, the chance of being OK might fall from 999,999 in a million, to 999,998 in a million. Suddenly, it doesn't sound so bad.

This characteristic of risk, to see things only in terms of what happens, or might happen, rather than what doesn't, is actually a bias. Sometimes what doesn't happen is as important a way of seeing the world as what does.

In a sketch by comedians Mitchell and Webb, a filmmaker (Mitchell) is interviewed about his oeuvre after a clip from his latest work - Sometimes Fires Go Out. In the film, a small fire in the kitchen - yep, you got it - goes out. That's it.

Quote
that mitchell and webb look - Sometimes Fires go out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYmXiP0-PnA

The interviewer (Webb) says the film has been reviewed as "unrelentingly real", "a devastatingly faithful rendition of how life is" and "dull, dull, unbearably dull".

He introduces another: "The Man who had a Cough and it's just a Cough and he's Fine." Two Victorian lovers meet on the station platform. The man, spluttering, looks more pallid and doomed with each encounter.

"It's just a cough," he says, stoically. Except that it is - just a cough. In the last scene, he's dandy. It is one of the finest comic sketches about probability you'll ever see. But then, not much competition.

Stories are about what happens - they're not about what doesn't. Anton Chekov said: "If in Act I you have a pistol hanging on the wall, then it must fire in the last act." If nothing happens in a story, it's a joke. But the boring truth in real life is that, usually, nothing happens. Usually, the gun isn't fired.

Likewise, a cough is not a statistically significant event, but if a man coughs in an episode of the hospital drama Casualty, it's a triple heart bypass.

Jerker Denrell teaches at Oxford Business School. He describes hearing a presentation about the attributes of top entrepreneurs. Writing in the Harvard Business review, he said the argument went as follows: "All of these leaders shared two key traits, which accounted for their success: They persisted, often despite initial failures, and they were able to persuade others to join them."

The only trouble was, said Denrell, these selfsame traits are necessarily the hallmark of spectacularly unsuccessful entrepreneurs.

The difference is that the successful ones are still around and they're the ones we look to for examples. The ones for whom success didn't happen have gone - and are often ignored.

Denrell wrote that some studies have shown a failure rate of 50% of all new businesses during their first three to five years. After rapid growth in the US tyre industry for example, the number of firms peaked in 1922 at 274. By 1936, more than 80% were gone. That is, usually, boringly, big success doesn't happen.


"Anyone studying the industry in the 1930s," said Denrell, "would have been able to observe just a very small sample of the population that had originally entered."

If you want to study success, you have to pay as much attention to those for whom it didn't happen as to those for whom it did to see if your explanations for success are exclusive to success. But business bestsellers are not known for stories of those who never made it.

One last example. In his book Picturing the Uncertain World, Howard Wainer describes the apparent success of small schools, bringing massive charitable funding to the cause of making schools smaller.

And it's true that small schools were more often at the top of the leagues than you'd expect. About 12% of the top 50 schools for maths scores came from the smallest 3% of schools overall. The only problem was that small schools were also more often at the bottom of the leagues than you'd expect - about 18% of the bottom 50.

Wainer's explanation for the small schools phenomenon was that the ability of children in small schools just bounces around a lot more from year to year because it's a smaller sample.

But if you're looking for the keys to success, maybe you don't look at the bottom. Lack of success might strike you as a non-event, if it strikes you at all.

This is the last Go Figure. It's about to become a regular non-event. Hearty thanks to all who've followed us.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17434638


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline 37

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,362
  • "The President of what?"
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #81 on: March 29, 2012, 03:54:53 PM »
I like that one a lot!  Statistics are a good example of how to "baffle them with bullshit".

Was looking at the post on alcohol(Example 17) and was reminded of this...

Do fruit flies use alcohol to cope with sexual rejection?
http://news.yahoo.com/fruit-flies-alcohol-cope-sexual-rejection-160200312.html

Great thread!
"Whatever it is, I am against it."  -Groucho Marx

Channel 37
http://www.youtube.com/user/jmortimer37

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #82 on: March 30, 2012, 02:23:52 PM »
To a certain degree everyone is socially engineered and succumbs to those dictates if for nothing more than to live in this world.

 I have lived and will continue to live by this precept: Question everything, especially those answers that seem to make sense and bring order to my life.

 Seeking the truth keeps the mind active and agile.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2012, 03:46:55 AM »

Useful information
How to Buy a Car, Using Game Theory

Article and Video - http://bigthink.com/ideas/41819

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, author of The Predictioneer's Game, shares his foolproof method for getting your next car for the lowest price possible.


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2012, 05:09:05 PM »

Example 21

Popular explanations of how wings (aerodynamic lift) work are often erroneous and scientifically unsound

The paper airplane guy (Bernoulli's principle comment at 7:50)
http://www.wimp.com/airplaneguy/

It is amazing that today, almost 100 years after the first flight of the Wright Flyer, groups of engineers, scientists, pilots, and others can gather together and have a spirited debate on how an airplane wing generates lift. Various explanations are put forth, and the debate centers on which explanation is the most fundamental.
— John D. Anderson, Curator of Aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum

Other alternative explanations for the generation of lift
Many other alternative explanations for the generation of lift by an airfoil have been put forward, of which a few are presented here. Most of them are intended to explain the phenomenon of lift to a general audience. Although the explanations may share features in common with the explanation above, additional assumptions and simplifications may be introduced. This can reduce the validity of an alternative explanation to a limited sub-class of lift generating conditions, or might not allow a quantitative analysis. Several theories introduce assumptions which proved to be wrong, like the equal transit-time theory.

An explanation of lift frequently encountered in basic or popular sources is the equal transit-time theory. Equal transit-time states that because of the longer path of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to catch up with the air flowing around the bottom, i.e. the parcels of air that are divided at the leading edge and travel above and below an airfoil must rejoin when they reach the trailing edge. Bernoulli's Principle is then cited to conclude that since the air moves faster on the top of the wing the air pressure must be lower. This pressure difference pushes the wing up.

However, equal transit time is not accurate and the fact that this is not generally the case can be readily observed. Although it is true that the air moving over the top of a wing generating lift does move faster, there is no requirement for equal transit time. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply
.

The assertion that the air must arrive simultaneously at the trailing edge is sometimes referred to as the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy".

Note that while this theory depends on Bernoulli's principle, the fact that this theory has been discredited does not imply that Bernoulli's principle is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29


Popular explanations of how wings work are often erroneous and scientifically unsound



Bernoulli's principle
Wrong explanations may be given by well-meaning teachers and others, but false teaching may sometimes be just for convenience. Many years ago, a famous aerodynamicist, Dr. Theodore Von Karman, instructed his assistant: "When you are talking to technically illiterate people you must resort to the plausible falsehood instead of the difficult truth." (From Stories of a 20th Century Life, ISBN 0-915760-04-5, by W.R. Sears, former assistant to Von Karman). Falsehood, whether intentional or not, is still being taught.



The most popular theory of wing operation, which we may call Hump Theory, because it requires a wing to have a more convex upper surface as compared to the lower, is easily shown to be false. Hump theory is based on an assumption of equal transit times, that air passage over a curved upper wing surface must occur in the same length of time as air passage below where the surface is more flat, and hence of a shorter path length. In order to have the same transit time, flow at the longer path upper surface must be of greater velocity than that at the lower surface. Thus, in accordance with Bernoulli's law, it is reasoned that upper surface pressure must then be less than at the lower surface, thereby producing upward lift. Equal transit time is sometimes illustrated by representing bits of passing flow above and below an airfoil or wing as shown here:

Although Bernoulli's law is sound and well proven, this popular explanation, world-wide, of wing operation is false. Upper surface flow is indeed faster than the lower, so much so that upper surface transit time is normally less than the lower, as indicated here:



Although the assumption of equal transit time is wrong and has no basis in known physics, it can be found in books from otherwise reputable publishers such as National Geographic, Macmillan and others in this country and abroad. College level teaching of aerodynamicists and aeronautical engineers does not include equal transit time, which cannot survive mathematical investigation

The fallacy of equal transit time can be deduced from consideration of a flat plate, which will indeed produce lift, as anyone who has handled a sheet of plywood in the wind can testify.

http://www.regenpress.com/



A fluid flowing past the surface of a body exerts surface force on it. Lift is any component of this force that is perpendicular to the oncoming flow direction. It contrasts with the drag force, which is the component of the surface force parallel to the flow direction. If the fluid is air, the force is called an aerodynamic force.

Lift is commonly associated with the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft, although lift is also generated by propellers; kites; helicopter rotors; rudders, sails and keels on sailboats; hydrofoils; wings on auto racing cars; wind turbines and other streamlined objects. While the common meaning of the word "lift" assumes that lift opposes gravity, lift in its technical sense can be in any direction since it is defined with respect to the direction of flow rather than to the direction of gravity. When an aircraft is flying straight and level (cruise) most of the lift opposes gravity. However, when an aircraft is climbing, descending, or banking in a turn, for example, the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical. Lift may also be entirely downwards in some aerobatic manoeuvres, or on the wing on a racing car. In this last case, the term downforce is often used. Lift may also be horizontal, for instance on a sail on a sailboat.

An airfoil is a streamlined shape that is capable of generating significantly more lift than drag. Non-streamlined objects such as bluff bodies and plates (not parallel to the flow) may also generate lift when moving relative to the fluid, but will have a higher drag coefficient dominated by pressure drag.

Many other alternative explanations for the generation of lift by an airfoil have been put forward, of which a few are presented here. Most of them are intended to explain the phenomenon of lift to a general audience. Although the explanations may share features in common with the explanation above, additional assumptions and simplifications may be introduced. This can reduce the validity of an alternative explanation to a limited sub-class of lift generating conditions, or might not allow a quantitative analysis. Several theories introduce assumptions which proved to be wrong,

"Popular" explanation based on equal transit-time


An illustration of the (incorrect) equal transit-time theory

An explanation of lift frequently encountered in basic or popular sources is the equal transit-time theory. Equal transit-time states that because of the longer path of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to catch up with the air flowing around the bottom, i.e. the parcels of air that are divided at the leading edge and travel above and below an airfoil must rejoin when they reach the trailing edge. Bernoulli's Principle is then cited to conclude that since the air moves faster on the top of the wing the air pressure must be lower. This pressure difference pushes the wing up.[36]

However, equal transit time is not accurate[37][38][39] and the fact that this is not generally the case can be readily observed.[40] Although it is true that the air moving over the top of a wing generating lift does move faster, there is no requirement for equal transit time. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply.[6]

The assertion that the air must arrive simultaneously at the trailing edge is sometimes referred to as the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29




That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,649
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2012, 08:24:54 PM »
JT. Bingo, the ekites-banksters-absolutly had to asassinate Lincoln.
  Just as JFK called them out from under their rocks.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2012, 09:14:24 PM »
JT. Bingo, the ekites-banksters-absolutly had to asassinate Lincoln.
  Just as JFK called them out from under their rocks.


The Sword of Damocles - United States Presidents Who crossed the International Money Interests
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=118188.0


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,873
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2012, 10:29:40 PM »


Ever since I ran across excerpts from PANDORA'S BOX, a book by Alex Christopher
a few years ago with the following info my notions about Abraham Lincoln have
been ... at best ... confused. I have looked but can't find anyone who definitively
disproves this info ... has anyone else?

Indeed ... everything you know is wrong:


P A N D O R A ' S  B O X


by Alex Christopher

    Little has been published about the early life of Abraham Lincoln. However, during a search of some old property records and will in a small courthouse in central North Carolina, Alex Christopher the author of "Pandora's Box", found the will of one A.A. Springs in an old will book dated around 1840. Upon reading the will he was shocked and amazed at the secret it disclosed. But the fact is that wills, even though classified as public records the same as property and corporation records, are rarely combed through as he was doing. These documents can hold dark secrets hidden from public view and never uncovered because few research these old records.

    Thus secrets are hidden in public view so that when accused of concealing the records, bureaucracy can reply "It was on public record in plan view for any and all to find."

    The will of the late A.A. Springs lists his property and to whom the beneficiaries who included his children. Mr. Christopher and others were looking to find what railroads and banks this man might have owned and left to his son Leroy Springs. He didn't find anything like that, but he did find the prize of the century. On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which is now known as Huntsville, Alabama. At first Mr. Christopher and his colleagues could not believe what their eyes, because the name of his son was "ABRAHAM LINCOLN"!

    This new information added to what they had already learned about the Springs, whose real name was Springstein, was one more twist to this already enigmatic family. This unexpected knowledge about Lincoln set their hearts on fire to see what further secrets this new lead might disclose. Because everything they had so far found in the railroad and banking saga had been really mind-opening, they figured this one would be the same. So they investigated the local archives and historical records on families and found a reference to one Abraham Lincoln in a published genealogy of a Carolina family by the name of McAdden. This genealogy was a limited edition of the type once found in the public libraries. The section on Lincoln resembled the following form of words:

    "In the late spring of the year of 1808 Nancy Hanks, who was of the family lineage of McAdden was visiting some of her family in the community of Lincolnton, North Carolina. During her stay in the Carolina's, she visited many neighboring families she had known for many years; one such was the Springs family. The sordid details had been omitted but obviously the young Nancy Hanks had found herself in a compromised position and was forced to succumb to the lust of A.A. Springs. She became pregnant as a result. There were no details of a love affair or an act of violence on a helpless female. Abraham Lincoln was the result of that act, which leads one to wonder if the name Lincoln was real or fabricated from the area of conception which was Lincolnton. Was there really a Thomas Lincoln? Since the Springs were of the race that called themselves "Jewish," Lincoln was part Jewish and as part of the Springs family, he also became a relative of the Rothschild family by blood."

    The following data was derived from information that exists in the Smithsonian Institute, National Archives, the Congressional Library, Courtroom Police files, public and private libraries and storage vaults across the United States and Europe: "Abraham Lincoln was slapped three times with a white glove by a member of the Hapsburg royal family of Germany (Payseur family relatives) during a White House reception in 1862. The German royal family member demanded a pistol duel with the then President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. The blows to the face stunned Lincoln but he non-verbally refused to participate in the duel by bowing his head before walking out of the reception room. What had ol' honest Abe done to so enrage and upset the royal European personage?

    It seems that promiscuity was running rampant in many families in those days and the German King Leopold had an illegitimate daughter named Elizabeth who was sent to America, where she lived in a very comfortable manner. Although Leopold could not recognize her position, he was very interested in her life.

   In the early or mid 1850s, Abraham Lincoln and Elizabeth began having sexual liaisons that produced twin daughters named Ella and Emily in 1856. The regal German father who was so royally upset with ol' honest Abe probably had full knowledge of the true blood line of Lincoln. Abraham's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, did not find out about Elizabeth, Ella and Emily until 1865.

