"The Brandon Corey Story"

billy the squid

Diogenes wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2912878405399014351&q=DAVID+ICKE%3A+The+Lizards+and+the+Jews

Jon Ronson's documentary on Icke(includes I think the Wogan clip) were he says "I am the Son of God", which he then later retracts to claim "we are all the children of god"

What makes you think it is a retraction and not just a clarification? If he had said that "no I am not the son of God" then that would have been a retraction.

Now normally I'd allow a clarification, but seeing as we're on the conspiracy forum, and as we know the first thing a person says is what they actually definitively mean. This is a forum where no one is allowed to misspeak, or clarify what they actually mean, or explain they are being misquoted.

That is for me to decide, The fact that this is the conspiracy Theories forum does not give licence to those who wish to make baseless claims.

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

Will you join me in worshiping my elf?

Of course. Elf pwn.

Diogenes

billy the squid wrote:

What makes you think it is a retraction and not just a clarification? If he had said that "no I am not the son of God" then that would have been a retraction.

With respect crucial "evidence" of 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracys are quotes from people like Peter Powers and Silverstein, or Rumsfield or Cheney, respectively talking about" identical training exercises", "pulling it" "missile hitting the pentagon", or "act of heroism". In these cases the conspiracy theorists do not allow for the possibility of people misspeaking, why should we allow Icke the luxury of a clarification?

That is for me to decide, The fact that this is the conspiracy Theories forum does not give licence to those who wish to make baseless claims.

With respect baseless claims seem to be the mainstay of most of the conspiracy theories here. Demolition grade thermite anyone? Sachel charges? Scott Forbes?

So Glad wrote:

Of course. Elf pwn

Nope. Unlike Icke's dire claims, my prediction of your pwning has come true.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

why should we allow Icke the luxury of a clarification?

Because to do otherwise would negate our ability to say CT-supporters are wrong to the very tactic you are trying to highlight as being incorrect.

What we can (and arguably should) do is accept Icke's clarification (at least to the same extent that we accept others), whilst criticising CT supporters for not rejecting it like they do other clarifications.

jc

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

Because to do otherwise would negate our ability to say CT-supporters are wrong to the very tactic you are trying to highlight as being incorrect.

What we can (and arguably should) do is accept Icke's clarification (at least to the same extent that we accept others), whilst criticising CT supporters for not rejecting it like they do other clarifications.

jc

Excellent point, remark cheerfully withdrawn, I was merely highlighting a degree of hypocracy that fuels conspiracy theorist arguments.

datruth

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-13.htm


can this **** really be a conicidence?
this is crazy

datruth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040406-4.html

top of that when you go to whitehouse.gov and 5th search of "brandon corey" result leads to dick cheney

im not guillable at all but this definetaly either a super researched fiction movie or a fact.

bonkey

datruth wrote:

can this **** really be a conicidence?

Yes.

im not guillable at all but

If you say so.

this definetaly either a super researched fiction movie or a fact.

What is either a movie or a fact?

You posted links to a psychology piece and a transcript of an interview with the VP taken at a football game. Neither are movies.

So Glad

Well, the movies main char "Brandon Corey" is actually an playwrite who works for the company and has a different name altogether ;p

Also, you could can see all the reasons why "The Brandon Corey Story" is extreamly fishy on the thread links above.

So Glad

This should argue my belief a little better:

What science can say about the collective conciousness

bonkey

Wow.

Only not too long ago you were asking for videos because you had problems reading large amounts of text online.

Now you're presenting large amounts of text online to back up your position.

Tell me - do you think this is perhaps because enough of us wanted you to be able to do this, and you were thus enabled through collective consciousness?

secret_squirrel

So Glad wrote:

This should argue my belief a little better:

What science can say about the collective conciousness

Errr maybe Im missing something, but what has that psuedo-scientific gibberish go to do with Brandon Corey???

So Glad

I've just had a brainfart.

So I am constantly being told that infinite consciousness, spiritualility and things like that all to be illusionary, and all made up in the mind, and that science holds the real answers. I believe that anyone can get all the answeres they need within themsleves, no external influence required. So is this illusionary? People would like to throw out the "science is the only truth" card, and not have to consider what you have to say at all, because the white coats haven't spoke out.

