A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Götterdämmerung?

Thankyou I really like that, I had the whole thing on video once. But that was Wagner from 'Der Ring Des Nebelungen'.

The Germans refered to the battle as 'Skagerrskschlacht'. I remembered it was something like that but I would never have been able to spell it, so I looked it up.

[thedoc]

Wow ! '200 or Bust'.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wow ! '200 or Bust'.

So . . . no NBLs if we reach 200?

davidm --->

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Hey, there's always the Countdown from one million thread ... that is, if you folks really get bored.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

*Sigh*

I know it won't do a bit of good, but do you read even the articles that you cite?

First of all, "legally blind" is not blind and "least developed" does not mean "undeveloped." Infants can't focus well -- they need time to strengthen and to refine their control over their voluntary ciliary muscles; other senses aren't dependent on muscle control.

Legally blind means that infants can't see very well. But why? They can't focus. Why? We are back to square one and you keep saying it's muscle control. What other senses are dependent on muscle control?

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

More to the point, as the article points out (you even quoted it), infants can see, and even recognize faces. They simply can't focus well when right out of the womb. Giving them interesting things to look at helps them to develop that control. That's hardly news, nor is it in any way support for Lessans' notions.

What you are saying is not even accurate. Giving them interesting things to look at does not give them the muscle control because the ciliary muscle is involuntary. There has to be something else going on, but this model of sight has been accepted hook, line, and sinker, so you will defend it even when it doesn't add up. The brain needs stimulation in order to focus, and that's why infants can't see right away, which is very different from the other senses.

Eye Muscles

Your eyes have voluntary and involuntary muscles. The extrinsic muscles of your eye are voluntary, skeletal muscles located around your eyeballs. The intrinsic muscles of your eye are involuntary, smooth muscles and located within your eyes. You have four voluntary rectus muscles and two voluntary oblique muscles around each eyeball that enable you to move your eyes. The ciliary muscle is an involuntary muscle just behind your pupil and controls the shape of your lens. The iris is also involuntary and controls the size of your pupil. Your eyes must be level with the horizon in front of you in order to keep your balance.


Read more: The Muscles Of The Body And Their Functions | LIVESTRONG.COM

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The Indefatigable was destroyed in only 3 minutes at the battle of Jutland. Hmm ...

I'm more indefatigable than the Battlecruser. Wow! That's sayin somethin'.

[peacegirl]

Very strange to me that not one person can admit that maybe something is not quite right with the model of sight. It's like you're all in thinking and acting as one entity, instead of being individuals. Maybe the fact that no one has come back with a refutation is a good sign, but unfortunately not one person in this entire forum is reading the book. That makes me feel like this whole thread is futile. NO ONE IS READING THE BOOK!! This is all a game to you people, even in the face of support for Lessans. You just conveniently turn your heads in denial. I challenge David especially to read the book as it was meant to be read, not the way he butchered it. Any scientific achievement can be butchered; just like the innocent party in a courtroom can be made to appear guilty. Can't you for one second give this author the benefit of the doubt? You should all be reading this book as if this world depends on it; which it does. The intelligensia, which you all claim to be, are now becoming the stumbling blocks to a better world, because you are too sure of yourselves.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very strange to me that not one person can admit that maybe something is not quite right with the model of sight. It's like you're all in thinking and acting as one entity, instead of being individuals. Maybe the fact that no one has come back with a refutation is a good sign

No one has come back with a refutation??

Listen, you dishonest little fool, The Lone Ranger wrote an entire fucking essay refuting this bullshit, which you did not even read, did you? He also presented the scientific studies proving that dogs can recognize their masters by sight alone. You, on the other hand, have refused to answer dozens of questions and have not offered a scintilla of evidence showing why the well-understood model of seeing is wrong. Your father was insane. By promoting this rubbish on the Internet, you are turning him into a laughing stock. Is that how you want you father to be remembered?

I move that everyone stick a fork in this thread. It's plain that this ditz is uneducable and a liar to boot. This thread has moved past page 100 into the realm of the absurd.