    Lincoln's wife Mary Todd was into the occult. Abraham Lincoln was a Rosicrucian and a member of the Order of the Lily's Council of Three along with Paschal Beverly Randolph and General Ethan Allen Hitchcock. The Todd family are considered by the Illuminati as part of the Collins boodline (one of the top illuminati families that has managed to remain low key. It is believed that the Collins family has been kept secret because they wield more power than the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers. Research shows the family has been connected to witchcraft since they arrived in New England in the 1630's, and at least part of the British Collins family are Jewish).

    Previous to being informed about Elizabeth and the twins, Mrs. Lincoln had developed a ravaging dependency on opium. Her main supplier of the drug was a former member of the Confederate Intelligence community. He was a "former" member because the Southern gentlemen did not approve of his drug pushing and unreliable behavior. It was because of his involvement with the Southern Intelligence Community, that Mary's supplier—John Wilkes Booth—knew about the lover and the illegal twins.

    After being spurned by the Confederate intelligence community, Mary's 'candy man' approached and became involved with the Rothschild Empire of Europe, for he realized the European banking moguls would be very interested in his pipeline to the White House. (At this time) Abraham was searching for an issue that would unite the North and South. After the Civil War ended. The issue needed to be popular to all levels of American citizenry so they could 'rally around the Stars and Stripes' thus rapidly healing the wounds of the bloodiest war in history.

    Lincoln was seriously considering one major movement or event that would galvanize his fellow Northern and Southern patriot countrymen into cutting loose the United States of America from the dictatorial grip of the Hapsbergs bloodline and banking control in Europe. At this time the Rothschilds were trying to take control of the entire world monetary system, and also trying to get a foot-hold in America and find a way around the British, Virginia Company, and French Bourbon family that were gaining influence over this country with government help . . .

    Lincoln found himself in real hot water, because the 48 families that formed the Virginia Company covenant, were all of the Holy Grail Bloodline. This country was to be an extension of the dominion of the royal families of Europe. The royalty of Europe is Hapsburg, no matter what their name. The royal family of England is one such example.

    Lincoln wanted to become independent of the cognate (or common descent) on the Rothschild side. . . the Rothschilds and their family bloodline have always been undermining the affairs of the Hapsbergs and stealing monetary control away from them. No matter what the history books say, the Rothschilds did not get real control on things in America and the Federal Reserve until the Springs usurped the Payseur family companies in the early 1920s. . . (But Lincoln had fallen from Rothschild grace, due in part to his Executive Order to print United States Greenbacks, thus interfering with the Jewish International Banks' profits) It appears that the Rothschild family wanted Lincoln embarrassed to the maximum. (So) Mary Todd's drug dealer (John Wilkes Booth) was hired to kidnap the President of the United States.

    Abraham Lincoln was to be put on board a boat for a two month Atlantic cruise where he would be injected with and addicted to opium, and then dumped on the streets of Washington. While the forcefully addicted President was stumbling around our nation's capital, the press would be informed of Elizabeth, Ella and Emily. The drug pusher (Booth) and collaborator (agent) of the Rothschilds had his perfect accomplice in the plot to kidnap and discredit the leader of the North American continent in the First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln.

    After being informed of her husband's lover and the twins and the kidnap plot by her drug supplier, Mary was promised that after her husband resigned or was impeached, she and Abe would be moved to Europe to live happily ever after with plenty of opium. Superficially Mary expressed a desire to live in Europe with plenty of opium and no Civil War or politics to distract her husband or family. But her drug supplier had totally underestimated the confusion, desperation and anger of Mary Todd Lincoln. The plotters decided the Presidential snatch needed to take place in a public, yet discreet location where a minimum witnesses would be present. There were too many potential witnesses at the White House. Two hours before the capture was to take place, Mary Todd threw a tantrum on the floor, because Abe had decided not to go out of the White House that night.

    Mary's outrageous outburst caused Abe to change his mind and the First family departed. Several minutes after arriving at the kidnap location, Mary instructed the family bodyguard to take a position that placed the First Family out of his visual sight. The position also required the bodyguard to traverse several flights of stairs to reach Abe and Mary should he be needed for any reason. . . A wagon with a wooden cover arrived at the back entrance of the kidnap location with several men including Mary's opium supplier. The plan was for the drug pusher to traverse the backstairs entrance, silently move down a hallway, and open an unlocked door to a darkened room where Mary and Abe were sitting. After entering the room, Mary's drug man (Booth) would tell the President an urgent message was waiting for him at the War Department. Before descending the backstairs, Abe would be knocked out with a chloroform cloth. The kidnappers would load the limp body into the covered wagon and swiftly stow Lincoln on an opium boat for a novel 'cruise' of the Atlantic Ocean.

    When Booth actually opened the door to the darkened room where Abe and Mary were sitting, he went into a panic and shock. Abe was asleep with his head on Mary's left shoulder and the First Lady had her head turned toward the left looking at the door. . . When she was sure the man who opened the door was Booth, she turned and looked at the President to be sure the pistol she was pointing would explode beneath the lower left earlobe of her husband. Before Mary pulled the trigger, John Wilkes Booth, drug supplier to the First Lady, realized he was the patsy in all this mess. But he did not know if he was only Mary's patsy or also a chump for the Rothschild family. Were the men hiding around the back door of Ford's Theater there to help Booth with the kidnaping or to point the false finger at the 'innocent' Booth? Booth was not about to run into the hallway or down the backstairs to find out the answer to that question. The only escape route was to jump the balcony and crash onto the stage during the performance. That night, Booth gave a literal interpretation of the theatrical phrase 'brake a leg' as he fractured one of his during his leaping act from 'lethally looney Mary' and the men lurking around the back entrance of Ford's Theater.

    In a novelty case on a wall in Ford's Theater is 'The Gun That Shot Abraham Lincoln.' If anyone (assassin) were to kill a head of state, they would use a revolver, because several bullets might be needed to accomplish the murder and stop any guards during the escape. One would only use a one-shot pistol if they were absolutely sure they had intimate access to the victim. The gun on the wall of Ford's Theater is a derringer — the perfect weapon for the left handed female assassin who did not attend her husbands funeral.

    Mary Todd was not hiding in her room due to overwhelming grief and sorrow; she was imprisoned in her room with two armed guards for two weeks after killing her husband. In the 1860s, an act of Congress mandated the compensation of widows of former and active Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents and Presidents. The amount and duration was ratified by both Houses of Congress for each widow. Mary Todd Lincoln applied for her widowers compensation three times and was denied the mandated compensation three times by both Houses of Congress. An unknown benefactor paid for Mary's passage to Europe where she died in small cottage in Germany.

    In 1867, the Secret Service was founded so that drunken municipal law enforcement could not unwittingly participate with drug-addicted First Ladies or Gentlemen in vengeful high-brow killings of philandering Presidents of the United States. (To cover up the murders committed which would reflect a bad light for the presiding Administration, such as the Vince Foster murder cover-up at the present time). Before Booth jumped out of the balcony of the Presidential Box of the Ford Theater, he shouted at General Riley and his wife who were sitting to the right-front of the Lincolns. Booth's words expressed his innocence but also sealed the fate of the Rileys. Within a week of the shooting, General Riley and his wife were packed off to an insane asylum where they both died of 'unknown causes' within 30 days of being committed." (Pandora's Box, by Alex Christopher, pp. 282-286). It is interesting to note what Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise said of Lincoln in the Cincinnati Commercial, April 20, 1865: "Brethren, the lamented Abraham Lincoln, believed to be bone from our bone and flesh from our flesh. He was supposed to be a descendant of Hebrew parentage. He said so in my presence. And, indeed, he presented numerous features of the Hebrew race, both in countenance and character" (Bertram W. Korn, Eventful Years, p. 133; Sarna and Klein, Jews of Cincinnati, p. 53). pandora.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/pandora.htm



ALSO:

Must see this old thread - all about this statue and more: YIKES!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=32623.msg136827#msg136827


Lincoln Statue in Bennington, Vermont

"This bronze statue grouping by sculptor Clyde DuVernet Hunt depicts three symbols: Abraham Lincoln as Charity, a kneeling woman as Faith, and a child as Hope. Called "The Spirit of America," the work was displayed at the New York World's Fair in 1939 before arriving at the courtyard of the Bennington Museum on West Main Street.





St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #88 on: April 21, 2012, 01:08:28 AM »
Well, regardless of Lincoln's hazy beginnings and the theories surrounding his death... what he did to frustrate the banking establishment and the global usurpers... his attempt to hold our union together as best he could in the face of the provocateurs on all sides, holding to the promise of the founders, his work stands boldly and greatly emblazoned on the face of history...

By their works ye shall know them...

Oldyoti

"If ever time should come, when vain and
aspiring men shall possess the highest seats
in Government, our country will stand in need
of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

~Samuel Adams

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #89 on: April 21, 2012, 04:11:05 AM »
Well, regardless of Lincoln's hazy beginnings and the theories surrounding his death... what he did to frustrate the banking establishment and the global usurpers... his attempt to hold our union together as best he could in the face of the provocateurs on all sides, holding to the promise of the founders, his work stands boldly and greatly emblazoned on the face of history...

By their works ye shall know them...

Oldyoti



Very true...

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was the 16th President of the United States.

Undoubtedly his greatest transgression stemmed from his reaction to the need for money to pay for the war in 186l. When he approached the Secretary of the Treasury, Solomon P. Chase, he was offered loans at 24 to 36 per cent interest, which Lincoln refused. He called on his friend, Colonel Dick Taylor, to help him figure out how to finance the war. Dick replied: "Get Congress to pass a Bill authorising the printing of full legal tender Treasury Notes. Pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war."

In 1862 and 1863 he printed 400,000,000 dollars in interest free "Greenbacks". An editorial in the London Times revealed the bankers' attitude:

"If this mischievous financial policy which had its origin in North America shall become a fixture that government would furnish its own money without cost. It would pay off debts and be without debt, it would have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It would become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy."


Shortly before he was assassinated, Lincoln made the following statement:

"The Money Power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy."


On Lincoln's death Otto von Bismark commented:

"The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilisation. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance."

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=118188.0


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,518
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #90 on: April 21, 2012, 04:35:53 AM »

Very true...

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was the 16th President of the United States.

Undoubtedly his greatest transgression stemmed from his reaction to the need for money to pay for the war in 186l. When he approached the Secretary of the Treasury, Solomon P. Chase, he was offered loans at 24 to 36 per cent interest, which Lincoln refused. He called on his friend, Colonel Dick Taylor, to help him figure out how to finance the war. Dick replied: "Get Congress to pass a Bill authorising the printing of full legal tender Treasury Notes. Pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war."

In 1862 and 1863 he printed 400,000,000 dollars in interest free "Greenbacks". An editorial in the London Times revealed the bankers' attitude:

"If this mischievous financial policy which had its origin in North America shall become a fixture that government would furnish its own money without cost. It would pay off debts and be without debt, it would have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It would become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy."


Shortly before he was assassinated, Lincoln made the following statement:

"The Money Power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy."


On Lincoln's death Otto von Bismark commented:

"The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilisation. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance."

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=118188.0

Brocke...

Every word you have typed above is absolute documented fact...

Some years back I was told that there was no such person as Colonial Dick Taylor... well I had never had reason to doubt the story until that moment, so I went on an in depth search for Dick Taylor... He ended up being one of my favorite characters in history... he was indeed a long time friend of Lincoln's... and had the roles been reversed, would have been equally as colorful... I will dig up some of the stuff on him and post it soon... he was a very wise man indeed.

JTCoyoté

"I am one of those who do not believe
that a national debt is a national blessing,
but rather a curse to a republic; in as
much as it is calculated to raise around
the administration a moneyed aristocracy
dangerous to the liberties of the country."

~Andrew Jackson

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,649
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2012, 03:38:23 PM »
 Thanks, good reads, isn't it allways follow the money trail.
 

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2012, 04:17:44 AM »

Example 22

Primates, gorillas and Chimpanzees, cannot lean to "speak" in sign language.

The Reality Behind Koko & Signing Apes - Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXJXAgX_xOA

The Reality Behind Koko & Signing Apes - Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1

Dr. Roberty Sapolsky of Stanford University discussing the the bizzare story of Dr. Francine 'Penny' Patterson and Koko the 'signing' gorilla.



Are gorillas using sign language really communicating with humans?

[...]

A couple obvious problems present themselves when one looks into this talking-ape business. The first, as you suggest, is that interpretation of the gorilla's conversation, if such it be, is left to the handler, who generally sees any improbable concatenation of signs as deeply meaningful. During the 1998 on-line chat you saw bits of in Harper's (the whole thing is at www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html), for example, Koko, without being prompted or questioned, made the sign for nipple, which Francine Patterson, her trainer, interpreted as a rhyme for "people." (Patterson further claimed that this was a reference to the chat session's audience.) Even if you buy the idea that gorillas, who cannot speak, grasp the concept of rhyme, this sounds like wishful thinking. Similar examples abound: "lips" is supposedly Koko's word for woman, "foot" her word for man. Koko made a lot of signs, and sometimes expressed desires or other thoughts, but nothing in the transcript suggests a sustained conversation, even of the simple sort you might have with a toddler.

That brings us to the second problem. What constitutes language use? In 1979 Herbert Terrace of Columbia University published a skeptical account of his efforts to teach American Sign Language to a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky. Nim accomplished the elementary linguistic task of connecting a sign to a meaning, and could be taught to string signs together to express simple thoughts such as "give orange me give eat." But in Terrace's view Nim could not form new ideas by linking signs in ways he hadn't been taught--he didn't grasp syntax, in other words, arguably the essence of language. (A dog, after all, may understand that bringing his leash to his owner is a sign that he wants to go out, but nobody sees that as evidence of language use.)

Terrace's work was a major blow to talking-ape proponents. But their case started looking stronger in 1990, when researcher Emily Sue Savage-Rumbaugh of Georgia State University presented evidence of language development in a bonobo chimp named Kanzi. One of the more telling complaints made about gorillas like Koko who communicated via sign language was that they often babbled, producing long, apparently meaningless strings of signs. Their handlers would then pluck a few lucky hits from the noise and declare that communication had occurred. Savage-Rumbaugh got around this problem by teaching Kanzi to point to printed symbols on a keyboard, a less ambiguous approach. She claimed that the ape demonstrated a rough grasp of grammar using this system. What's more, when presented with 653 sentences making requests using novel word combinations, Kanzi responded correctly 72 percent of the time--supposedly comparable to what a human child can do at two and a half years old.