But let us consider science. Where has that origionated? Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course. They realised these things through intense thought and inner searching. Isn't that not a bit of a catch 22? You believe inner thoughts to be false, yet your arguements are also founded on inner thoughts.

Just a thought.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I've just had a brainfart.
So I am constantly being told that infinite consciousness, spiritualility and things like that all to be illusionary, and all made up in the mind, and that science holds the real answers. I believe that anyone can get all the answeres they need within themsleves, no external influence required. So is this illusionary? People would like to throw out the "science is the only truth" card, and not have to consider what you have to say at all, because the white coats haven't spoke out.

So Glad no one is telling you you cannot believe anything or something. It's people are objecting to your claims that science supports your spiritualistic beliefs. when they don't.

You're practicing the exact same arguments that intelligent designers do.

But let us consider science. Where has that origionated? Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course. They realised these things through intense thought and inner searching. Isn't that not a bit of a catch 22? You believe inner thoughts to be false, yet your arguements are also founded on inner thoughts.

Just a thought.

Not a very good one.

This whole thing is just wrong. Newton didn't decide there should be a force called gravity and "LO" there was gravity. He looked at the world and developed his theory around it. Boyle didn't decide that the volume and pressure of a fixed quanity of a ideal gas is constant, he studied and then presented his theory. Clausius and Thomson didn't decide laws of thermodynamics, and the universe fitted around them, they learned the attributes of heat, and the rules that apply to it and developed a theory.

Once again you're twisted science to bend to your own pseudoscientific beliefs.

Brain fart is an accurate description of what you're trying to say.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

So I am constantly being told that infinite consciousness, spiritualility and things like that all to be illusionary, and all made up in the mind, and that science holds the real answers.

Who's told you that?

My stance here has generally been to defend science (per se) against being abused or misrepresented. I'm not arguing that its right or wrong or that it is the only source of answers.

For certain types of question, where answers of a particular type are sought, it is the best system when used correctly. For other questions, its simply not applicable.

I object to people not using science where they should. I object to them using it where they shouldn't. That's significantly dfferent to what you seem to suggest you're being told "constantly".

I believe that anyone can get all the answeres they need within themsleves, no external influence required.

And as I've said before...you can believe what you like. Its when you (or others) start claiming its more than an unsubstantiated belief, and that it is somehow scientific in nature....that's where you're no longer talking about beliefs.

What seems to p1ss so many people off is that they want to claim some sort of kinship between their beliefs and science (to "borrow" its respectability and credibility, I guess), but having done so do not want the very rigours of science which have given it its respectability and credibility then applied in return.

You can't have both. Either you can have your belief and keep it seperate, or you can say that there's a link to science at which point that link must stand up to scientific scrutiny. Thats the cost of siding with science - you get treated scientifically and if you fail you get dismissed as being wrong from a scientific perspective.

People would like to throw out the "science is the only truth" card, and not have to consider what you have to say at all, because the white coats haven't spoke out.

Hey - you want to believe reality is illusary...go right ahead. You want to tell me that this is consistent with superstring theory or quantum mechanics, then you are making a scientifically testable claim and should expect to be tested.

As with religion, the problems come when you cross that divide. Science as never tried to explain why the universe was created, so if yuo want to offer an opinion on that you can laugh at anyone who tells you you're wrong because of science. But as soon as you claim that your theories are supported by science.....you've put your claims in a dirty big crosshairs. Science, after all, works off an adversarial system where shooting theories down is a critical aspect.

If you don't want to be shot at, stay out of the sights. Don't claim affinity with science.

But let us consider science. Where has that origionated? Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course.
They realised these things through intense thought and inner searching. Isn't that not a bit of a catch 22? You believe inner thoughts to be false, yet your arguements are also founded on inner thoughts.

What about those people who came up with scientific theories which turned out to be not true? Doesn't this refute the idea that inner thoughts are true, or that they shape reality somehow?