I would just add that you were given the benefit of the doubt in this sense: to see whether you were honest or dishonest, and to see whether you were educable or uneducable. You have now proved both dishonest and uneducable. The vast, breathtaking temerity of now writing, after all this time, that no one has come back with a refutation, after all the refuting that has been done, shows just how creepily dishonest you are. Hey, you retard, explain to us again how the astronomer on Rigel sees Columbus landing in America even as the natives of America see him do it.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very strange to me that not one person can admit that maybe something is not quite right with the model of [breathing oxygen to survive]. It's like you're all in thinking and acting as one entity, instead of being individuals. Maybe the fact that no one has come back with a refutation is a good sign, but unfortunately not one person in this entire forum is reading the book. That makes me feel like this whole thread is futile. NO ONE IS READING THE BOOK!! This is all a game to you people, even in the face of support for Lessans. You just conveniently turn your heads in denial. I challenge David especially to read the book as it was meant to be read, not the way he butchered it. Any scientific achievement can be butchered; just like the innocent party in a courtroom can be made to appear guilty. Can't you for one second give this author the benefit of the doubt? You should all be reading this book as if this world depends on it; which it does. The intelligensia, which you all claim to be, are now becoming the stumbling blocks to a better world, because you are too sure of yourselves.

Our understanding of sight is very well-developed, and people have given you numerous citations of studies and explanations of the mechanics of sight.

You never even responded to my explanation of how your brain constructs an image (essentially) from lots of tiny pixels. I suggested you go look at your TV up close to see how the pixels, each made of three differently colored portions, combine to form a whole image, even tho each pixel does not itself contain the picture. You ignored this, so am I correct in thinking that you still believe that the theory is that each photon or ray of light contains the image of the whole object?

Your questioning of the fact that sight is a sense is equivalent to suggesting that we don't really need oxygen to breathe. Nobody is going to "admit" that there's something off with that theory either, and the fact that we're all in agreement is not because there's anything cult-like or hive-mind-like going on. It's just that it's correct.

You are wrong - the fact that we all disagree with you isn't groupthink, it's us recognizing the evidence that proves you're wrong. (And the fact that your dad's theory of sight is incoherent.)

As much as I'd like to think that something could penetrate your dogmatic adherence to this idiocy, it's obvious that you're too close-minded to consider that your daddy might be wrong. So, as I suggested dozens of pages ago, you ought to go searching for idiots who are more gullible, because nobody here is ever going to buy your retarded bullshit. All the evidence points to you being wrong, incompetent, dogmatic and dishonest. So go away.

[davidm]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You know what David, this is getting old. Having a virtual party on p. 100 is fine. I can joke along with everyone, but all of the disrespect I have had to put up with from the likes of you is becoming abusive. You don't know when to stop. This is a serious topic, whether you agree or not, and you are treating it as if it's a piece of junk. I cannot do anymore to convince people here that this is not junk, except try to reach those who will take the time to seriously investigate this knowledge. You are the dam fool!!!! I certainly am not going to put more of my time and energy into this thread than anyone else is. And no one here seems at all interested except for entertainment value. They told me this from the very beginning, but I didn't want to believe it. Now I believe it. David, please stop posting to me because this time I'm done unless you apologize for calling me all the nasty names this entire thread. I'm sick of you, AND YOUR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very strange to me that not one person can admit that maybe something is not quite right with the model of [breathing oxygen to survive]. It's like you're all in thinking and acting as one entity, instead of being individuals. Maybe the fact that no one has come back with a refutation is a good sign, but unfortunately not one person in this entire forum is reading the book. That makes me feel like this whole thread is futile. NO ONE IS READING THE BOOK!! This is all a game to you people, even in the face of support for Lessans. You just conveniently turn your heads in denial. I challenge David especially to read the book as it was meant to be read, not the way he butchered it. Any scientific achievement can be butchered; just like the innocent party in a courtroom can be made to appear guilty. Can't you for one second give this author the benefit of the doubt? You should all be reading this book as if this world depends on it; which it does. The intelligensia, which you all claim to be, are now becoming the stumbling blocks to a better world, because you are too sure of yourselves.

Originally Posted by erimir

Our understanding of sight is very well-developed, and people have given you numerous citations of studies and explanations of the mechanics of sight.

It might be well-developed, BUT PARTS OF IT ARE INCONCLUSIVE (I used that word instead of 'wrong' so people dont' go nuts in here)!!!

Originally Posted by erimir

You never even responded to my explanation of how your brain constructs an image (essentially) from lots of tiny pixels. I suggested you go look at your TV up close to see how the pixels, each made of three differently colored portions, combine to form a whole image, even tho each pixel does not itself contain the picture. You ignored this, so am I correct in thinking that you still believe that the theory is that each photon or ray of light contains the image of the whole object?

THE BRAIN DOES NOT CONSTRUCT AN IMAGE. THE BRAIN SEES THE PICTURE BASED ON THE LIGHT'S WAVELENGTHS. The brain is able to see the picture as a whole, because the pixels are close together. I have no idea where you got the idea that I believed the photon contains the image of the whole object. Now this is really nutty.