Today, from what I can tell, scientific opinion is divided along disciplinary lines. Many researchers who work primarily with animals accept or at least are receptive to the idea that apes can be taught a rudimentary form of language. Linguists, on the other hand, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense. Personally I'm happy to concede that the boundary between animal and human communication isn't as sharply drawn as we once thought. Animals (not just primates--check out Alex the talking African gray parrot sometime) can use language in limited ways. They can respond to simple questions on a narrow range of subjects; they can express basic thoughts and desires. I'll even buy the possibility that some are capable of employing elementary syntax. However, all this strikes me as the equivalent of teaching a computer to beat people at chess--a neat trick, but not one that challenges fundamental notions about human vs nonhuman abilities. I've seen nothing to persuade me that animals can use language as we do, that is, as a primary tool with which to acquire and transmit knowledge. I won't say such a thing is impossible. But in light of the muddled state of the debate so far, the first task is to decide what would constitute a fair test.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2443/are-gorillas-using-sign-language-really-communicating-with-humans

Does Koko the Gorilla pass the Turing test?
http://cantonbecker.com/canton/weird/koko/index.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #93 on: July 05, 2012, 10:58:52 PM »



Example 23

Myth: The moon has a dark side


Myth: The side of the moon that is facing away from the Earth is in permanent darkness, hence the name.

Reality: With the exception of the Pink Floyd album of the same name, the idea of the “dark side of the moon” is totally erroneous.

Of course, that doesn’t actually stop film makers representing it as dark.

The reality is that the term “dark side” only really refers to our understanding of the nature of the moon. In space, the “far side”, as it should really be known, gets equal if not greater solar rays upon it’s dusty grey surface.

http://www.everythingyouknowisalie.co.uk/science/files/579f8cf3730253c6c27c7a336f66996e-29.html

Far side of the Moon
"Both the near and far sides receive (on average) almost equal amounts of light from the Sun. However, the term "dark side of the moon" is commonly used poetically to refer to the far side."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon



That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #94 on: July 05, 2012, 11:39:01 PM »



Example 24

Flying is NOT the safest form of transport


The air transport industry will almost always choose a per km based statistics, which is optimum for them, as most fatalities occur on landing and take-off, while the distances are large.

The one thing that stands out is that, whichever way you look at it, motorcycles are disastrously the most dangerous form of transport. Bus and rail are the safest form of transport by any measure, while road traffic injuries represent the leading cause in worldwide injury-related deaths, their popularity undermines this statistic.

http://www.fp7-restarts.eu/index.php/home/root/state-of-the-art/objectives/2012-02-15-11-58-37/75-book-video/how-a-plane-can-fly-assuring-safety/156-the-risk-of-travel


Statistically, the rank of transport mode is as follows (per passenger hour):

1 (safest): Rail - by far!
2 Road
3 (least safe): Air

Per passenger kilometer (which is sometimes used), the ranking is as follows:

1 (safest): Rail
2 Air
3 (least safe) Road - by far!

I tend to prefer to measure my life by hours, not kilometers.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_flying_the_safest_mode_of_transport#ixzz1zoDsPX3K

Now, don't get me wrong. Flying is very safe. But is it the safest, as is often claimed?

Statistics on the subject are based upon the number of deaths per year per transport. On the face of it, air travel does appear to be relatively safer than other options.

In 2004 - 347 died worldwide due to air traffic accidents while in the UK alone 3,221 died due to road accidents. Which on the face of it makes air travel at least ten times safer (not even taking in account all the other road deaths in the world).

However, as things work out its never so simple. For example, the number of UK flights in the same period numbered 3.5 million while car journeys can be estimated to be in the region of 22 billion. So the reality is that car travel is actually safer per journey than air travel, and by some margin.

Killed in an airline flight - 0.0001369863013698630136986301369863%
Killed by car -               0.00000001826484018264840182648401826484%

http://www.everythingyouknowisalie.co.uk/science/files/4dd7515e3ff4c1d87e45f5014b199618-15.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Jacob Law

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,368
  • Its the Law, face it!
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #95 on: July 06, 2012, 07:45:06 AM »
“All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie”  Robert Zimmerman (Modern Times Album)

The truth is that all of it is a hoax, except the Word of God.

We basically believe what we are told and don’t research hardly a thing.
What do you under-stand?

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,873
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #96 on: July 09, 2012, 09:09:33 AM »

Plants May Communicate by Sound

By Louis Makiello
Epoch Times Staff

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/plants-may-communicate-by-sound-262406.html




EXCERPT:

Some plants may communicate by making clicking noises with their roots, according to new international research.

Using a microscanning laser Doppler vibrometer (a device to measure vibrations), the scientists recorded young maize plants making clicking noises with part of their roots. When the researchers broadcast similar sounds, the plants bent their roots toward it.

“Everyone knows that plants react to light, and scientists also know that plants use volatile chemicals to communicate with each other, for instance, when danger—such as a herbivore—approaches,” said study co-author Monica Gagliano from the University of Western Australia in a news release.

“I was working one day in my herb garden and started to wonder if maybe plants were also sensitive to sounds—why not?—so I decided as a scientist to find out.”

Many plants are known to respond to sound. For example, vibrations cause sensitive plants to fold their leaves, and flowers like blueberries and tomatoes only release pollen at the ultrasound frequency of a bee’s wing flap.

Researchers believe plants may also have ears, although very different from ours, and that sound is a much simpler communication method than releasing chemicals into the air.

“Eardrums and cochlear structures are just one possible, admittedly sophisticated, solution, but by no means constitute an essential requirement for hearing,” they write in their paper, mentioning the mechanically ultrasensitive Johnston’s organ at the base of antennae in mosquitoes and fruit flies. They also mention that snakes use their jawbones as coupling elements to detect ground-borne vibrations.

Sound also costs less energy to make than chemicals, they added.

So what are the plants saying to each other? They may have a lot to talk about, according to the researchers, including how to share the available growing space and where to put their roots.

“Sound can indeed offer a particularly effective transmission channel for short-range signaling, possibly involved in modulating the swarm behavior of growing roots,” the scientists write.
St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Offline nukefarmer

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #97 on: July 09, 2012, 08:29:31 PM »
Bumping for future read! Darn Floride in my water is making it hard for me to read it all at once.  :'(
twitter.com/nukefarmer
#EndTheFed

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #98 on: August 04, 2012, 06:06:06 AM »
Example 25

Seamen give women and children priority when ships are sinking.



Women and children aren’t saved first

August 1, 2012 - 07:15
By: Hanne Jakobsen

It’s a myth that seamen give women and children priority when ships are sinking. Women have much less chance of surviving and children are even worse off.

When the Titanic sank in 1912, women and children were allowed first on board the lifeboats. It’s one of very few instances in history where this chivalrous maritime norm was actually practiced.

The century-old story of the Titanic is well known:

When it struck an iceberg, the men on board the ocean liner gave women and children priority access to the lifeboats. As a consequence, the odds of survival for women were three times higher than for men.

The notion that women and children should be evacuated first has proliferated in popular culture since the Titanic sank and now it’s seen as a common maritime social norm. It’s called the unwritten law of the sea and such chivalry is regarded as a trait among mariners.

Swedish researchers now say this is hogwash.

In an evaluation of 18 major disasters at sea from around 1800 to today, they found that women have only half as much of a chance of surviving as men. The odds for children to survive are even slimmer.

Men had twice as good odds
The fates of more than 18,000 people at sea were decided in the 18 shipwrecks analyzed by the researchers in this study.

Economists Mikael Elander and Oscar Erixson at the University of Uppsala in Sweden have looked at several factors, including the odds of survival for crew members compared to that of the passengers, whether the captain’s behaviour have any impact on the results and whether the ratio of women to men on board have any significance.

In general there is little indication that this form of chivalry is a nautical norm:

Women had a bit less than an 18-percent chance of surviving these calamities at sea, whereas men had twice that – nearly 35 percent.

In fact, women fared better than men in just two of the shipwrecks: the Titanic in 1912, and aboard the HMS Birkenhead, which went down in 1852.

The latter, a British troopship, was the shipwreck that established the protocol of women and children first, but on this steam frigate the women comprised just a little over one percent of the passengers.

“We were really surprised by these findings. We’d expected the norms to apply,” says Elinder.
The crew before the passengers

Elinder and Erixson started their study of the myth by investigating the Estonia tragedy in 1994. The sinking of the ferry Estonia, which sailed between Tallinn and Stockholm, was Europe’s biggest sea disaster since World War II. Only 137 of the 989 people on board survived.

Of these 137, only 26 were women.

“In this particular wreck, men had a four-fold chance of survival. Estonia was also one of the disasters in which the crew had better odds than the passengers,” says Erlinder.

According to him, some countries have regulations, not just a norm, specifying that the crew must help the passengers safely to lifeboats and life rafts before boarding these themselves. But in reality this rule is often overlooked, the report states:

In nine of the 18 accidents the crew had an advantage over the passengers. The crew are usually alerted to the accident earlier and are better acquainted with the ship and more accustomed to the sea. So the odds are on their side, unless they choose to help passengers evacuate the ship first.
The Estonia accident was a terrible disaster, killing 852 people. Out of the survivors, only 20 percent were women, and researchers think this indicates the 'women and children first' rule wasn’t practiced on board. (Photo: Wikimedia Creative Commons)

No differences in survival rates between passengers and crew were found in the other nine accidents. But the passengers had no advantage, as would be expected if they were given priority.
Worst for the children

The figures showed that the children involved in such disasters are worst off. Erlinder and Erixson didn’t have all the data for children, but information was available about how many children were on board for nine of the ships that went down. These indicate the survival odds for children:

“The children had about a 15-percent chance of surviving a sinking, and that’s the lowest rate of all,” says Erlinder.

“We can only speculate on the reasons, but it coincides well with the picture that the most vulnerable victims perish the most," he says. "If each person only thinks about saving his or her own skin, it’s natural for children to fare the worst.”

Aid from women’s liberation
Other factors the researchers included were the share of female passengers on board, how long the voyage had been before the disaster struck and of course how many passengers the ship had in total. None of these had any impact on relative survival rates.

However, the researchers chalked up one positive trend:

The odds for women have improved in the post-WW II years – the rates of survival between the sexes have evened out some, even though men still have the advantage.

Women’s liberation can take credit – women have generally become more capable of saving themselves. Two factors that help in this context are girls getting more swimming instructions and changes in female clothing styles.

It comes as no surprise that it’s easier to swim in jeans than in heavy skirts, copious undergarments and corsets.
The command evens out natural disadvantages

“These are rather depressing results," says Erlinder. "Nevertheless it’s better to know what the situation really is instead of sustaining and believing a myth. This can help people to better figure out what to do when disaster strikes.”

An obvious question rises in a more modern and gender equal world:

Is there really a need for rescuing women before men today? Isn’t that discriminating?

Erlinder thinks the standing orders to save women and children first should remain in effect. Men are usually stronger than women; they have physical and mental capabilities that increase their odds of survival when a ship is going down.

For instance they are better at scrambling out of chaotic and clogged corridors after a ship capsizes. An aggressiveness fuelled by testosterone can help them fight their way to the deck and to better places in line when it’s 'every man for himself'.

“If you give the command to save women and children first there is still no guarantee they will survive more than men would. But it can ensure the two sexes nearly equal chances,” says Erlinder.


More:
http://sciencenordic.com/women-and-children-aren%E2%80%99t-saved-first
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2012/juli/328746



That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline 37

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,362
  • "The President of what?"
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #99 on: August 05, 2012, 07:34:07 AM »
 :D  ^^^^ Not surprised!

I would bet that, of the surviving men, their average weight was heavier than the average weight of all the men.

Ultimate King of the Mountain
"Whatever it is, I am against it."  -Groucho Marx

Channel 37
http://www.youtube.com/user/jmortimer37

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #100 on: August 24, 2012, 04:57:06 AM »
Example 26

DNA Evidence is proof of an individuals identity. (matches? we don't need no stinkin' matches!)





DNA: GENES AS EVIDENCE
A crime lab's findings raise doubts about the reliability of genetic profiles. The bureau pushes back.
July 20, 2008|Jason Felch and Maura Dolan | Times Staff Writers

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20/4

State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people. The FBI estimated the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion. But the mug shots of the two felons suggested that they were not related: One was black, the other white.

In the years after her 2001 discovery, Troyer found dozens of similar matches -- each seeming to defy impossible odds.

As word spread, these findings by a little-known lab worker raised questions about the accuracy of the FBI's DNA statistics and ignited a legal fight over whether the nation's genetic databases ought to be opened to wider scrutiny. The FBI laboratory, which administers the national DNA database system, tried to stop distribution of Troyer's results and began an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to block similar searches elsewhere, even those ordered by courts, a Times investigation found. At stake is the credibility of the compelling odds often cited in DNA cases, which can suggest an all but certain link between a suspect and a crime scene.

When DNA from such clues as blood or skin cells matches a suspect's genetic profile, it can seal his fate with a jury, even in the absence of other evidence. As questions arise about the reliability of ballistic, bite-mark and even fingerprint analysis, genetic evidence has emerged as the forensic gold standard, often portrayed in courtrooms as unassailable. But DNA "matches" are not always what they appear to be. Although a person's genetic makeup is unique, his genetic profile -- just a tiny sliver of the full genome -- may not be. Siblings often share genetic markers at several locations, and even unrelated people can share some by coincidence.

No one knows precisely how rare DNA profiles are. The odds presented in court are the FBI's best estimates.

The Arizona search was, in effect, the first test of those estimates in a large state database, and the results were surprising, even to some experts.


Lawyers seek searches

Defense attorneys seized on the Arizona discoveries as evidence that genetic profiles match more often than the official statistics imply -- and are far from unique, as the FBI has sometimes suggested. Now, lawyers around the country are asking for searches of their own state databases. Several scientists and legal experts want to test the accuracy of official statistics using the 6 million profiles in CODIS, the national system that includes most state and local databases.

"DNA is terrific and nobody doubts it, but because it is so powerful, any chinks in its armor ought to be made as salient and clear as possible so jurors will not be overwhelmed by the seeming certainty of it," said David Faigman, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, who specializes in scientific evidence.

FBI officials argue that, under their interpretation of federal law, use of CODIS is limited to criminal justice agencies. In their view, defense attorneys are allowed access to information about their specific cases, not the databases in general.

Bureau officials say critics have exaggerated or misunderstood the implications of Troyer's discoveries. Indeed, experts generally agree that most -- but not all -- of the Arizona matches were to be expected statistically because of the unusual way Troyer searched for them. In a typical criminal case, investigators look for matches to a specific profile. But the Arizona search looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database, greatly increasing the odds of finding them.

As a result, Thomas Callaghan, head of the FBI's CODIS unit, has dismissed Troyer's findings as "misleading" and "meaningless."

He urged authorities in several states to object to Arizona-style searches, advising them to tell courts that the probes could violate the privacy of convicted offenders, tie up crucial databases and even lead the FBI to expel offending states from CODIS -- a penalty that could cripple states' ability to solve crimes.

In one case, Callaghan advised state officials to raise the risk of expulsion with a judge but told the officials that expulsion was unlikely to actually happen, according to a record of the conversation filed in court. In an interview with The Times, Callaghan denied any effort to mislead the court. The FBI's arguments have persuaded courts in California and other states to block the searches. But in at least two states, judges overruled the objections. The resulting searches found nearly 1,000 more pairs that matched at nine or more loci. "I can appreciate why the FBI is worried about this," said David Kaye, an expert on science and the law at Arizona State University and former member of a national committee that studied forensic DNA. But "people's lives do ride on this evidence," he said. "It has got to be explained."