See....I've never said that no inner thought can be wrong. I've simply argued with the notion that we shape existence. We model existence with science. The system was there and working and we came along and tried to figure out how it works. Its like I learned the rules of American Football by watching it on TV as a kid. Over time, I started understanding what was going on. I didn't change reality so that American Football was how I envisaged it. I didn't create American football. I simply formed a model which represented what I saw, and which was consistent enough for me to be able to understand and make predictions about what I was seeing.

Are you going to argue that science is different? That until we decided that our models worked a certain way, the universe maybe didn't work that way at all? That would be akin to saying that the laws of American Football may have mystically changed sometmie in the 80s because I started watching it and figured out what I was observing to the point where I could effectively "model" the laws, rules, actions, etc. in my head.

Similarly, just as I believe the universe existed before life (and later, consciousness) came into being, I believe that American Football existed before I started watching it in the 80s.

Science is a modelling tool. It is an attempt to describe the observed with sufficient accuracy that we can make meaningful predictions. Similarly, my understanding of American Football is a model. In both cases, what is being modelled is distinct and seperate from the model.

So while I can accept that man has "created" science, all that says is that we have created a somewhat successful means to answer certain types of observation-based questions, to the point of being able to predict outcomes rather than simply explain them after the fact.

If the model (i.e. science) ceased to exist, what effect would I expect that to have on what is being modelled (i.e. reality)? About the same as I expect my death would have on the continuation of American Football - none whatsoever.

So Glad

Ok, now were getting somewhere. Although maybe there should be a seperate thread for this? Anyways, I'll keep on going.

Diogenes wrote:

Not a very good one.

This whole thing is just wrong. Newton didn't decide there should be a force called gravity and "LO" there was gravity. He looked at the world and developed his theory around it. Boyle didn't decide that the volume and pressure of a fixed quanity of a ideal gas is constant, he studied and then presented his theory. Clausius and Thomson didn't decide laws of thermodynamics, and the universe fitted around them, they learned the attributes of heat, and the rules that apply to it and developed a theory.

Once again you're twisted science to bend to your own pseudoscientific beliefs.

Brain fart is an accurate description of what you're trying to say.

Diogenes, it looks like you have misinterperated me entirely. I never said Newton CREATED and decided gravity exsisted, nor have I said Boyle likewise. What I REALLY said was that thanks to their inner thought they followed clues to explain a force that was always there. Never did I say they created or decided it to exsist.

Also, you say thet "he studied and then presented his theory" or in other words, thought to himself in dept to understand. IE inner thought.

The same "pseudoscientific" beliefs I believe in are also, the same "pseudoscientific" beliefs (as most new scientific studies were considered to be back then, later to be varified) so likewise, thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it.

Yes, people make mistakes. Trail and error. Eistien's first theory gave him great credability, only to be prooved flase with time. He later confesed it was "the biggest mistake of his life". Having gone through this, he then refined his theories and techniques to come up with one of the most prominent theories ever THOUGHT UP.

E=MC2

All matter is mearly energy condesed (this is believed by scientists and spirualists alike). Matter is denser when the vibrations are slower, thus the higher consentraction of atoms, making a "Solid" object (although the object would most likely be 98% nothingness). This can be varified by any scientist who has studied Einstien. This is not "pseudoscientific" garbage. So, everything is condenced energy in the form of vibrations, it is all connected, such is the way planets revolve around our sun, moons around the planets. Spiritualists believe this is how we are connected via our DNA.

People are falsly informed obout DNA. Only 5% of our DNA is known for it purpose. The rest (95%) nobody knows what it does, so the white coats label it "Junk DNA", just because they don't know what it does. These numbers are also relfected through visible matter. Only 5% of matter is visible to our eyes (the spectrum), the other 95% is invisible to us (dark matter, infrared). These numbers are also reflected in our brains. We, on avarage, only use 5%-10% of our brain capacity, the rest (90%-95%) is not used. Are these numbers relevant to each other? Is the unkown (or not used) 95% of our DNA connected to how we use our brain and visualise things?

Maybe the extra DNA could be used to tap into the vibrations around us so we could access a sort of, "Human Internet". Like Dolpins comunicate through soundwaves, and other animals through instinct, or infrared?

Here is an amazing video of a blind boy who can visualise his surroundings, through sound.

Obviously, and amazingly, the human body can interperate sound, if it needs to, or but in the effort in to believe it can.