Originally Posted by erimir

Your questioning of the fact that sight is a sense is equivalent to suggesting that we don't really need oxygen to breathe. Nobody is going to "admit" that there's something off with that theory either, and the fact that we're all in agreement is not because there's anything cult-like or hive-mind-like going on. It's just that it's correct.

If you believe that, then you need to take psychology 101. This is very cult-like, and it's taught me a lot. As much as you all think you have the gift of discernment, you don't, not in this case because it threatens the heart of how you believe true knowledge is attained.

Originally Posted by erimir

You are wrong - the fact that we all disagree with you isn't groupthink, it's us recognizing the evidence that proves you're wrong. (And the fact that your dad's theory of sight is incoherent.)

As much as I'd like to think that something could penetrate your dogmatic adherence to this idiocy, it's obvious that you're too close-minded to consider that your daddy might be wrong. So, as I suggested dozens of pages ago, you ought to go searching for idiots who are more gullible, because nobody here is ever going to buy your retarded bullshit. All the evidence points to you being wrong, incompetent, dogmatic and dishonest. So go away.

This is turning out to be a joke on you, not me. The tables have turned because now I see, after giving everyone very substantial evidence in Lessans' favor, no one has said a word. Not even a peep. The least they could have said is that more research needs to be done. You can't do that; it's a threat to your entire worldview. Oh my goddd, science may have gotten it wrong. So it's easier for everyone to call me dogmatic and dishonest, and Lessans a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Look how dishonest medical journals have become. It's a rotten joke on anyone who now dies or gets injured because the drug companies and doctors can promote their drugs with impunity.

In medicine, this is a problem in a couple of ways:

Virtually all of most physicians' ongoing medical education is paid for by the drug companies and represents slick advertising masquerading as educational activities. This even includes most of the studies in well-known journals. These studies are paid for by the drug companies and the journals' main source of income is often drug company advertising, an obvious potential conflict of interest. Research shows that a study paid for by a drug company is often not reliable (as much as 40-2,000% more likely to show a positive result than an independently funded study!). Most doctors think that they are being responsible and scientific when in actuality they are pushing expensive and often toxic new medications and treatments - that are not as effective as lower cost natural or generic therapies.

[peacegirl]

Even though this is off-topic, it's an informative video so I'm going to post it. As far as the thread is concerned, I think it's run out of steam.

Maryanne Godboldo is a civil rights hero for standing up to police state medicine - NaturalNews.tv

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO,
AOM, BAN, CBO, DCA, EDB, FEC, GFD, HGE, IHF, JIG, KJH, LKI, MLJ, NMK, ONL,
AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO,

This should prove, without a doubt, Undenialably, Mathematicaly and Scientificaly that Lessans was 100% wrong!

Not one of these were right. Not one!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remind us again of when we see Jupiter's moons eclipsed. Do we see the eclipse as it happens, or several minutes later?

If we are seeing the real world, not a delayed image of it, then there is a definite conflict.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what David, this is getting old.

Who gives a shit what you think? You have been lying for decades.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

I think I get it. It's like alphabetical sudoku. 7 sets of the first 15 letters of the alphabet. Not sure how they're supposed to be arranged, since "so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter" sounds like something someone put through google translate a few times.

Perhaps you could describe how these 105 blocks are to be arranged more clearly, peacegirl?

There are 35 sets, 3 in each set. You have to figure out the arrangement such that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter. It's easier said than done. I wouldn't even attempt it. The top line begins:

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

There are 6 more lines to go.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It doesn't matter if you narrow it down to dogs, he's still wrong! Besides, if he were right, his observation should apply to all species and there would be no need for you to selectively narrow it down; but it doesn't apply to any species.

That's a cop out. The experiment must be selectively narrowed down because each species is different to a degree. All variables need to be carefully controlled. If it turns out that dogs cannot identify their masters from sight alone (barring any other sensory input), then the experiment can be expanded to other animals. I'm sure there is some variability between animals in their ability to see detail by sight alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera uses the light that is reflected and absorbed by the object. The operative word is 'uses'. The object is then seen on film. Even the Lone Ranger, I believe, agrees that without the object, the camera has nothing to focus on. So how could we see Columbus discovering America from the star Rigel, if there was no object on which to focus? It doesn't even make logical sense.

Originally Posted by Kael

Everyone agrees that not having an object to reflect the light, there will be no image. People may say that a camera is focusing on the object, but that's not actually what's happening. The camera is actually focusing the rays of light. Even if you don't believe me, pick up any book that explains how a camera works, or simply search for how a camera works.

This all makes complete, logical sense if light is the medium by which we see.

When I take a picture, the camera is focusing on the people or event it wants to capture. It's true that the light is what is allowing the picture to be developed due to the wavelengths. But you can't separate the object from the light, which is what people are trying to do. In other words, light alone would never turn into a picture without the actual object which it is being reflected off of.