Concerned about errors

From her first discovery in 2001, Troyer and her colleagues in the Arizona Department of Public Safety's Phoenix DNA lab were intrigued.

At the time, many states looked at only nine or fewer loci when searching for suspects. (States now commonly attempt to compare 13 loci, and they may be able to search for more in the future. But even now, in many cases, fewer than 13 loci are discernible from crime scene evidence because of contamination or because of degradation over time.) Based on Troyer's results, she and her colleagues believed that a nine-locus match could point investigators to the wrong person.

"We felt it was interesting and just wanted people to understand it could happen," said Troyer, who initially declined to be interviewed, then cautiously discussed her findings by telephone, with her bosses on the line. "If you're going to search at nine loci, you need to be aware of what it means," said Todd Griffith, director of the Phoenix lab. "It's not necessarily absolutely the guy."

Troyer made a simple poster for a national conference of DNA analysts. It showed photos of the white man and the younger black man next to their remarkably similar genetic profiles. Some who saw the poster said they had seen similar matches in their own labs. Bruce Budowle, an FBI scientist who specializes in forensic DNA, told colleagues of Troyer that such coincidental matches were to be expected. Three years later, Bicka Barlow, a San Francisco defense attorney, came across a description of Troyer's poster on the Internet.

Its implications became clear as she prepared to defend a client accused of a 20-year-old rape and murder. A database search had found a nine-locus match between his DNA profile and semen found in the victim's body. Based on FBI estimates, the prosecutor said the odds of a coincidental match were as remote as 1 in 108 trillion.

Recalling the Arizona discovery, Barlow wondered if there might be similar coincidental matches in California's database -- the world's third-largest, with 360,000 DNA profiles at the time. The attorney called Troyer in Phoenix to learn more. Troyer seemed eager to talk about her discovery, which still had her puzzled, Barlow recalled. The analyst told Barlow she had searched the growing Arizona database since the conference and found more pairs of profiles matching at nine and even 10 loci.

Encouraged, Barlow subpoenaed a new search of the Arizona database. Among about 65,000 felons, there were 122 pairs that matched at nine of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci. One matched at 11 and one at 12, though both later proved to belong to relatives. Barlow was stunned. At the time, such matches were almost unheard of.

That same year, Fred Bieber, a Harvard professor and expert in forensic DNA, testified in an unrelated criminal case that just once had he seen a pair of profiles matching at nine of 13 markers, and they belonged to brothers. He had heard of a 10-locus match between two men, but it was the result of incest -- a man whose father was also his older brother. Indeed, since 2000, the FBI has treated certain rare DNA profiles as essentially unique -- attributable to a single individual "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."

Other crime labs have adopted the policy, and some no longer tell jurors there is even a possibility of a coincidental match. Soon after Barlow received the results, Callaghan, the head of the FBI's DNA database unit, reprimanded Troyer's lab in Phoenix, saying it should have sought the permission of the FBI before complying with the court's order in the San Francisco case. Asked later whether Callaghan had threatened her lab, Troyer said in court, "I wouldn't say it's been threatened, but we have been reminded."

Dwight Adams, director of the FBI lab at the time, faxed Griffith, Troyer's boss, a letter saying the Arizona state lab was "under review" for releasing the search results. "While we understand that the Arizona Department of Public Safety, acting in good faith, complied with a proper judicial court order in the release of the nine-loci search of your offender DNA records, this release of DNA data was not authorized," Adams wrote, asking Arizona to take "appropriate corrective action." Arizona officials obtained a court order to prevent Barlow from sharing the results with anyone else.

But it was too late. After a judge found the Arizona results to be irrelevant in Barlow's case, the defense attorney e-mailed them to a network of her colleagues and DNA experts around the country. Soon, defense lawyers in other states were seeking what came to be known as "Arizona searches."

'Don't panic'

For years, DNA's strength in the courtroom has been the brute power of its numbers. It's hard to argue with odds like 1 in 100 billion. Troyer's discovery threatened to turn the tables on prosecutors. At first blush, the Arizona matches appeared to contradict those statistics and the popular notion that DNA profiles, like DNA, were essentially unique. Law enforcement experts scrambled to explain.

Three months after the court-ordered search in Arizona, Steven Myers, a senior DNA analyst at the California Department of Justice, gave a presentation to the Assn. of California Crime Lab Analysts. It was titled "Don't Panic" -- a hint at the alarm Troyer's discovery had set off. Many of the Arizona matches were predictable, Myers said, given the type of search Troyer had conducted. In a database search for a criminal case, a crime scene sample would have been compared to every profile in the database -- about 65,000 comparisons. But Troyer compared all 65,000 profiles in Arizona's database to each other, resulting in about 2 billion comparisons. Each comparison made it more likely she would find a match.

When this "database effect" was considered, about 100 of the 144 matches Troyer had found were to be expected statistically, Myers found. Troyer's search also looked for matches at any of 13 genetic locations, while in a real criminal case the analyst would look for a particular profile -- making a match far less likely.

Further, any nonmatching markers would immediately rule out a suspect. In the case of the black and white men who matched at nine loci, the four loci that differed -- if available from crime scene evidence -- would have ensured that the wrong man was not implicated. The presence of relatives in the database could also account for some of Troyer's findings, the FBI and other experts say. Whether that's the case would require cumbersome research because the databases don't contain identifying information, they say.


Flaws in assumptions?

Some scientists are not satisfied by these explanations. They wonder whether Troyer's findings signal flaws in the complex assumptions that underlie the FBI's rarity estimates.

In the 1990s, FBI scientists estimated the rarity of each genetic marker by extrapolating from sample populations of a few hundred people from various ethnic or racial groups. The estimates for each marker are multiplied across all 13 loci to come up with a rarity estimate for the entire profile. These estimates make assumptions about how populations mate and whether genetic markers are independent of each other. They also don't account for relatives. Bruce Weir, a statistician at the University of Washington who has studied the issue, said these assumptions should be tested empirically in the national database system. "Instead of saying we predict there will be a match, let's open it up and look," Weir said.

Some experts predict that given the rapid growth of CODIS, such a search would produce one or more examples of unrelated people who are identical at all 13 loci. Such a discovery was once unimaginable.


'Dire consequences'

In January 2006, not long after Barlow distributed the results of the court-ordered search in Arizona, the FBI sent out a nationwide alert to crime labs warning of similar defense requests. Soon after, the bureau's arguments against the searches were being made in courtrooms around the country.

In California, Michael Chamberlain, a state Department of Justice official, persuaded judges that such a search could have "dire consequences" -- violating the privacy of convicted offenders, shutting down the database for days and risking the state's expulsion from the FBI's national DNA system. All this for a search whose results would be irrelevant and misleading to jurors, Chamberlain argued. When similar arguments were made in an Arizona case, the judge ruled that the search would be "nothing more than an interesting deep sea fishing expedition."

But in Illinois and Maryland, courts ordered the searches to proceed, despite opposition from the FBI and state officials at every turn. In July 2006, after Chicago-area defense attorneys sought a database search on behalf of a murder suspect, the FBI's Callaghan held a telephone conference with Illinois crime lab officials. The topic was "how to fight this," according to lab officials' summary of the conversation, which later became part of the court record. Callaghan suggested they tell the judge that Illinois could be disconnected from the national database system, the summary shows. Callaghan then told the lab officials "it would in fact be unlikely that IL would be disconnected," according to the summary. In an interview, Callaghan disputed he said that.

"I didn't say it was unlikely to happen," he said. "I was asked specifically, what's the likelihood here? I said, I don't know, but it takes a lot for a state to be cut off from the national database."

A week later, the judge ordered the search. Lawyers for the lab then took the matter to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing in part that Illinois could lose its access to the federal DNA database. The high court refused to block the search.

The result: 903 pairs of profiles matching at nine or more loci in a database of about 220,000. State officials obtained a court order to prevent distribution of the results. The Times obtained them from a scientist who works closely with the FBI.


A 'unilateral decision'

A similar fight occurred in a death penalty case in Maryland during the summer and fall of 2006. The prosecutor saw a DNA match between a baseball cap dropped at the crime scene and the suspect as so definitive that he didn't plan to tell the jury about the chance of a coincidental match, records show. Seeking to cast doubt on the evidence, the defense persuaded the judge to order an "Arizona search" of the Maryland database. The state did not comply.

After the defense filed a contempt-of-court motion, Michelle Groves, the state's DNA administrator, argued in court and in an affidavit that, based on conversations with Callaghan at the FBI, she believed the request was burdensome and possibly illegal. According to Groves, Callaghan had told her that complying with the court order could lead Maryland to be disconnected from CODIS -- a result Groves' lawyer said would be "catastrophic." Groves' affidavit was edited by FBI officials and the technology contractor that designed CODIS, court records show. Before submitting the affidavit, Groves wrote the group an e-mail saying, "Let's see if this will work," the records show.

It didn't. After the judge, Steven Platt, rejected her arguments, Groves returned to court, saying the search was too risky. FBI officials had now warned her that it could corrupt the entire state database, something they would not help fix, she told the court. Platt reaffirmed his earlier order, decrying Callaghan's "unilateral" decision to block the search.

"The court will not accept the notion that the extent of a person's due process rights hinges solely on whether some employee of the FBI chooses to authorize the use of the [database] software," Platt wrote.

The search went ahead in January 2007. The system did not go down, nor was Maryland expelled from the national database system. In a database of fewer than 30,000 profiles, 32 pairs matched at nine or more loci. Three of those pairs were "perfect" matches, identical at 13 out of 13 loci. Experts say they most likely are duplicates or belong to identical twins or brothers. It's also possible that one of the matches is between unrelated people -- defying odds as remote as 1 in 1 quadrillion.

Maryland officials never did the research to find out.

Matching profiles

As databases grow, so do the chances of finding a coincidental match. Three states have searched their DNA databases for pairs of profiles that have nine or more genetic markers in common. The more profiles in the database, the more matches were found.

Maryland: 33 matches in a database of 20,000 profiles
Arizona: 144 matches in a database of 65,000 profiles
Illinois: 903 matches in a database of 230,000 profiles


California: State database has more than 1 million profiles. Several search requests have been denied.

FBI: The national DNA database, maintained by the FBI, has almost 6 million DNA profiles. It has never been searched for such coincidental matches.

Quote
Birthday paradox

Experts use an analogy called the birthday paradox to explain that the way you search for a DNA profile can dramatically affect your chances of finding a match. In some circumstances, matches are far more likely than many people think.

Imagine you're at a party with 99 other guests. If you randomly pull aside one of them, the odds he or she will share your day and month of birth are 1 in 365.

But the probability that anyone at the party shares your birthday is far higher: about 1 in 4. When you compare your birthday with 99 other people's, each comparison makes a match more likely. (The math: Multiply the odds of 1/365 by 99, the number of comparisons, to get the approximate probability.)

For the same reason, the odds that anyone at the party shares a birthday with anyone else are higher still. In fact, it's almost a certainty. As everyone looked for a match with everyone else, they made 4,950 comparisons. (The math: Multiply 100 people by the 99 other guests they compare themselves with, then divide by two because people who compare with each other count as a single comparison.)

How many people need to be at the party for it to be likely that two guests share a birthday?

The answer may surprise you: just 23.


Ref. [Updated 03/01/2016]

The Case Against DNA Evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXsn5VoKokg
DNA evidence is the gold standard in many criminal cases. Most jurors and often the court of public opinion often believe if you can trace a crime back to a person's DNA, that person is caught red handed. But DNA evidence might not be as reliable as you think. FRONTLINE reporter Katie Worth takes you inside the case against DNA.

Why We Can’t Always Trust DNA Evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=601U11FH6iE
DNA fingerprinting has improved throughout the years. But, contrary to popular TV shows, it isn't as accurate as one might believe.

Why Would Anyone Object to DNA Evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-YMRAhH7qE
Sometimes a prosecutor doesn't want to admit that they're wrong. Other times they don't want to face the victim's family after a conviction is overturned.

Forensic DNA Mixups | Greg Hampikian | TEDxBoise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw-zyoYlIsA
DNA is seen as an ultimate tool-- an inarguable truth. It has the power to convict, and the power to exonerate. But in this lively talk, Dr. Greg Hampikian shows that even DNA can make mistakes.

Forensic DNA: Change is Constant, Science is Truth | Rich Guerrieri | TEDxColumbus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpGhk0-vZrM
Expert forensic scientist Rich Guerreri shares a personal journey through the history of DNA in America and the promise new DNA technology holds for identifying missing persons and exonerating wrongly incarcerated individuals

Exploring bias in forensic DNA profiling | Dan Krane | TEDxDayton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpPkmDeS3Dg
This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. The science of DNA profiling is sound, but much of what passes as DNA profiling is not scientific. Many testing labs resist interpreting evidence samples without having knowledge of a suspect's reference DNA profile. Blind interpretation of test results is possible and would greatly increase the reliability of the statistical weights given to DNA profile matches in some cases.


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,353
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #101 on: September 03, 2012, 04:56:18 PM »
Example 3
The first American slaves were white.

Most of Australia's "convicts" were shipped into servitude for such "crimes" as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat's estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.

The arrogant disregard for the holocaust visited upon the poor and working class Whites of Britain by the aristocracy continues in our time because the history of that epoch has been almost completely extirpated from our collective memory.

[ Notice that this history for the most part has been written by those in power and still in power. ...
 Penniless and/or Political White discards were the first labour of the EMPIRE - First Fleet ]


| - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_(1788%E2%80%931850)
...
Following the loss of the American Colonies after the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783, Great Britain needed to find alternative land for a new British colony. Australia was chosen for settlement, and colonisation began in 1788.

Rather than resorting to the use of slavery to build the infrastructure for the new colony, convict labour was used as a cheap and economically viable alternative.

| - - - -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet

The First Fleet is the name given to the eleven ships that sailed from Great Britain on 13 May 1787 consisting of 10 civil officers, 212 Marines, including officers, additional 28 wives and 17 children of the marines, 81 free persons, 504 male convicts and 192 female convicts. Total free persons, 348; prisoners, 696. total 1044,[1] to establish the first European colony in Australia, in the region which Captain Cook had named New South Wales. Orders-in-Council for establishing the colony were Issued in London on 6 December 1785.[2] The fleet was led by Captain (later Admiral) Arthur Phillip. The ships arrived at Botany Bay between 18 and 20 January 1788.[3] HMS Supply arrived on 18 January; Alexander, Scarborough and Friendship arrived on 19 January, and the remaining ships on 20 January. On 7 February 1788, after his commission as Governor was read, Phillip addressed some words to the first settlers
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Day

Arrival of the First Fleet
 
On 13 May 1787, a fleet of 11 ships, which came to be known as the First Fleet, was sent by the British Admiralty from England to Australia. Under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip, the fleet sought to establish a penal colony at Botany Bay on the coast of New South Wales, which had been explored and claimed by Lieutenant James Cook in 1770. The settlement was seen as necessary because of the loss of the Thirteen colonies in North America.[4] The Fleet arrived between 18 and 20 January 1788, but it was immediately apparent that Botany Bay was unsuitable.
...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2012, 02:17:00 AM »
Example 27

There’s no such thing as a fish:
There is no direct scientific equivalent for our casual word "fish", and what most people call fish are a broad and diverse group. The word "fish" is a vague word that could mean many things; it doesn't really have a place in biological literature. We use the word ‘fish’ to refer to a number of different branches of the animal kingdom rather than the single branch that was originally intended to be known as fish, so in a way the word has lost its meaning.