And Diogenes, don't ever say I have distorted facts. Everything I have said can be reflected in conventional science.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Ok, now were getting somewhere. Although maybe there should be a seperate thread for this? Anyways, I'll keep on going.



Diogenes, it looks like you have misinterperated me entirely. I never said Newton CREATED and decided gravity exsisted, nor have I said Boyle likewise. What I REALLY said was that thanks to their inner thought they followed clues to explain a force that was always there. Never did I say they created or decided it to exsist.

No again so glad you did. And I quote

So Glad wrote:

Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course.

You may not have meant to have said what you said but you clearly suggest that the physical laws of the universe were created in the minds of the "genius" people.

Also, you say thet "he studied and then presented his theory" or in other words, thought to himself in dept to understand. IE inner thought.

No again stop this all may have made sense last night when sucking on a chillum, put in the cold hard light of day its nonsense.

Exactly what is the scientific merit of your beliefs. Start there and we'll discuss this further.

The same "pseudoscientific" beliefs I believe in are also, the same "pseudoscientific" beliefs (as most new scientific studies were considered to be back then, later to be varified) so likewise, thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it.

No sorry stop. Firstly "thought and research thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it" You cannot explain this so I should give thought and research to this because you cannot understand this? This is utter jibberish

You are misusing the words "science" and "pseudoscience". And misusing them very badly. When Galielo presented his theories it wasn't pseudo science, it was science. It just wasn't understood or accepted. That doesn't make it pseudoscience. Now you've not bothered to explain what the hell you're on about just made some vague claims that science doesn't disagree with you therefore science agrees with you thats not the same thing.

Yes, people make mistakes. Trail and error. Eistien's first theory gave him great credability, only to be prooved flase with time. He later confesed it was "the biggest mistake of his life". Having gone through this, he then refined his theories and techniques to come up with one of the most prominent theories ever THOUGHT UP.

E=MC2

Seriously what on earth does this have to do with anything.

All matter is mearly energy condesed (this is believed by scientists and spirualists alike). Matter is denser when the vibrations are slower, thus the higher consentraction of atoms, making a "Solid" object (although the object would most likely be 98% nothingness). This can be varified by any scientist who has studied Einstien. This is not "pseudoscientific" garbage.

Stop you can quote the last words of Rant in E Minor, over and over again. It doesn't make it true.

Some scientists in string theory have theorised that matter is energy vibrating. However, if you had bothered to read the link I put in a few posts ago. You will see that science is rejecting this theory.

So, everything is condenced energy in the form of vibrations, it is all connected, such is the way planets revolve around our sun, moons around the planets. Spiritualists believe this is how we are connected via our DNA.

People are falsly informed obout DNA. Only 5% of our DNA is known for it purpose. The rest (95%) nobody knows what it does, so the white coats label it "Junk DNA", just because they don't know what it does. These numbers are also relfected through visible matter. Only 5% of matter is visible to our eyes (the spectrum), the other 95% is invisible to us (dark matter, infrared). These numbers are also reflected in our brains. We, on avarage, only use 5%-10% of our brain capacity, the rest (90%-95%) is not used. Are these numbers relevant to each other? Is the unkown (or not used) 95% of our DNA connected to how we use our brain and visualise things?

Maybe the extra DNA could be used to tap into the vibrations around us so we could access a sort of, "Human Internet". Like Dolpins comunicate through soundwaves, and other animals through instinct, or infrared?

The above despite the inclusion of scientific words like DNA and dark mark is just pure speculation and guess work. It is the equvilent of the Medivial believe in the Aether
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29

You have grabbed several half understood scientific concepts and banded them all together to add a veneer of science to your spiritualistic side. Theres not a shred of proof there.

And Diogenes, don't ever say I have distorted facts. Everything I have said can be reflected in conventional science.

For starts you have on several occasions on this and the 911 thread.

Could you care to prove that there is a relationship betwen junk dna, and our brain capacity? Or the visual spectrum? Or Any of this. Simply quoting the statistic 5% over and over again is not proof of a connection. Which is what you're implying it is.