Originally Posted by Kael

If you are trying to say you won't get a picture of an object if the light never reflected off it, then yes, that is a true and completely undisputed statement. If, however, you are trying to say that if an object were to be removed from its location then from that instant on it would be impossible to take a picture of it, then you are wrong. Provided you have a camera that can take the picture in the time between the removal of the object and the light it last reflected reaching the film, you will get a picture of the object.

I don't see how that's possible. How can you take a picture of light without the object that gives it its wavelenths and frequencies? Even in a pinhole camera, you could take a picture of the image on a wall, but the object reflecting that image has to be present. Have you ever seen a moon reflected through a pinhole camera without the moon being present?

Originally Posted by Kael

Since light moves pretty damn fast, this is best observed in astronomy, where the distances are so vast that even light seems slow to cross them. The phenomenon of the moons of Jupiter during an eclipse has already been pointed out to you. If you take a picture of Jupiter as the event happens it will not show the eclipse. The light captured by that picture was reflected before the eclipse began, and so will have the properties and data of that instant, not of the eclipse. You must wait a few minutes for the light reflected by Jupiter and its moons during the eclipse to reach you. By the time that light reaches you, the moons will no longer be where the picture shows them to be. Photographs are developed from the information carried by light, and since light takes time to cross the distance from one point to another, any changes to the object in the interim will not appear in the photo.

That was the clearest explanation of everyone Kael. But it still poses a problem. You know, years ago people were hanged if they didn't agree with the thinking of the day. That's how I feel right now. God forbid someone comes along and disputes what everyone believes is sacred.

Originally Posted by Kael

This is why more distant galaxies appear to be younger than our own, the further away the younger still. You are, in effect, looking back in time, because you are seeing the light that was generated or reflected by that galaxy thousands, or millions, or even billions of years ago. Those galaxies almost certainly do not currently look like what you will see when you look at them. You can only capture, via your own eyes or a camera, the information of the state they were in when the light began its long journey from there to here.

Feel free to dismiss this, as I do not doubt you will, but this is very solidly established fact, supported by vast amounts of experimental data. If you could show some experimental data that proved you were photographing an astronomical event as it happened rather than after the event when the light reflected by it reached you, that would be something. Especially if it was replicable, as all good experiments should be. To simply assert it is so, as Lessans does with his example of Rigel, when we have centuries of accumulated data that demonstrates otherwise with no exceptions... Does it really surprise you that no one takes this claim seriously?

All the accumulated data was based on the belief that the eyes were a sense organ. That's what Lessans meant when he said Aristotle's classifications of the senses were assumed to be correct. No one ever questioned that the eyes may function differently. It was taken for granted that the eyes, like the other senses, acquired information from the light, similar to sound reaching the ears. Consequently, the results were misleading (if Lessans turns out to be right) because the assumption that images were being interpreted by signals coming from light could have easily led to a logically contructed model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

Wouldn't want to do that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Who gives a shit what you think? You have been lying for decades.

--J.D.

You're the next to be ignored, not that you give a dam.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Feel free to point out where and how the studies linked and cited to you are "skewed," provided you actually have such suspicions and aren't just looking for a way to dismiss the copious data that demonstrates the invalidity of Lessans' claims, rather than their validity, as you seem to think all proper experiments undoubtedly will.

If the experimenter's hypothesis is that dogs can identify their masters, it could (I'm not saying it has to) lead to a flawed experiment. The experimenter cannot be biased, which can often skew an experiment. In the Mythbusters video, I don't think they had strict enough controls. Additionally, I haven't seen copious data that demonstrates the invalidity of Lessans' claims about dogs. As I said earlier, I don't think my dog would be able to recognize me without smelling me or hearing my voice when I come in the door, although this is anecdotal. I don't think it would be that difficult to do more experiments, either showing a dog a picture, or a video without any sound. The owner could be standing next to other people to see if the dog gets excited and runs up to his master and smushes his nose against the screen where the owners' face is, indicating true recognition. These experiments have to be very carefully controlled and many experiments done to be confident that the results are reliable.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the next to be ignored, not that you give a dam.

"IF I cared. If I fucking cared. If I gave a solitary FUCK about your crushed dishonesty."

Promise shithead? Coward? Hypocrite? Liar?

Nevertheless, I will continue to periodically destroy your lies and crush you whether you read it or not. For you do not read. We all know this.

Further, when you try to sell your lies elsewhere, when people search for information on your Loon, they will find this thread.



"Now . . . Fuck OFF!"

--J.D.