We often group species together in a superficial way and it is only by looking at the genome of a species that we can begin to fully understand evolutionary lineage. Placing different plants or animals under an umbrella term can make life easier but it makes no sense on a genetic level to say that all things that live in the sea are fish, just as it makes no sense to say that all things that can fly are birds.

A lifetime study of sea creatures led the esteemed biologist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould to conclude that there is, in fact, no such thing as a fish. He explained that the term had no biological meaning and was an over-simplification that grouped aquatic creatures together.

As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, “trout and tuna are closer cousins to humans than they are to sharks, but we call them all “fish”.”


QI XL S08E03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTHlrpMy7ps&feature=player_detailpage&list=PL91B7DE2F81280A1B#t=1263s

There’s no such thing as a fish
http://www.elements-science.co.uk/2012/05/turtle-origins-uncovered/

New Scientist 2 Jan 1986
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HHUe3pChrPQC&lpg=PA44&ots=k24ACPpKz2&dq=%22no%20such%20thing%20as%20a%20fish%22&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=%22no%20such%20thing%20as%20a%20fish%22&f=false


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #103 on: November 07, 2012, 05:16:24 AM »

Supplement

What's invisible? More than you think - John Lloyd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EUy_82IChY

Gravity. The stars in day. Thoughts. The human genome. Time. Atoms. So much of what really matters in the world is impossible to see. A stunning animation of John Lloyd's classic TEDTalk from 2009, which will make you question what you actually know.


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #104 on: November 09, 2012, 04:44:00 AM »
Example 28

Chastity belts were used in the Middle Ages to prevent the crusading knights ladies from indulging in sexual indiscretions.

[img]http://1.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/chastitybelt-9.jpgmg]

The idea of a crusader clapping his wife in a chastity belt and galloping off to war with the key round his neck is a nineteenth-century fantasy designed to titillate readers. There is very little evidence for the use of chastity belts in the Middle Ages at all. The first known drawing of one occurs in the fifteenth century.

Konrad Kyeser’s Bellifortis was a book on contemporary military equipment written long after the crusades had finished. It includes an illustration of the “hard iron breeches” worn by Florentine women. In the diagram, the key is clearly visible—which suggests that it was the lady and not the knight who controlled access to the device, to protect herself against the unwanted attentions of Florentine bucks. In museum collections, most “medieval” chastity belts have now been shown to be of dubious authenticity and removed from display.

As with “medieval” torture equipment, it appears that most of it was manufactured in Germany in the nineteenth century to satisfy the curiosity of “specialist” collectors. The nineteenth century also witnessed an upturn in sales of new chastity belts—but these were not for women.Victorian medical theory was of the opinion that masturbation was harmful to health. Boys who could not be trusted to keep their hands to themselves were forced to wear these improving steel underpants. But the real boom in sales has come in the last fifty years, as adult shops take advantage of the thriving bondage market.

There are more chastity belts around today than there ever were in the Middle Ages. Paradoxically, they exist to stimulate sex, not to prevent it


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #105 on: November 16, 2012, 03:32:36 PM »
Example 29

Seatbelts in automobiles save lives.



Since 1963 the federal government has spent billions of dollars to persuade, and force, the American people to wear seatbelts in automobiles. It has done this without any research, without any basis in fact, without any evidence that wearing a seatbelt improves a person’s chance of survival in an automobile accident. Indeed, research has shown that the opposite is true.1

[...]

After motorists were first required to use seatbelts, reports began to come in from emergency rooms that people were being killed by seatbelts. Instead of heeding these reports and repealing the seatbelt laws, congress put forward the theory that it was merely a mistake in seatbelt design, and ordered the addition of shoulder belts to seatbelts. This resulted in an increase in seatbelt fatalities, as motorists were now being killed by their shoulder belts as well as by their lap belts.1

[...]

When it became clear that seatbelts were not effective in preventing fatalities in head-on collisions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in line with its continuing mandate to promote seatbelts, put forward the theory that they would prevent people from being killed in roll-overs. Quite apart from the fact that most people couldn’t roll their cars over if they tried, it turned out that most people who were killed in roll-overs were killed by being crushed when the roof caved in. The best chance of survival in such a case is to duck down, jump clear or be thrown clear, all of which are prevented by a seatbelt. The effect of seatbelts in roll-overs was thus to increase, not decrease, the number of fatalities.

The first seatbelt law was passed in the United States in 1963. This merely required that new cars made after l964 be equipped with seat belts. There was no requirement that people actually use them. When it was first suggested to Henry Ford II that he put seatbelts in new Ford cars, his response was, “That’s the craziest thing I ever heard”. During the hearings held both before and after the passage of these laws, experts from the automobile industry repeatedly warned the members of congress that putting seatbelts in cars was not a good idea. The congress chose to ignore these warnings.

The case for seatbelts in automobiles was based on five false assumptions, something congress could easily have discovered before passing this legislation if they had bothered to ask the experts or, indeed, if they had merely listened to the experts, for the experts did try to tell them. They not only did not ask, they turned a deaf ear when they were told. As a result, thousands have died.1

The five false assumptions were these:

1. Most people who are killed in automobile accidents are killed in head-on collisions. In fact, according to the government’s own data, fewer than two percent of all collisions are head-on collisions and fewer than 14% of all fatal collisions are head-on collisions.

2. People are killed in head-on collisions by being thrown through the windshield. In fact, according to the latest available government data, of the 36,281 vehicle occupants who were killed in 2001 (the last year for which the government listed head-on collisions as a separate category) only 145 were “thrown through the windshield”.

3. Vehicle occupants would be saved if they were prevented from being thrown through the windshield by wearing a seatbelt. In fact, if the force on the occupant is sufficiently great to throw him through the windshield, the injury inflicted on the wearer by the seatbelt itself would be enough to kill him.

4. The passenger compartment is never safe in fatal collisions. In fact, the overwhelming majority of motorists who are killed in fatal collisions are killed by being crushed to death when the passenger compartment is caved in. The seatbelt acts like an anchor, holding the occupant in place while he is being crushed to death.

5. The seatbelt itself will not injure the wearer. In fact, in a head-on collision as low as 30 miles per hour with one foot of crush, the seatbelt will exert a force on the wearer of 30 times his body weight, i.e., enough to kill him. The fact that the seatbelt itself might injure the wearer never occurred to them. The seatbelt proponents had never heard of Newton's second law of motion!

The key question, what is the effect of seatbelts on people in other types of accidents, was not considered.1

Seat-belt laws have also failed to reduce highway fatalities in the numbers promised by supporters to get such laws passed. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 51,093 highway fatalities in 1979.9 Five years later, 1984, the year before seat-belt laws began to pass, there were 44,257 fatalities. That is a net decrease of 6,836 deaths in five years, which represents a 13.4 percent decline with no seat-belt laws and only voluntary seat-belt use. In 1999, there were 41,611 fatalities. That is a net decrease of 2,646 deaths, a 6 percent decrease over 15 years of rigid seat-belt law enforcement, with some states claiming 80 percent seat-belt use. If the passage of seat-belt laws did anything, it slowed the downward trend in highway fatalities started years before the passage of such laws.2

Fatalities per year comparisons. Figure 15-1 shows the change in the simplest measure of safety performance, total traffic deaths per year. While fatalities in the 23 year period declined in the US by 16.2%, declines of 46.0%, 49.9%, and 51.1% occurred in Britain, Canada, and Australia (Table 15-1). In the prior 1960-1978 period the comparison countries did not systematically outperform the US. On the contrary, fatalities in Canada and Australia increased by 65% and 50% (compared to a 38% increase in the US), but in GB decreased by 2%.

The number of traffic deaths that would have occurred in the US in 2002 if US fatalities had declined by the same percents as in the comparison countries from 1979-2002 are shown in Table 15-2. If the US total had declined by 46.0%, as it did in Great Britain, then US fatalities in 2002 would have been 27,598 instead of the 42,815 that occurred. (All derivations are based on calculations including more decimal places than shown in tables). By matching the British decline, 15,217 fewer Americans would have been killed in 2002. The corresponding fatality reductions for matching Canadian and Australian performance are 17,229 and 17,837.2



ref.

1. SEATBELTS KILL - THE TRUE STORY OF THE SEATBELT SCAM
http://www.fiberpipe.net/~tiktin/Documents/seatbeltskill.htm

2. The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws
http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-fraud-of-seat-belt-laws/#ixzz2CPyvt7WV

3. Traffic Safety by Leonard Evans. Chapter 15 "The dramatic failure of US safety policy"
http://scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch15.htm


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #106 on: November 16, 2012, 05:14:06 PM »
Example 30

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is a poison that causes cancer and is devastating to wildlife.

Michael Crichton on DDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSYla0y9Wcs



        "In fact, DDT prevents cancer. "DDT in the diet has repeatedly been shown to enhance the production of hepatic enzymes in mammals and birds.
        Those enzymes inhibit tumors and cancers in humans as well as wildlife."

        "The search for an effective substitute for DDT continues to fail 30 years after the Ruckelshaus ban.
        The search for a treatment for malaria continues to fail; the mutations of the malaria virus soon make a drug ineffective. The search for a malaria-vaccine continues to fail."


The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been millions of preventable deaths.

In World War I, prior to the discovery of the insecticidal potential of DDT, typhus killed more servicemen than bullets. In World War II, typhus was no problem. The world has marveled at the effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria, yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice.

Today, the greatest killer and disabler is malaria, which kills a person every 30 seconds. By the 1960s, DDT had brought malaria near to extinction. "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable," said the National Academy of Sciences.


       Unable to find harm to human health, DDT opponents turned to bird health, alleging a decline of bald eagles and other birds of prey, which they associated with heavy DDT usage.
        Rachel Carson led the accusation. It has been repeated so often and so passionately that the public is still convinced of it.



But the handwriting was on the wall when William Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in an address to the Audubon Society in Milwaukee in 1971, clearly stated his position:

"As you know, many mass uses of DDT have already been prohibited, including all uses around the home. Certainly we'll all feel better when the persistent compounds can be phased out in favor of biological controls. But awaiting this millennium does not permit the luxury of dodging the harsh decisions of today.

Rachel Carson began the countrywide assault on DDT with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson made errors, some designed to scare, about DDT and synthetic pesticides. "For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to death," she intoned.

"This is nonsense," commented pesticide specialists Bruce N. Ames and Thomas H. Jukes of the University of California at Berkeley. (Ames is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, world renowned. Jukes, who died a few years ago, was a professor of biophysics and a leader in the defense of DDT.) "Every chemical is dangerous if the concentration is too high. Moreover, 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural... produced by plants to kill off predators," Ames and Jukes wrote in Reason in 1993.

Carson, not very scrupulous, implied that the renowned Albert Schweitzer agreed with her on DDT by dedicating Silent Spring "to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said 'Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.'" Professor Edwards doubted the implication. He got a copy of Schweitzer's autobiography. Dr. Schweitzer was referring to atomic warfare. Professor Edwards found on page 262, "How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us."

But Miss Carson's skillful writing was enough to direct a new-born environmental industry looking for a hot issue into a feverish campaign against DDT. "Rachel Carson set the style for environmentalism. Exaggeration and omission of pertinent contradictory evidence are acceptable for the holy cause," wrote Professors Ames and Jukes.



ref.

DDT, Fraud, and Tragedy
http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy

DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud" by the late J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University in San Jose, California.
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #107 on: November 30, 2012, 03:42:27 PM »
Example 31

Edison invented the light bulb

[/img]

In 1840, British Astronomer and Chemist, Warren de la Rue, enclosed a platinum coil in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it, thus creating the world’s first light bulb – a full 40 years before Edison was issued a patent for creating it.

Actually, historians list up to 22 inventors of the incandescent lamp before Thomas Edison, starting with Sir Humphry Davy in the early 19th Century.

But in 1878, Edison challenged himself and his workers to produce a commercially viable and longer lasting light bulb, based on the work of inventors before him. In October 1879, by creating an extremely high vacuum inside a bulb and using a carbon filament, he filed a US patent for the first practical high-resistance lamp capable of burning for hundreds of hours.

So while he didn’t actually invent the lightbulb, he did produce the first version that was practical for everyday use.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb



some added truth...

The Phoebus cartel

VIDEO: The Lightbulb Conspiracy
http://documentaryheaven.com/the-lightbulb-conspiracy/

In the early 1900′s, the goal was to make the light bulb last as long as possible. Edison’s lamp lasted 1500 hours, and in the 1920′s, manufacturers advertised lamps sporting a 2500 hour life. Then leading lamp manufacturers came up with the idea that it might be more profitable if the bulbs were made less durable.

In 1924, the Phoebus cartel was created in order to control global lamp production, to which they tied manufacturers all over the world, dividing the various continents between them. In the documentary, historian Helmut High shows the original cartel document that states: “The average life of lamps may not be guaranteed, advertised or published as more than 1 000 hours.” The cartel pressured its members to develop a more fragile incandescent bulb, which would remain within the established 1000-hour rule. Osram tested life and all manufacturers that did not keep the lower standards were heavily fined. Bulb life was thereby reduced to the required 1000 hours.

The film claims that there are patents on incandescent light bulbs with 100 000 hours lifetime, but they never went into production – except Adolphe Chaillets bulb of Livermore Fire Department in California, which has burned continuously since 1901. In 1981, the East German company Narva created a lamp for a long life lamp and showed it at an international light fair. Nobody was interested. (It later became accepted as a special ‘long-life’ lamp but was never a commercial hit.)

Wikipedia states that the Phoebus cartel included Osram, Philips, Tungsram, Compagnie des Lampes, Associated Electrical Industries, ELIN, International General Electric, and the GE Overseas Group. “They owned shares in the Swiss corporation proportional to their lamp sales.”

    “The Phoebus Cartel divided the world’s lamp markets into three categories:

       1. home territories, the home country of individual manufacturers
       2. British overseas territories, under control of Associated Electrical Industries, Osram, Philips, and Tungsram
       3. common territory, the rest of the world

In 1921 a precursor organisation was founded by Osram, the Internationale Glühlampen Preisvereinigung. When Philips and other manufacturers were entering the American market, General Electric reacted by setting up the International General Electric Company in Paris. Both organisations were involved in trading patents and adjusting market penetration. Increasing international competition led to negotiations between all major companies to control and restrict their respective activities in order not to interfere in each other’s spheres.”