So Glad

I am now not going to bother discussing anything with you Diogenes, as I have given you ample evidence to work with and you have ignored it, disaproved it, called it imaginary and vigorously denied the possiblility of anything beyond your comprehension. I think you really disaprove of intuitive thinking and rather than pointing out what is wrong you say things like "utter jibberish", "nonsence", "vague", "not a shred of proof" (bar, of course, the proof I have given) and general personal quips like calling me a drug user(therefore, clutching at straws to ignore me).

Bonkey has allways been an intelligent person to debate with, as he does not personally accuse and always debunks with integrity.

I will not read your disected response as it will most likely be everything I have listed above.

So Glad

Now for some links:

Wikipedia on junk DNA.

As for the 10% of our brain, you can google it yourself and you'll get a clather of info. I'm not being lazy here but it depends on what you mean by "10%". "10%" as in what our brain contains then, no that is not true, we use all of our brain, and that is the truth. What I mean is, we only used about 10% percent at a time, and that is true.

I honestly don't see the point in prooving that 5% of matter is what we can see. You learn this in physics when studying light, we can only see the spectrum, and bits of ultraviolet. But I'll refresh your memory.

Visible Light

So Glad

Also, more about visible matter:

Space Matter

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I will not read your disected response as it will most likely be everything I have listed above.

Wow is that the intutive side of your brain talking So Glad?

You've once again talking down to me as if I'm not aware of these things.

I'm aware of the visible light spectrum, and DNA, and % of brain usage So Glad, however these are three complete non sequiturs, you've not proven a relationship between the three in any way shape or form.

I mean the percentage of water in our bodies is roughly the same as the percentage of water on the planet, what does that prove?

I'm being dismissive because you cannot explain yourself in any degree of coherance, it seems you've just got a hodge podge of spiritual ideals, and grafted on some pseudo sciencitific nonsense to give it a veneer of credibility.
.
You may wave your theories in the direct of science, that doesn't mean what you are saying is remotely scientific...

So Glad

Ok, your right, wanna know how the are relative to one another?

They are part of the same body......our body.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Ok, your right, wanna know how the are relative to one another?

They are part of the same body......our body.

Really? Prove it. And don't quote some half understood bit from string theory, I've linked to an article which points out that after fifteen years of string theory;

Nevertheless, string theory proved encouragingly effective - at a theoretical level - to explain both the very small and the incredibly large, and so it began to dominate the study of fundamental physics at universities through the world. According to protagonists, it would soon be possible to describe the cosmos in a few simple equations that could fit on a T-shirt.

But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produced a single practical observation to support the theory. One problem, they said, was that the energy needed to break open matter and study the strings inside it is so colossal that it would require machines big enough to cover the planet.

On top of these problems, recent calculations have produced a surprising prediction from string theory: that there may be an almost infinite number of different universes, some of which would be like our own, and others that would be very different.

And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.

'Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, string theory is the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system,' said Stanford University's Robert Laughlin, winner of the 1998 Nobel prize for physics.

For a theory that purports to explain the entire structure of the universe, such a high-level attack is very serious. Nor is Laughlin alone: for example, Peter Woit, of Columbia University, and Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute, Canada, have just published books attacking string theory.

'Too many people have been overselling very speculative ideas,' said Woit - author of Not Even Wrong - last week. 'String theory has produced nothing.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html

So Glad

Erm, I did not mention the string theory last post, I am talking simple biology. DNA controls everything we become and do, the brain is the processor, and our eyes and what they percieve is the accumulation of both. Nothing to do with the string theory (even though the string theory is everything, I'm talking about my last few topics)...

On the string theory. The link you keep telling me to read goes to no conclusion. It mearly states that because of the miniture scale of the idea of the string theory and the innability to prove it, it has caused some concern. You said the scientific community tide is turning against string theory? This is only the perspective of 3-4 people at best, gimme names. Because we can't explain, or even comprehend, doesn't mean it doesn't exsist.

You cannot see an atom, so do you think it is imaginary too?

Diogenes

You are so all over the shop this is stopping to be funny.

So Glad wrote:

Erm, I did not mention the string theory last post, I am talking simple biology.

No you're not you started by saying that light is matter, it's not it's radiation.(that'd be another of those facts you distort) So claiming we only see 5% of all visilble matter is untrue. Now, how does dark matter, infrared energy have to do with simple biology???