According to the documentary, the cartel officially never existed (even though their memorandum remains in archives). Their strategy has been to rename all the time, but still exists in one form or another. The film mentions The International Energy cartel, but that seems to be more about controlling world energy production rather than light bulbs specifically.


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,873
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #108 on: November 30, 2012, 04:32:44 PM »
 ^ ^ ^


 ... strange ... they didn't even mention Nikola Tesla?   ???


Electricity at the fair (COLUMBIA EXHIBITION 1893)

General Electric Company (backed by Thomas Edison and J.P. Morgan) had originally proposed to power the electric exhibits with direct-current at the cost of US $1.8 million; after this was rejected as exorbitant, General Electric revised their bid to $554,000. However, Westinghouse, armed with Nikola Tesla's alternating-current system, proposed to illuminate the Columbian Exposition in Chicago for $399,000, which won the contract. It was a historical moment and the beginning of a revolution, as Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse introduced the public to alternating-current electrical power -- the high-frequency high-voltage lighting produced more efficient light with quantitatively less heat. General Electric banned the use of Edison's lamps in Westinghouse's plan in retaliation for losing the bid, but Westinghouse's company quickly designed a double-stopper lightbulb (sidestepping Edison's patents) and was able to light the fair.


"If evenings at the fair were seductive, the nights were ravishing. The lamps that laced every building and walkway produced the most elaborate demonstration of electric illumination ever attempted and the first large-scale test of alternating current. The fair alone consumed three times as much electricity as the entire city of Chicago. These were important engineering milestones, but what visitors adored was the sheer beauty of seeing so many lights ignited in one place, at one time. Every building, including the Manufacures and Liberal Arts Building, was outlined in white bulbs. Giant searchlights -- the largest ever made and said to be visible sixty miles away -- had been mounted on the Manufactures' roof and swept the grounds and surrounding neighborhoods. Large colored bulbs lit the hundred-foot plumes of water that burst from the MacMonnies Fountain." ... it "was like getting a sudden vision of Heaven." -- The Devil in the White City, by Erik Larson.


http://haygenealogy.com/hay/1893fair/1893fair.html











St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #109 on: December 22, 2012, 11:43:49 PM »

EXAMPLE 32

You are living in the past

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTOODPf-iuc

We persistently have the illusion that it is the present. Just like we have the illusion of a single vision instead of 32, or of one body instead of 7. We are living approximations, and every single thing we do or sense is an approximation. It's a wonderful illusion though.


LINKS:

Watch David Eagleman discuss time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkANniH8XZE

Flash Lag Effect demonstration: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_flashlag1/index.html

Previous Vsauce videos about time and perception:

Why does time feel faster as we age? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LyCC6jjcx8

Video and the FRAME RATE of the eye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8

Stopped Clock Illusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNBTLbw1_2Q


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #110 on: April 15, 2013, 05:10:52 AM »
Example 33 (yes, yes, I know...)

The City of London is not the city named London.



The (Secret) City of London, Part 1: History
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

The (Secret) City of London, Part 2: Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #111 on: May 02, 2013, 04:06:11 AM »

Interesting scientific hoax.

The Sokal affair

The Sokal affair, also known as the Sokal hoax, was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. In subsequent publications, Sokal claimed that the submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether such a journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if it (a) sounded good and (b) flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".

The article "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue, proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist. On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense...structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics".

The resultant academic and public quarrels concerned the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was right or wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether the journal had exercised the appropriate intellectual rigor before publishing the pseudoscientific article.

Sokal's Hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCHGd9iKTNQ
Clifford Goldstein on Sokal's Hoax paper


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #112 on: May 18, 2013, 06:17:09 PM »

Example 34

The Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth



Everyone knows the popular myths about the two brain hemispheres: The right brain is artistic, musical, spatial, intuitive, and holistic; the left brain is linear, rational, analytical, and linguistic. There is some truth in these labels. But, not surprisingly, they are mostly oversimplifications of tendencies, not fixed rules.

When asked to address some of the conceptions about hemispheric differences, split-brain expert and the author of The Lopsided Ape, Michael Corballis, his assessments were very much along these lines.

On the subject of creativity and language-two skills often polarized as examples of right and left brain thinking-Corballis said, “I don’t see any good evidence that the right hemisphere is more creative than the left. Language itself is highly creative-every sentence you construct is a new creation-and one could make a case for supposing that the left hemisphere is really the creative one.” He goes on, “But I think artistic creativity is likely to invoke more right-hemisphere capacities, simply because of the right- hemisphere bias for spatial skills. And there are aspects of language, such as prosody, and perhaps pragmatic aspects such as an understanding of metaphor or sarcasm, that may be more right than left hemispheric. So it’s always a question of balance.”

“Quite simply,” writes Michael Gazzaniga, a former student of split-brain pioneer Roger Sperry, “all brains are not organized the same way.” Like with everything else human, genes collide with environment and the result is not a predictable thing.

In short, our reduction of the sides of the brain to the seats of this or that skill or quality misses the point entirely. “On the whole,” said Corballis, “I think it would be better for educationalists and therapists to forget about the hemispheres and concentrate on the skills themselves. The hemispheres are convenient pegs on which to hang our prejudices.”


Ref.

Why the Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth Will Probably Never Die
The myth has become a powerful metaphor, but it's one we should challenge
Published on June 27, 2012 by Christian Jarrett, Ph.D in Brain Myths
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201206/why-the-left-brain-right-brain-myth-will-probably-never-die


Psychology for Designers - Left Brain / Right Brain Myth
http://psychologyfordesigners.com/post/38377562028/left-brain-right-brain-myth


“Left Brain” “Right Brain”: The Mind in Two
Gerald Gabriel | July 27, 2008
http://brainconnection.positscience.com/left-brain-right-brain-the-mind-in-two/

When I asked split-brain expert and the author of The Lopsided Ape, Michael Corballis, to address some of the conceptions about hemispheric differences, his assessments were very much along these lines.

On the subject of creativity and language-two skills often polarized as examples of right and left brain thinking-Corballis said, “I don’t see any good evidence that the right hemisphere is more creative than the left. Language itself is highly creative-every sentence you construct is a new creation-and one could make a case for supposing that the left hemisphere is really the creative one.” He goes on, “But I think artistic creativity is likely to invoke more right-hemisphere capacities, simply because of the right- hemisphere bias for spatial skills. And there are aspects of language, such as prosody, and perhaps pragmatic aspects such as an understanding of metaphor or sarcasm, that may be more right than left hemispheric. So it’s always a question of balance.”

“Quite simply,” writes Michael Gazzaniga, a former student of split-brain pioneer Roger Sperry, “all brains are not organized the same way.” Like with everything else human, genes collide with environment and the result is not a predictable thing.

In short, our reduction of the sides of the brain to the seats of this or that skill or quality misses the point entirely. “On the whole,” said Corballis, “I think it would be better for educationalists and therapists to forget about the hemispheres and concentrate on the skills themselves. The hemispheres are convenient pegs on which to hang our prejudices.”


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline No2NWO

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • "It's Just A Ride" ~ BH
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #113 on: May 19, 2013, 11:51:59 PM »
Rockefeller commune drug slaver trained predator animal Doctor disinformation. When you get old you can tell the improvement from eating carrots if you have always had 20/20 vision. The natural food and plants were already enginered for your health and medicine and man will never improve on them.

In humans, the maximum acuity of a healthy, emmetropic eye (and even ametropic eyes with correctors) is approximately 20/16 to 20/12, so it is inaccurate to refer to 20/20 visual acuity as "perfect" vision.[11] 20/20 is the visual acuity needed to discriminate two points separated by 1 arc minute—about 1/16 of an inch at 20 feet. This is because a 20/20 letter, E for example, has three limbs and two spaces in between them, giving 5 different detailed areas. The ability to resolve this therefore requires 1/5 of the letter's total arc, which in this case would be 1 minute. The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity#Normal_vision

 8)
"BEAT THEM BY NEVER JOINING THEM" ~ No2NWO
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #114 on: July 03, 2013, 03:59:17 AM »

Example 35

Placebo Buttons



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBofF7Bwrvo

Our lives are filled with lying buttons! We're talking those pesky crosswalk buttons, close door elevator buttons and more! Why are they around, and why do we always hit them expecting magic? Anthony explores this hidden world of lies and deceit!



The Door Close button is there mostly to give passengers the illusion of control. In elevators built since the early '90s. The button is only enabled in emergency situations with a key held by an authority.


Quote
According to a 2008 article in the New Yorker, close buttons don’t close the elevator doors in many elevators built in the United States since the 1990s. In some elevators the button is there for workers and emergency personnel to use, and it only works with a key. The key-only settings isn’t always active though, as the blog Design with Intent asserts. Each elevator is different. In some, the emergency function requires a long-press of several seconds longer than the average user attempts.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/02/10/placebo-buttons/

Quote
Non-functioning mechanisms like this that motivate you to fool yourself are called placebo buttons, and they’re everywhere.

Computers and timers now control the lights at many intersections, but at one time little buttons at crosswalks allowed people to trigger the signal change. Those buttons are mostly all disabled now, but the task of replacing or removing all of them was so great most cities just left them up. You still press them though, because the light eventually changes.

In an investigation by ABC news in 2010, only one functioning crosswalk button could be found in Austin, Texas; Gainsville, Fla.; and Syracuse, NY.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/02/10/placebo-buttons/


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #115 on: November 30, 2013, 04:34:10 PM »
Example 36

Laws vs Rules vs Theories

The Variability of Fundamental Constants

 Do physical constants fluctuate?

As the name implies, the so-called physical constants are supposed to be changeless. They are believed to reflect an underlying constancy of nature. In this chapter I discuss how the values of the fundamental physical constants have in fact changed over the last few decades, and suggest how the nature of these changes can be investigated further.


 There are many constants listed in handbooks of physics and chemistry, such as melting points and boiling points of thousands of chemicals, going on for hundreds of pages: for instance the boiling point of ethyl alcohol is 78.5°C at standard temperature and pressure; its freezing point is -117.3°C. But some constants are more fundamental than others. The following list gives the seven most generally regarded as truly fundamental.



 
The Fundamental Constants
Fundamental quantitySymbol
Velocity of lightc
Elementary chargee
Mass of the electronme
Mass of the protonmp
Avogadro constantNA
Planck's constanth
Universal gravitational constantG
Boltzmann's constantk



All these constants are expressed in terms of units; for example, the velocity of light is expressed in terms of meters per second. If the units change, so will the constants. And units are [arbitrary], dependent on definitions that may change from time to time: the meter, for instance, was originally defined in 1790 by a decree of the French National Assembly as one ten-millionth of the quadrant of the earth's meridian passing through Paris. The entire metric system was based upon the meter and imposed by law. But the original measurements of the earth's circumference were found to be in error. The meter was then defined, in 1799, in terms of a standard bar kept in France under official supervision. In 1960 the meter was redefined in terms of the wavelength of light emitted by krypton atoms; and in 1983 it was redefined again in terms of the speed of light itself, as the length of the path traveled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

 
As well as any changes due to changing units, the official values of the fundamental constants vary from time to time as new measurements are made. They are continually adjusted by experts and international commissions. Old values are replaced by new ones, based on the latest 'best values' obtained in laboratories around the world. Below, I consider four examples: the gravitational constant (G>); the speed of light; Planck's constant; and also the fine structure constant a, which is derived from the charge on the electron, the velocity of light, and Planck's constant.

 
The 'best' values are already the result of considerable selection. First, experimenters tend to reject unexpected data on the grounds that they must be errors. Second, after the most deviant measurements have been weeded out, variations within a given laboratory are smoothed out by averaging the values obtained at different times, and the final value is then subjected to a series of somewhat arbitrary corrections. Finally, the results from different laboratories around the world are selected, adjusted, and averaged to arrive at the latest official value.
 
Faith in eternal truths
 In practice, then, the values of the constants change. But in theory they are supposed to be changeless. The conflict between theory and empirical reality is usually brushed aside without discussion, because all variations are assumed to be due to experimental errors, and the latest values are assumed to be the best.

 
But what if the constants really change? What if the underlying nature of nature changes? Before this subject can even be discussed, it is necessary to think about one of the most fundamental assumptions of science as we know it: faith in the uniformity of nature. For the committed believer, these questions are nonsensical. Constants must be constant.

 
Most constants have been measured only in this small region of the universe for a few decades, and the actual measurements have varied erratically. The idea that all constants are the same everywhere and always is not an extrapolations from the data. If it were an extrapolation it would be outrageous. The values of the constants as actually measured on earth have changed considerably over the last fifty years. To assume they had not changed for fifteen billion years anywhere in the universe goes far beyond the meager evidence. The fact that this assumption is so little questioned, so readily taken for granted, shows the strength of scientific faith in eternal truths.

 
According to the traditional creed of science, everything is governed by fixed laws and eternal constants. The laws of nature are the same in all times and at all places. In fact they transcend space and time. They are more like eternal Ideas--in the sense of Platonic philosophy--than evolving things. They are not made of matter, energy, fields, space, or time; they are not made of anything. In short, they are immaterial and non-physical. Like Platonic Ideas they underlie all phenomena as their hidden reason or logos, transcending space and time.

 
Of course, everyone agrees that the laws of nature as formulated by scientists change from time to time, as old theories are partially or completely superseded by new ones. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation, depending on forces acting at a distance in absolute time and space, was replaced by Einstein's theory of the gravitational field consisting of curvatures of space-time itself. But both Newton and Einstein shared the Platonic faith that underlying the changing theories of natural science there are true eternal laws, universal and immutable. And neither challenged the constancy of constants: indeed both gave great prestige to this assumption, Newton through his introduction of the universal gravitational constant, and Einstein through treating the speed of light as absolute. In modern relativity theory, c is a mathematical constant, a parameter relating the units used for time to the units used for space; its value is fixed by definition. The question as to whether the speed of light actually differs from c, although theoretically conceivable, seems of peripheral interest.

 
For the founding fathers of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, the laws of nature were changeless Ideas in the divine mind. God was a mathematician. The discovery of the mathematical laws of nature was a direct insight into the eternal Mind of God. Similar sentiments have been echoes by physicists ever since.

 
Until the 1960s, the universe of orthodox physics was still eternal. But evidence for the expansion of the universe has been accumulating for several decades, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 finally triggered off a great cosmological revolution. The Big Bang theory took over. Instead of an eternal machine-like universe, gradually running down toward thermodynamic heat death, the picture was now one of a growing, developing, evolutionary cosmos. And if there was a birth of the cosmos, an initial 'singularity', as physicists put it, then once again age-old questions arise. Where and what did everything come from? Why is the universe as it is? In addition, a new question arises. If all nature evolves, why should the laws of nature not evolve as well? If laws are immanent in evolving nature, then the laws should evolve too.

 
Today these questions are usually discussed in terms of the anthropic cosmological principle, as follows: Out of the many possible universes, only one with the constants set at the values found today could have given rise to a world with life as we know it and allowed the emergence of intelligent cosmologists capable of discussing it. If the values of the constants had been different, there would have been no stars, nor atoms, nor planets, nor people. Even if the constants were only slightly different, we would not be here. For example, with just a small change in the relative strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces there could be no carbon atoms, and hence no carbon-based forms of life such as ourselves. 'The Holy Grail of modern physics is to explain why these numerical constants . . . have the particular numerical values they do.'

 
Some physicists incline toward a kind of neo-Deism, with a mathematical creator-God who fine-tuned the constants in the first place, selecting from many possible universes the one in which we can evolve. Others prefer to leave God out of it. One way of avoiding the need for a mathematical mind to fix the constants of nature is to suppose that our universe arose from a froth of possible universes. The primordial bubble that gave rise to our universe was one of many. But our universe has to have the constants it does by the very fact we are here. Somehow our presence imposes a selection. There may be innumerable alien and uninhabitable universes quite unknown to us, but this is the ony one we can know.

 
This kind of speculation has been carried even further by Lee Smolin, who has proposed a kind of cosmic Darwinism. Through black holes, baby universes may be budded off from pre-existing ones and take on a life of their own. Some of these might have slight mutations in the values of their constants and hence evolve differently. Only those that form stars can form black holes and hence have babies. So by a principle of cosmic fecundity, only universes like ours would reproduce, and there may be many more or less similar habitable universes. But this very speculative theory still does not explain why any universes should exist in the first place, nor what determines the laws that govern them, nor what maintains, carries, or remembers the mutant constants in any particular universe.

 
Notice that all these metaphysical speculations, extravagant though they seem, are thoroughly conventional in that they take for granted both eternal laws and constant constants, at least within a given universe. These well-established assumptions make the constancy of constants seem like an assured truth. Their changelessness is an act of faith. ...If measurements show variations in the constants, as they often do, then the variations are dismissed as experimental errors; the latest figure is the best available approximation to the 'true' value of the constant.

 
Some variations may well be due to errors, and such errors decrease as instruments and methods of measurement improve. All kinds of measurements have inherent limitations on their accuracy. But not all the variations in the measured values of the constants need necessarily be due to error, or to the limitations of the apparatus used. Some may be real. In an evolving universe, it is conceivable that the constants evolve along with nature. They might even vary cyclically, if not chaotically.
 
Theories of changing constants
 Several physicists, among them Arthur Eddington and Paul Dirac, have speculated that at least some of the 'fundamental constants' may change with time. In particular, Dirac proposed that the universal gravitational constant, G, may be decreasing with time: the gravitational force weakening as the universe expands. But those who make such speculations are usually quick to avow that they are not challenging the idea of eternal laws; they are merely proposing that eternal laws govern the variation of the constants.

 
The proposal that the laws themselves evolve is more radical. The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out that if we drop the old idea of Platonic laws imposed on nature, and think instead of laws being immanent in nature, then they must evolve along with the nature:

 
Since the laws of nature depend on the individual characters of the things constituting nature, as the things change, then consequently the laws will change. Thus the modern evolutionary view of the physical universe should conceive of the laws of nature as evolving concurrently with the things constituting the environment. Thus the conception of the Universe as evolving subject to fixed eternal laws should be abandoned.

 
I prefer to drop the metaphor of 'law' altogether, with its outmoded image of God as a kind of law-giving emperor, as well as an omnipotent and universal law-enforcement agency. Instead, I have suggested that the regularities of nature may be more like habits. According to the hypothesis of morphic resonance, a kind of cumulative memory is inherent in nature. Rather than being governed by an eternal mathematical mind, nature is shaped by habits, subject to natural selection. And some habits are more fundamental than others; for example, the habits of hydrogen atoms are very ancient and widespread, found throughout the universe, while the habits of hyenas are not. Gravitational and electromagnetic fields, atoms, galaxies and stars are governed by archaic habits, dating back to the earliest periods in the history of the universe. From this point of view the 'fundamental constants' are quantitative aspects of deep-seated habits. They may have changed at first, but as they became increasingly fixed through repetition, the constants may have settled down to more or less stable values. In this respect the habit hypothesis agrees with the conventional assumption of constancy, though for very different reasons.

 
Even if speculations about the evolution of constants are set aside, there are at least two more reasons why constants may vary. First, they may depend on the astronomical environment, changing as the solar system moves within the galaxy, or as the galaxy moves away from other galaxies. And second, the constants may oscillate or fluctuate. They may even fluctuate in a seemingly chaotic manner. Modern chaos theory has enabled us to recognize that chaotic behavior, as opposed to old-style determinism, is normal in most realms of nature. So far the 'constants' have survived unchallenged from an earlier era of physics: the vestiges of a lingering Platonism. But what if they, too, vary chaotically?
 
The variability of the universal gravitational constant
 In spite of the central importance of the universal gravitational constant, it is the least well defined of all the fundamental constants. Attempts to pin it down to many places of decimals have failed; the measurements are just too variable. The editor of the scientific journal Nature has described as 'a blot on the face of physics' the fact that G still remains uncertain to about one part in 5,000. Indeed, in recent years the uncertainty has been so great that the existence of entirely new forces has been postulated to explain gravitational anomalies.

 
In the early 1980s, Frank Stacey and his colleagues measured G in deep mines and boreholes in Australia. Their value was about 1 percent higher than currently accepted. For example, in one set of measurements in the Hilton mine in Queensland the value of G was found to be 6.734 ± 0.002, as opposed to the currently accepted value of 6.672 ± 0.003. The Australian results were repeatable and consistent, but no one took much notice until 1986. In that year Ephrain Fischbach, at the University of Washington, Seattle, sent shock waves around the world of science by claiming that laboratory tests also showed a slight deviation from Newton's law of gravity, consistent with the Australian results. Fischbach proposed the existence of a hitherto unknown repulsive force, the so-called fifth force (the four known forces being the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force)

 
The possible existence of a fifth force is not particularly relevant to possible changes in G with time. But the very fact that the question of an extra force affecting gravitation could even be raised and seriously considered in the late twentieth century serves to emphasize how imprecise the characterization of gravity remains more than three centuries after the publication of Newton's Principia.

 
The suggestion by Paul Dirac and other theoretical physicists that G may be decreasing as the universe expands has been taken quite seriously by some metrologists. However, the change proposed by Dirac was very small, about 5 parts in 1011 per year. This is way below the limits of detection using conventional methods of measuring G on Earth. The 'best' results in the last twenty years differ from each other by more than 5 parts in 104. In other words, the change Dirac was suggesting is some ten million times smaller than the differences between recent 'best' values.

 
In order to test Dirac's hypothesis, a variety of indirect methods have been tried. Some depend on geological evidence, such as the slopes of fossils and dunes, from which the gravitational forces at the time they were formed can be calculated; others depend on records of eclipses over the last 3,000 years; others on modern astronomical methods.

 
The problem with all these indirect lines of evidence is that they depend on a complex tissue of theoretical assumptions, including the constancy of the other constants of nature. They are persuasive only within the framework of the present paradigm. That is to say that if one assumes the correctness of modern cosmological theories, themselves presupposing the constancy of G, the data are internally consistent, provided that all actual variations from experiment to experiment, or method to method, are assumed to be a result of error.
 
The fall in the speed of light from 1928 to 1945
 According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant: it is an absolute constant. Much of modern physics is based on that assumption. There is therefore a strong theoretical prejudice against raising the question of possible changes in the velocity of light. In any case, the question is now officially closed. Since 1972 the speed of light has been fixed by definition. The value is defined as 299,792.458 ± 0.001 # 2 kilometers per second.

 
As in the case of the universal gravitational constant, early measurements of c differed considerably from the present official value. For example, the determination by Römer in 1676 was about 30 percent lower, and that by Fizeau in 1849 about 5 percent higher.

 
In 1929, Birge published his review of all the evidence available up to 1927 and came to the conclusion that the best value for velocity of light was 299,796 ± 4 km/s. He pointed out that the probable error was far less than in any of the other constants, and concluded that 'the present value of c is entirely satisfactory, and can be considered as more or less permanently established.' However, even as he was writing, considerably lower values of c were being found, and by 1934 it was suggested by Gheury de Bray that the data pointed to a cyclic variation in the velocity of light.
 From around 1928 to 1945, the velocity of light appeared to be about 20 km/s lower than before and after this period. The 'best' values, found by the leading investigators using a variety of techniques, were in impressively close agreement with each other, and the available data were combined and adjusted by Birge in 1941 and Dorsey in 1945.

 
In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again. Not surprisingly, there was some turbulence at first as the old value was overthrown. The new value was about 20 km/s higher, close to that prevailing in 1927. A new consensus developed. How long this consensus would have lasted if based on continuing measurements is a matter for speculation. In practice, further disagreement was prevented by fixing the speed of light in 1972 by definition.

 
How can the lower velocity from 1928 to 1945 be explained? If it was simply a matter of experimental error, why did the results of different investigators and different methods agree so well? And why were the estimated errors so low?

 
One possibility is that the velocity of light really does fluctuate from time to time. Perhaps it really did drop for nearly twenty years. But this is not a possibility that has been seriously considered by researchers in the field, except for de Bray. So strong is the assumption that it must be fixed that the empirical data have to be explained away. This remarkable episode in the history of the speed of light is now generally attributed to the psychology of metrologists:

 
The tendency for experiments in a given epoch to agree with one another has been described by the delicate phrase 'intellectual phase locking.' Most metrologists are very conscious of the possible existence of such effects; indeed ever-helpful colleagues delight in pointing them out! . . . .Aside from the discovery of mistakes, the near completion of the experiment brings more frequent and stimulating discussion with interested colleagues and the preliminaries to writing up the work add fresh perspective. All of these circumstances combine to prevent what was intended to be 'the final result' from being so in practice, and consequently the accusation that one is most likely to stop worrying about corrections when the value is closest to other results is easy to make and difficult to refute.

 
But if changes in the values of constants in the past are attributed to the experimenters' psychology, then, as other eminent metrologists have observed, 'this raises a disconcerting question: How do we know that this psychological factor is not equally important today?' In the case of the velocity of light, however, this question is now academic. Not only is the velocity fixed by definition, but the very units in which velocity is measured, distance and time, are defined in terms of light itself.

 
The second used to be defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, but it is now defined in terms of the frequency of light emitted by a particular kind of excitation of caesium-133 atoms. A second is 9,192,631,770 times the period of vibration of the light. Meanwhile, since 1983 the meter has been defined in terms of the velocity of light, itself fixed by definition.

 
As Brian Petley has pointed out, it is conceivable that:
 (i) the velocity of light might change with time, or (ii) have a directional dependence in space, or (iii) be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun, or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

 
Nevertheless, if such changes really happened, we would be blind to them. We are now shut up within an artificial system where such changes are not only impossible by definition, but would be undetectable in practice because of the way the units are defined. Any change in the speed of light would change the units themselves in such a way that the velocity in kilometers per second remained exactly the same.
 
The rise of Planck's constant
 Planck's constant, h, is a fundamental feature of quantum physics and relates the frequency of a radiation, v, with its quantum of energy, E, according to the formula E=hv. It has the dimensions of action (energy x time).

 
We are often told that quantum theory is brilliantly successful and amazingly accurate. For example: 'The laws that have been found to describe the quantum world. . . are the most accurate and precise tools we have ever found for the successful description and prediction of the workings of Nature. In some cases the agreement between the theory's predictions and what we measure are good to better than one part in a billion.'

 
I heard and read such statements so often that I used to assume that Planck's constant must be known with tremendous accuracy to many places of decimals. This seems to be the case if one looks it up in a scientific handbook--so long as one does not also look at previous editions. In fact its official value has changed over the years, showing a marked tendency to increase.

 
The biggest change occurred between 1929 and 1941, when it went up by more than 1 percent. This increase was largely due to a substantial change in the value of the charge on the electron, e. Experimental measurements of Planck's constant do not give direct answers, but also involve the charge on the electron and/or the mass of the electron. If either or both of these other constants change, then so does Planck's constant.


Millikan's work on the charge on the electron turned out to be one of the roots of the trouble. Even though other researchers found substantially higher values, they tended to be disregarded. 'Millikan's great renown and authority brought about the opinion that the question of the magnitude of e had practically got its definitive answer.' For some twenty years Millikan's value prevailed, but evidence went on building up that e was higher. As Richard Feynman has expressed it:

 
It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge on the electron after Millikan. If you plot them as function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, the next one's a little bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number that is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they would look for and find a number closer to Millikan's value when they didn't look so far. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.

 
In the late 1930s, the discrepancies could no longer be ignored, but Millikan's high-prestige value could not simply be abandoned either; instead it was corrected by using a new value for the viscosity of air, an important variable in his oil-drop technique, bringing it into alignment with the new results. In the early 1940s, even higher values of e led to a further upward revision of the official figure. Sure enough, reasons were found to correct Millikan's value yet again, raising it to agree with the new value. Every time e increased, so Planck's constant had to be raised as well.

 
Interestingly, Planck's constant continued to creep upwards from the 1950s to the 1970s. Each of these increases exceeded the estimated error in the previously accepted value. The latest value shows a slight decline.



 
Planck's Constant from 1951 to 1988 (Review Values)
AuthorDateh(x 10-34 joule seconds)
Bearden and Watts19516.623 63 ± 0.000 16
Cohen et al.19556.625 17 ± 0.000 23
Condon19636.625 60 ± 0.000 17
Cohen and Taylor19736.626 176 ± 0.000 036
19886.626 075 5 ± 0.000 004 0
[/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t]

 


Several attempts have been made to look for changes in Planck's constant by studying the light from quasars and stars assumed to be very distant on the basis of the red shift in their spectra. The idea was that if Planck's constant has changed, the properties of the light emitted billions of years ago should be different from more recent light. Little difference was found, leading to the seemingly impressive conclusion that h varies by less than 5 parts in 1013 per year. But critics of such experiments have pointed out that these constancies are inevitable, since the calculations depend on the implicit assumption that h is constant; the reasoning is circular. (Strictly speaking, the starting assumption is that the product hc is constant; but since c is constant by definition, this amounts to assuming the constancy of h.)



Fluctuations in the fine-structure constant
 One of the problems of looking for changes in a fundamental constant is that if changes are found in the constant, then it is difficult to know whether it is the constant itself that is changing, or the units in which it is measured. However, some of the constants are dimensionless, expressed as pure numbers, and hence the question of changes in units does not arise. One example is the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron. Another is the fine-structure constant. For this reason, some metrologists have emphasized that 'secular changes in physical "constants" should be formulated in terms of such numbers.'