DNA controls everything we become and do,

So you believe in no form of free will?

the brain is the processor, and our eyes and what they percieve is the accumulation of both.

What seriously? What?

Nothing to do with the string theory (even though the string theory is everything, I'm talking about my last few topics)...

You've rambled on consistently about string theory for about two days now, you've still not grasped it...

On the string theory. The link you keep telling me to read goes to no conclusion. It mearly states that because of the miniture scale of the idea of the string theory and the innability to prove it, it has caused some concern. You said the scientific community tide is turning against string theory? This is only the perspective of 3-4 people at best, gimme names.

Where did you pluck the numbers 3 or 4 from?

Because we can't explain, or even comprehend, doesn't mean it doesn't exsist.

You cannot see an atom, so do you think it is imaginary too?

Oh god:rolleyes:

So Glad I defy you to coherantly and rationaly explain your spiritual belief system and how it is supported by science in 500-5,000 words.

So Glad

Fine, I'm not that upset if you don't believe me.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Fine, I'm not that upset if you don't believe me.

I dont really care what you believe, I just get annoyed when you drag some barely understood science in to justify your believes.

commanderson

Diogenes wrote:

For starts Icke made the prediction that Britian would be devasted by a great earthquake? Er how? The UK isn't on any active fault lines. Claiming this could occur flies in the face of geology.



Just to fill this statment in a little, Icke actually made some very specific prophesies about natural disasters in the U.K. One being that there would be an earthquake and the Isle of Arran would disappear under the waves. Now the isle of Arran did experience a relativelly large earthquake (yes britian does have fault lines, the fourth fault passing through Scotland) for the u.k anyway where I admit earthquakes are rare. I know I was on arran at the time of the quake, just me and my dog in a caravan, I thought a tractor had run into the caravan, never expecting a quake in the U.K, and had passed it of a s a freak gust of wind (on a completely still night) until speaking with other islanders the next day, who were all enthralled in the quake. The eppicentre was just 3 miles of the south coast of the Isle thus Arran feeling it most violently. After this event the isle still being above the waves, Icke refined his prophesy to say a wave of religion will now sweep the Island, and The Dali Lamma then bought Holy Isle, just off Lamlash Bay on Arran a couple of years later hmmmm, just something to think about prophesy obviously being a non-exact science, Nostradamus for instance! anyway About Brandon Corey, sounds like Icke was either duped into dis-crediting his stuff (it was being lauded enthusiastically on his site until this whole **** storm stirred up about it) it may even have been duped into believing the shapeshifting ss agent to be real footage (hey maybe it is -some truth wrapped in a lie) as I couln't swear it was on his site but someplace was saying FIRST SHAPESHIFT CAUGHT ON CAMERA! total donovan moment! Either that or Icke's in on it tooo set up as a straw man to dis-credit his own info, which I think is well-founded, I would like to think not though, I hate to doubt the integrity of the purple reverend, but he does seem to make bad choices for exposing his ideas, this movie being one, MINDF**k being another:eek:

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Ok, now were getting somewhere.

I'm not so sure.

The same "pseudoscientific" beliefs I believe in are also, the same "pseudoscientific" beliefs (as most new scientific studies were considered to be back then, later to be varified) so likewise, thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it.

I'm afraqid you are grossly mistaken.

Your pseudoscientific beliefs are pseudo scientific because they try to appear scientific, but at their heart they have no basis in science, are not forumulated using scientific methodology, are not evaluated from a perspectivie of scientific slepticism....I could go on but what I'm saying should be clear. Your ideas are presented in a manner carefully designed to look like science, but are not scientific. Now...ask yourself...what possible reason does such a deceptive practice have? Why would you want something non-scientific to appear as scientific? I would suggest to you that the answer is not disconnected from the reality that the only people who will be fooled by the pretense are those who are not sufficiently well-versed in science.

Eistien's first theory gave him great credability, only to be prooved flase with time. He later confesed it was "the biggest mistake of his life".
Having gone through this, he then refined his theories and techniques to come up with one of the most prominent theories ever THOUGHT UP.

E=MC2

Oh dear. Now you're misrepresenting history as well as science. I started writing a refutation of this, but to be quite honest, its such a mushmash that other than attributing E=MC2 to Einstein, you've pretty-much gotten everything wrong.

Briefly though, his admission of a "biggest blunder" was related to his final theorem - that of general relativity. It concerned his use of a cosmological constant...and more specifically was probably regarding the flawed reasoning he allowed to lead him to such a conclusion.

All matter is mearly energy condesed (this is believed by scientists and spirualists alike).

More pseudo-science. Scientists believe matter is a form of energy. Your notion of "density" is not one used in science.

Matter is denser when the vibrations are slower,

What vibrations? And why slower? And are you suggesting that all scientists accept this notion of vibrational speed?

thus the higher consentraction of atoms, making a "Solid" object

This can be varified by any scientist who has studied Einstien. This is not "pseudoscientific" garbage.

I disagree.

I believe it is pseudoscientic garbage.

And you know what the biggest giveaway is? Its the insistence that "any scientists who has studied Einstein" can verify this, rather than you supplying links to scientific works and texts which verify this.

Show me some of this scientific work. Better yet....explain it scientifically yourself. Show me that you have studied it. Because if you haven't studied it, then you can't possibly know whether or not its scientific.

People are falsly informed obout DNA.

Clearly some are. Yes.

Only 5% of our DNA is known for it purpose. The rest (95%) nobody knows what it does, so the white coats label it "Junk DNA", just because they don't know what it does.

Not entirely true. They know that its not for certain things, and haven't been able to determine other purposes for it as of yet. Then again, they don't claim it does nothing...they just claim they don't know.

These numbers are also relfected through visible matter. Only 5% of matter is visible to our eyes (the spectrum), the other 95% is invisible to us (dark matter, infrared).
These numbers are also reflected in our brains. We, on avarage, only use 5%-10% of our brain capacity, the rest (90%-95%) is not used.

And by the same logic, we can conclude that the decrfeasing number of pirates in the world is directly causing global warming.

Or...put in a manner you're more familiar with....this is pseudo-scientific junk.

Are these numbers relevant to each other?

No.

More accurately - there is no scientific reason to believe they are.

Obviously, and amazingly, the human body can interperate sound, if it needs to, or but in the effort in to believe it can.

Every non-deaf person can interpret sound. Its how you hear.

That you think it takes effort to believe that we can hear, or that our brain could learn to interpret sounds better given the absence of other senses is more a comment on you credulity than on anything else.

And Diogenes, don't ever say I have distorted facts.

I'm not Diogenes, but I'll say it. Your brief resume of Einstein's work is little more than a complete distortion of the facts.

Diogenes

commanderson wrote:

Just to fill this statment in a little, Icke actually made some very specific prophesies about natural disasters in the U.K. One being that there would be an earthquake and the Isle of Arran would disappear under the waves. Now the isle of Arran did experience a relativelly large earthquake (yes britian does have fault lines, the fourth fault passing through Scotland) for the u.k anyway where I admit earthquakes are rare. I know I was on arran at the time of the quake, just me and my dog in a caravan, I thought a tractor had run into the caravan, never expecting a quake in the U.K, and had passed it of a s a freak gust of wind (on a completely still night) until speaking with other islanders the next day, who were all enthralled in the quake. The eppicentre was just 3 miles of the south coast of the Isle thus Arran feeling it most violently.

Icke claimed that the entire island of the UK would be devasted, trying to claim that he was actually talking about Arran is revisionist crap.

After this event the isle still being above the waves, Icke refined his prophesy to say a wave of religion will now sweep the Island

Wow so after the fact he revised his prophecy? He must be a phenominal prophet....

, and The Dali Lamma then bought Holy Isle, just off Lamlash Bay on Arran a couple of years later hmmmm, just something to think about prophesy obviously being a non-exact science, Nostradamus for instance! anyway

It sound like someone reading too much into icke and giving him too much benefit of the doubt. Icke claims the UK will be devasted by earthquakes and you take a minorquake on an Island off Soctland as proof.

Hey, gullible isn't in the dictionary, did you know that?


Great post btw Bonkey