 
Accordingly, in this section I look at the evidence for changes in the fine-structure constant, a, formed from the charge on the electron, the velocity of light, and Planck's constant, according to the formula the fine structure constant = [charge on the electron, squared]/2 [Planck's constant][the velocity of light][the permittivity of free space]. It gives a measure of the strength of electromagnetic interactions, and is sometimes expressed as its reciprocal, approximately 1/137. This constant is treated by some theoretical physicists as one of the key cosmic numbers that a Theory of Everything should be able to explain.

 
Between 1929 and 1941 the fine-structure constant increased by about 0.2 percent, from 7.283 x 10-3 to 7.2976 x 10-3. This change was largely attributable to the increased value for the charge on the electron, partly offset by the fall in the speed of light, both of which I have already discussed. As in the case of the other constants, there was a scatter of results from different investigators, and the 'best' values were combined and adjusted from time to time by reviewers. As in the case of the other constants, the changes were generally larger than would be expected on the basis of the estimated errors. For example, the increase from 1951 to 1963 was twelve times greater than the estimated error in 1951 (expressed as the standard deviation); the increase from 1963 to 1973 was nearly five tims the estimated error in 1963.



 
The Fine-Structure Constant From 1951 to 1973
AuthorDatea x 10-3
Bearden and Watts19517.296 953 ± 0.000 028
Condon19637.297 200 ± 0.000 033
Cohen and Taylor19737.297 350 6 ± 0.000 006 0
[/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t]

 


Several cosmologists have speculated that the fine-structure constant might vary with the age of the universe, and attempts have been made to check this possibility by analyzing the light from stars and quasars, assuming that their distance is proportional to the red-shift of their light. The results suggest that there has been little or no change in the constant. But as with all other attempts to infer the constancy of constants from astronomical observations, many assumptions have to be made, including the constancy of other constants, the correctness of current cosmological theories, and the validity of red-shifts as indicators of distance. All of these assumptions have been and are still being questioned by dissident cosmologists.
 
Do constants really change?
 As we have seen with the four examples above, the empirical data from laboratory experiments reveal all sorts of variations as time goes on. Similar variations are found in the values of the other fundamental constants. These do not trouble true believers in constancy, because they can always be explained in terms of experimental error of one kind or another. Because of continual improvements in techniques, the greatest faith is always placed in the latest measurements, and if they differ from previous ones, the older ones are automatically discredited (except when the older ones are endowed with a high prestige, as in the case of Millikan's measurement of e). Also, at any given time, there is a tendency for metrologists to overestimate the accuracy of contemporary measurements, as shown by the way that later measurements often differ from earlier ones by amounts greater than the estimated error. Alternatively, if metrologists are estimating their errors correctly, then the changes in the values of the constants show that the constants really are fluctuating. The clearest example is the fall in the speed of light from 1928 to 1945. Was there a real change in the course of nature, or was it due to a collective delusion among metrologists?

 
So far there have been only two main theories about the fundamental constants. First, they are truly constant, and all variations in the empirical data are due to errors of one kind or another. As science progresses, these errors are reduced. With ever-increasing precision we come closer and closer to the constants' true values. This is the conventional view. Second, several theoretical physicists have speculated that one or more of the constants may vary in some smooth and regular manner with the age of the universe, or over astronomical distances. Various tests of these ideas using astronomical observations seem to have ruled out such changes. But these tests beg the question. They are founded on the assumptions that they set out to prove: that constants are constant, and that present-day cosmology is correct in all essentials.

 
There has been little consideration of the third possibility, which is the one I am exploring here, namely the possibility that constants may fluctuate, within limits, around average values which themselves remain fairly constant. The idea of changeless laws and constants is the last survivor from the era of classical physics in which a regular and (in principle) totally predictable mathematical order was supposed to prevail at all times and in all places. In reality, we find nothing in the kind in the course of human affairs, in the biological realm, in the weather, or even in the heavens. The chaos revolution has revealed that this perfect order was a beguiling illusion. Most of the natural world is inherently chaotic.

 
The fluctuating values of the fundamental constants in experimental measurements seem just as compatible with small but real changes in their values, as they are with a perfect constancy obscured by experimental errors. I now propose a simple way of distinguishing between these possibilities. I concentrate on the gravitational constant, because this is the most variable. But the same principles could be applied to any of the other constants too.

An experiment to detect possible fluctuations in the universal gravitational constant
 The principle is simple. At present, when measurements are made in a particular laboratory, the final value is based on an average of a series of individual measurements, and any unexplained variations between these measurements are attributed to random errors. Clearly, if there were real underlying fluctuations, either owing to changes in the earth's environment or to inherently chaotic fluctuations in the constant itself, these would be ironed out by the statistical procedures, showing up simply as random errors. As long as these measurements were confined to a single laboratory, there would be no way of distinguishing between these possibilities.

 
What I propose is a series of measurements of the universal gravitational constant to be made at regular intervals--say monthly--at several different laboratories all over the world, using the best available methods. Then, over a period of years, these measurements would be compared. If there were underlying fluctuations in the value of G, for whatever reason, these would show up at the various locations. In other words, the 'errors' might show a correlation--the values might tend to be high in some months and low in others. In this way, underlying patterns of variation could be detected that could not be dismissed as random error.

 
It would then be necessary to look for other explanations that did not involve a change in G, including possible changes in the units of measurement. How these inquiries would turn out is impossible to foresee. The important thing is to start looking for correlated fluctuations. And precisely because fluctuations are being looked for, there is more chance of finding them. By contrast, the current theoretical paradigm leads to a sustained effort by everyone concerned to iron out variations, because constants are assumed to be truly constant.

 
Unlike the other experiments proposed in this book, this one would involve a fairly large-scale international effort. Even so, the budget would not need to be huge if it took place in established laboratories already equipped to make such measurements. And it is even possible that it could be done by students. Several inexpensive methods for determining G have been described, based on the classical method of Cavendish using a torsion balance, and an improved student method has recently been developed which is accurate to 0.1 percent.

 
One of the advantages of the continual improvement in precision of metrological techniques is that it should become increasingly feasible to detect small changes in the constants. For example, a far greater accuracy in measurements of G should be possible when experiments can be done in spacecraft and satellites, and appropriate techniques are already being proposed and discussed. Here is an area where a big question really would need big science.

 
But there is in fact one way that this research could be done on a very low budget to start with: by examining the existing raw data for measurements of G at various laboratories over the last few decades. This would require the cooperation of the scientists concerned, because raw data are kept in scientists' notebooks and laboratory files, and many scientists are reluctant to allow others access to these private records. But given this cooperation, there may already be enough data to look for worldwide fluctuations in the value of G.

 
The implications of fluctuating fundamental constants would be enormous. The course of nature could no longer be imagined as blandly uniform; we would recognize that there are fluctuations at the very heart of physical reality. And if different fundamental constants varied at different rates, these changes would create differing qualities of time, not unlike those envisaged by astrology, but with a more radical basis."


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #116 on: November 30, 2013, 04:39:07 PM »

Example 37

Man made Global Warming or 'Climate Change' is a complete and deliberate lie.


It is impossibe to watch all the below videos and maintain any belief that there is man made global warming. Do you know someone that believes in Global Warming and you want to wake up? If you can convince them to watch these interviews they will change their mind.



www.50to1.net

The 50 to 1 Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

What is the TRUE cost of climate change?  Is stopping it early really the cheapest plan in the long run?  50 to 1 explores the costs of stopping climate change vs adapting to it as and if it's required, and uncovers a simple truth; it's 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to simply ADAPT to it as and if required.


50 to 1 Project Interviews


Full length interview with Joanne Nova
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgMZegvtXB0
Topher interviews Joanne Nova, a veteran science communicator and regular commentator on the ABC and many other places. Joanne speaks of her own journey and how she went from being a ‘veteran believer’ in Global Warming to being the high-profile skeptic she is today.


Full length interview with David Evans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3doCKhI7Q
Topher interviews David Evans, former modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office, now prominent skeptic. He explains the reasons for his change of mind and why he’s so become so vocal on the issue.


Full length interview with Anthony Watts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiuHOzykxC0
Topher interviews Anthony Watts, former weatherman and passionate believer in global warming, now world famous skeptic responsible for the ‘surface stations’ project which has found serious issues with the global temperature measuring network, and key figure within the ‘Climategate’ scandal.


Full length interview with Christopher Essex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUYpa5UHL2I
Topher interviews Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics, who promptly ‘flips the checker board’ with questions about the very validity of such a thing as ‘Global temperature’.


Full length interview with Donna Laframboise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5weFQYBL5w
Topher interviews Donna Laframboise, former journalist turned investigative author. Donna has critiqued the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s claims about itself, its authors and its peer review process, and found them very VERY wanting…


Full length interview with Marc Morano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_crkSnRa4o
Topher interviews Marc Morano, accused ‘criminal against humanity’ and alleged ‘central cell of the climate denial machine’ and gets an insiders look into the politics and collateral damage caused by clumsy political responses to fears about climate change.


Full length interview with Fred Singer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9mWL4nH00
Topher interviews Fred Singer, atmospheric and space physicist and long time hero of the environmental movement, and finds out why he founded the NON Governmental Panel on Climate Change and why he’s taken a high profile stand against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Full length interview with Henry Ergas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtnUovGY_9Q
Topher interviews Henry Ergas, a high profile Australian economist with a lot to say about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, and discovers some of the underlying reasons why politicians love carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes and why these ‘markets’ always seem to fail.


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline One Revelator

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,635
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #117 on: November 30, 2013, 06:49:50 PM »
Supplement. Dunno if it’s true or not. But it wouldn’t surprise me if it was. I DO know that the number one cause of all human misery, poverty, and suffering is …. GLOBAL LYING.

Physics Debunked

November 30, 2013

(Isaac Newton, left, was a member of the "club.")

If you think, that only social sciences, law, history and literature are hijacked, you did not pay attention. Think that mathematics and physics are free? Think again.

(Editor's Note: I present this article for discussion. I am not in a position to gauge its accuracy, but it is consistent with our article on the "Scientific Dictatorship".)

From Zezlowaty Zorro
(our Polish Correspondent)
              (henrymakow.com)



The real achievement of people like you is rattling people awake from their stupor. It is no mean feat, taking into account that all of education, sciences, culture and media have been thoroughly corrupted for generations already.

All you hear, read and study is disinformation. It takes tremendous effort to break out from the matrix.

If you think, that only social sciences, law, history and literature are hijacked, you did not pay attention. Think that mathematics and physics are free? Think again.

Starting from this initial assumption, namely that physics had to be corrupted a long time ago, I discovered that it started with Rosicrucian Issac Newton and his laws of dynamics.



Next stop, Albert Einstein and the mysterious thousand mirrors quantum circus. Wonder why he never got to unified field theory, on which he reportedly worked for over thirty years? Wonder why we never got any further, that his circus lasted for exactly hundred years, just coincidentally the lifetime of the FED bank?

The reverse disinformation analysis shows that the missing link lies before our very eyes from the time of Newton consists of the undeniable fact that gravity has no stable foundation in physics. Never had. Therefore it cannot be incorporated in any unified field theory.

Gravity is a figment of Newtonian disinformation, resting on his naked, arbitral assumption of MASS.

What is a mass? Mass is. So said Newton. And it causes gravity obviously. Said Newton.

In reality, no mass exists and therefore there is no gravity. What we observe in microscale and macroscale is not a gravitational pull of some fundamental mass concept, but an electromagnetic phenomenon.

The so-called gravitational field is electromagnetic, exactly like radio and light is, with one generic difference, i.e. gravity comes from rotation of the electromagnetic field of elementary particles [vortex]. All particles are simply stable, self-contained, self-resonating, convoluted bunches of electromagnetic waves that vibrate and revolve, creating by this revolution a vortex, a pull on every other brother particle in the universe. That's all there is to gravity. Electromagnetic vortex.

No fundamental mass exists. There is only electromagnetic waves rotating and vibrating, that's all. The quantum mumbo-jumbo is a scam and a dead end.

There is no fundamental mass and gravity and it should be revised, starting from Newton. Why? Because he was obviously a member of THE CLUB. Check the facts and then you can start to think about it critically. Where is fundamental gravity? Nowhere. That's where it is.

 

Tesla was obviously keenly aware of this and therefore so did many experiments with electromagnetism. Because it is all waves... And that's why his work was confiscated.
--
PS-

You know the shills will ridicule this and try to find some way to throw it in the heap with UFO's and reptilians.

But the solid fact remains, that Newtonian physics cannot be combined with quarks mumbo-jumbo. I did the disinformation analysis. And it turned out the total information control, meaning sciences: mathematics, physics, history, starts with modern capitalism under London. This is an observable fact. The matrix will lash out at this feverishly, because it touches at its foundations.

All of modern science is censored and corrupted. It is an undeniable fact.

For your information, I could build my vortex gravity model further and I know - thanks to the internet - that this invention was made in parallel by many people already. I found it out, when searched for found solution, i.e. invented model :-) But it ruins the very foundations of official science and shows where the hidden doors are. That is dangerous to the secret military projects, energy control, free energy and Nazi anti-gravity vimana power. It is real and it relies on vortex... Suddenly everything made sense...

http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Physics-Debunked.html
The number one cause of all human poverty, misery, and death is not global warming. It’s GLOBAL LYING.

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,649
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #118 on: November 30, 2013, 08:33:55 PM »
 Brocke & Revelator.
       The deceptions mentioned are so mucken true. As for Telsa, the man was gifted. Had he not been on the elites leash we would be energy free, independent. The  01% will never allow mankind to be free from control.
       Brocke's phrase, socialy engineered, I was to the extreme a flag wiggling know nothing.
We use to say -( society's child ).
                                                    The wake up call was rough ride.
   

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #119 on: December 29, 2013, 08:58:39 AM »

Placebo Buttons
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/02/10/placebo-buttons/

The Misconception: All buttons placed around you do your bidding.
The Truth: Many public buttons are only there to comfort you.


The Benjamin Franklin Effect
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/

The Misconception: You do nice things for the people you like and bad things to the people you hate.
The Truth: You grow to like people for whom you do nice things and hate people you harm.


The Sunk Cost Fallacy
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences.
The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it.


Learned Helplessness
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2009/11/11/learned-helplessness/

The Misconception: If you are in a bad situation, you will do whatever you can do to escape it.
The Truth: If you feel like you aren’t in control of your destiny, you will give up and accept whatever situation you are in.



Introspection Illusion
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/26/the-perils-of-introspection/

The Misconception: You know why you like the things you like and feel the way you feel.
The Truth: The origin of certain emotional states is unavailable to you, and when pressed to explain them, you will just make something up.



Confirmation Bias
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.


http://youarenotsosmart.com/


You Are Not So Smart &
You Are Now Less Dumb
http://youarenotsosmart.com/the-book/


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche