Bring4th

When he says the sun is not visible from space, and you think wtf? go ahead and read down farther.

Quote:The next time you point your telescope to the stars or look up at the stars, it is important to remember that this is a view that can only be enjoyed here on planet Earth.

If you took a trip to the moon or outer space, the only glowing bodies you will be able to see are within our solar system. There won’t be a star in sight. Many find this to be interesting. Star light can only be viewed within Earth atmosphere.



The first astronaut that free fall from space after riding on a helium balloon in the 1960s was among the first to see this first hand. Just as he pierces through the stratosphere, the stars vanished from view. He was only able to see the glowing reflection of the earth and the moon. One would think that with the absent of distortion and pollution within the atmosphere, one should be able to see twice the number of stars. But this is not the case.

Why is this? We rely on our atmosphere and the sun to view stars images – with the naked eye. Outside our atmosphere we cannot see stars. Remember footage of the Apollo missions? Did you notice that they aren’t any stars in the footage? You cannot see stars from the surface of the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere.

To understand this effect it is important to understand how the eyes filter or focus an image, unfortunately, this is outside the scope of this article. However, for simplicity, we still use two theories of light; one depicts light as a wave vibration, and the other depicts light as particle. Wave-light demonstrates minute energy signature, while, particle light is more energetic. Of the two light concepts, star light has wave characteristics and therefore requires amplification before it can stimulate our optical sensors. This is where the sun and our atmosphere come into play.

Although the sun is on the other side of the globe- at nights, its ambient light is reflected and refracted off the atmosphere and encompasses the earth. We cannot see the sun at night but the sun makes it possible for us to see at light.

When the earth experience an eclipse of the sun, night on the opposite side where the eclipse occurs will experience an unusually darker night. This is caused from a reduction in the sun light reaching the atmosphere.

The next time you point your telescope to the stars or look up at the stars, it is important to remember that this is a view that can only be enjoyed here on planet Earth.

Read more: http://scienceray.com/physics/did-you-kn...z2QIGZMQAQ

---

From what I see around the web the sun still shows on camera in space.

Yet more bullshit.

Yes, it seems to be cleared up in the commentary and on a nasa website link (though I do take everything with a grain of salt) that you do see stars in space, but the photos that mainly focus on astronauts and the space station aren't focused on the background and so the stars don't clearly show up. Makes sense, from my limited personal experience with cameras. The vast majority of commentators to the article seem to think it's a joke or should be taken down.

"Magical thinking" prevails when education and common sense are lacking. Fantasy must fill in the knowledge gaps with whatever most closely resonates with whimsical desire. Not quite "science", now is it.

(04-13-2013, 08:37 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"Magical thinking" prevails when education and common sense are lacking. Fantasy must fill in the knowledge gaps with whatever most closely resonates with whimsical desire. Not quite "science", now is it.

Regardless of the stars: but does not 'common sense' draw simply on consensus? Consensus reality is not 'real' is it? Fantasy must be sourced from imagination.
Did Einstein for example draw on consensus or on his faculties of imagination when making his discoveries?
I recall having a similar conversation with a scientologist who proposed the 'reality is consensus' view - that seemed off to me at that time.
It would seem that consensus would serve only the prevailing paradigm.
You got me slightly confused zen, care to expand?

(04-14-2013, 12:55 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2013, 08:37 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"Magical thinking" prevails when education and common sense are lacking. Fantasy must fill in the knowledge gaps with whatever most closely resonates with whimsical desire. Not quite "science", now is it.

Regardless of the stars: but does not 'common sense' draw simply on consensus? Consensus reality is not 'real' is it? Fantasy must be sourced from imagination.
Did Einstein for example draw on consensus or on his faculties of imagination when making his discoveries?
I recall having a similar conversation with a scientologist who proposed the 'reality is consensus' view - that seemed off to me at that time.
It would seem that consensus would serve only the prevailing paradigm.
You got me slightly confused zen, care to expand?

Yes, reality vs what is not reality is not really pertinent IMO. It's the learning attitude vs one which seeks distraction and sleep or will not temper intuition with rationality. Knowledge IS rationally interpreted experience. If you dwell in fantasy, the imbalance denies opportunity for learning - even though it may SEEM otherwise. It may seem otherwise because when everything is possible, it seems that opportunity is abundant.

(04-14-2013, 01:05 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2013, 12:55 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2013, 08:37 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"Magical thinking" prevails when education and common sense are lacking. Fantasy must fill in the knowledge gaps with whatever most closely resonates with whimsical desire. Not quite "science", now is it.

Regardless of the stars: but does not 'common sense' draw simply on consensus? Consensus reality is not 'real' is it? Fantasy must be sourced from imagination.
Did Einstein for example draw on consensus or on his faculties of imagination when making his discoveries?
I recall having a similar conversation with a scientologist who proposed the 'reality is consensus' view - that seemed off to me at that time.
It would seem that consensus would serve only the prevailing paradigm.
You got me slightly confused zen, care to expand?

Yes, reality vs what is not reality is not really pertinent IMO. It's the learning attitude vs one which seeks distraction and sleep or will not temper intuition with rationality. Knowledge IS rationally interpreted experience. If you dwell in fantasy, the imbalance denies opportunity for learning - even though it may SEEM otherwise. It may seem otherwise because when everything is possible, it seems that opportunity is abundant.

Ok, thanks zen, think I understand. So for example my bias could lean too far out of the 'intuition window', lacking the reference of rational thinking.
So rational thinking is not just drawn from consensus thought but has it's roots in the scientific method?

I'm big on using chakras as feedback, and in my very limited experience of myself when I was top heavy in terms of chakra energy, and in terms my experience with clients in and out of mental intitutions, there seems to be some sort of correlation between over active upper chakras and under active lower ones and lack of grounding and ones strong belief in fantastic ideas.

I'm actually also big on the theory that there are multiple infinite universes with multiple infinite versions of reality and of us, perhaps it is perception of those other realities that comes from being top heavy in chakras that makes easy to believe in ideas that do not exist in this reality.

However, I think these other realities serve as more of a distraction than a learning tool. We came to incarnate in this reality to experience lessons unique to this reality. Thus, I think it's important to be especially grounded while we continue on our chosen path.

I am not particularly directing this comment at this thread but I have noticed that the themes present in this thread have been popping up a lot on the forum lately.

(04-14-2013, 01:26 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2013, 01:05 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2013, 12:55 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2013, 08:37 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"Magical thinking" prevails when education and common sense are lacking. Fantasy must fill in the knowledge gaps with whatever most closely resonates with whimsical desire. Not quite "science", now is it.

Regardless of the stars: but does not 'common sense' draw simply on consensus? Consensus reality is not 'real' is it? Fantasy must be sourced from imagination.
Did Einstein for example draw on consensus or on his faculties of imagination when making his discoveries?
I recall having a similar conversation with a scientologist who proposed the 'reality is consensus' view - that seemed off to me at that time.
It would seem that consensus would serve only the prevailing paradigm.
You got me slightly confused zen, care to expand?

Yes, reality vs what is not reality is not really pertinent IMO. It's the learning attitude vs one which seeks distraction and sleep or will not temper intuition with rationality. Knowledge IS rationally interpreted experience. If you dwell in fantasy, the imbalance denies opportunity for learning - even though it may SEEM otherwise. It may seem otherwise because when everything is possible, it seems that opportunity is abundant.

Ok, thanks zen, think I understand. So for example my bias could lean too far out of the 'intuition window', lacking the reference of rational thinking.
So rational thinking is not just drawn from consensus thought but has it's roots in the scientific method?

rational thinking is a tool - a psychological faculty which can be either time or spaced based. In time it's "feeling". In space it's "thinking". Feeling=yin, thinking=yang. Consensus reality is knowledge structures wholly derived from rationally evaluated experience. All intuition does is perceive things. It is not capable of evaluation or applying any choices - so there is nothing whatsoever determined from intuition by itself.
The scientific method is a formalized way of using the thinking faculty to rigorously develop and to share new knowledge. Einstein drew heavily on consensus reality as we all necessarily do - that's the planetary mind which we inherit and co-create. Imagination is the creative aspect of intuition, which of course also draws from consensus reality. Einstein used both and being philosophically oriented, he did explain his methods of discovery.

(04-14-2013, 01:05 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Knowledge IS rationally interpreted experience. If you dwell in fantasy, the imbalance denies opportunity for learning - even though it may SEEM otherwise. It may seem otherwise because when everything is possible, it seems that opportunity is abundant.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
~Einstein

---

(04-14-2013, 08:02 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]rational thinking is a tool...All intuition does is perceive things. It is not capable of evaluation or applying any choices - so there is nothing whatsoever determined from intuition by itself.
The scientific method is a formalized way of using the thinking faculty to rigorously develop and to share new knowledge. Einstein drew heavily on consensus reality as we all necessarily do - that's the planetary mind which we inherit and co-create. Imagination is the creative aspect of intuition, which of course also draws from consensus reality. Einstein used both and being philosophically oriented, he did explain his methods of discovery.

Agreed! I would add only that, unfortunately, many who claim to be using the scientific method negate, dismiss, or even ridicule intuition, imagination, and anything else that doesn't fit into their already-established box.

---

(04-13-2013, 08:13 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Yet more bullshit.

Are you saying the stars can be seen? How do you know? What is your opinion about the moon landings? Are they real or a fabrication?

I have never heard this before, about the stars not being visible. That would explain the Apollo footage...unless of course it's just more, as you say, bullshit.

Whom to believe?

(04-14-2013, 01:33 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2013, 01:05 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Knowledge IS rationally interpreted experience. If you dwell in fantasy, the imbalance denies opportunity for learning - even though it may SEEM otherwise. It may seem otherwise because when everything is possible, it seems that opportunity is abundant.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
~Einstein

some kind of point with that? If you bothered to read einstein! You'd know th at free invention was essential for him.

Quote:

(04-14-2013, 08:02 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]rational thinking is a tool...All intuition does is perceive things. It is not capable of evaluation or applying any choices - so there is nothing whatsoever determined from intuition by itself.
The scientific method is a formalized way of using the thinking faculty to rigorously develop and to share new knowledge. Einstein drew heavily on consensus reality as we all necessarily do - that's the planetary mind which we inherit and co-create. Imagination is the creative aspect of intuition, which of course also draws from consensus reality. Einstein used both and being philosophically oriented, he did explain his methods of discovery.

Agreed! I would add only that, unfortunately, many who claim to be using the scientific method negate, dismiss, or even ridicule intuition, imagination, and anything else that doesn't fit into their already-established box.

many if not most, embrace intuition. The knowledge framework is the box, not the perception faculty. Name one scientist that ridicules intuition. More bullshit.

Quote:

(04-13-2013, 08:13 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Yet more bullshit.

Are you saying the stars can be seen? How do you know? What is your opinion about the moon landings? Are they real or a fabrication?

I have never heard this before, about the stars not being visible. That would explain the Apollo footage...unless of course it's just more, as you say, bullshit.

Whom to believe?

it's same photons in space as it is in the atmosphere. This forum is a disservice when spreading bullshit and giving any credence to bullshit. Why would people want to learn from a place that promotes disinfo?

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]some kind of point with that? If you bothered to read einstein!

Hey, chill! Not everyone can be as smart as you, to actually read the complete works of the world's most celebrated scientist! Some of us have to be content with the occasional cool quotes!

Or, we might content ourselves with scientists like Nassim Haramein, who make physics fun, while they explain the solutions to Einstein's formerly unsolved equations.

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]You'd know th at free invention was essential for him.

Sorry, guilty as charged! I don't even know what you mean by 'free invention.' Care to educate me or should I google it?

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]many if not most, embrace intuition. The knowledge framework is the box, not the perception faculty.

They give lip service to it but they have their own biases, just as we all do. Surely you aren't suggesting that scientists are free of distortions in their perceptions?

Also, if knowledge were the box, then they'd be neutral to new, 'unproven' information, rather than cynical. Healthy skepticism is fine, but most go beyond skepticism and into cynicism or even closed-mindedness. A scientist cannot expand his box if it's locked up by a negative view of everything outside the box. At the very least, the realm outside the box should be viewed with interest and curiosity!

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Name one scientist that ridicules intuition. More bullshit.

What I said was this: unfortunately, many who claim to be using the scientific method negate, dismiss, or even ridicule intuition, imagination, and anything else that doesn't fit into their already-established box.

Name one? That's easy, if I broaden the request to include my original statement, which wasn't just about intuition but about anything outside their established box.

The entire quackwatch.com team. Most mainstream MDs. Dr. Mercola. Dr. Weil.

Oops, those are MDs. Sorry! OK scientists...

The chem1 guy. Though I doubt if he's really a scientist, since he doesn't even know the difference between alkaline and acidic. He's probably just a prop. So I'm not sure he counts.

Carl Sagan. I have a lot of respect for Carl, but he poo-pooed crop circles when he clearly hadn't fully investigated them. Granted, he died before the really elaborate ones formed, but still, he showed clear bias.

ALL of the scientists who participated in the 911 Commission. They either had blinders on, or allowed themselves to be bought off. And the ones who continue to promote the lies of 911, ignoring the irrefutable evidence for controlled demolition of all THREE towers.

ALL of the scientists who routinely scoff at alternative treatments such as homeopathy, psychic phenomena, UFOs, etc. just because they haven't yet been explained or accepted by the mainstream.

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]it's same photons in space as it is in the atmosphere.

You didn't answer my question. You just stated what appears to be a fact to you, but it doesn't address the question. Photons might be the same, but that doesn't mean we see them the same.

At any rate, even if you are a scientist, it's still all just theory, unless you've actually been up in space and report back. And even then, being that the so-called 'experts' in various fields have been known to lie to the public for political reasons, then we, the ignorant masses, cannot be certain that it's true.

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]This forum is a disservice when spreading bullshit and giving any credence to bullshit. Why would people want to learn from a place that promotes disinfo?

Hmmm...can you define bullshit? How does one recognize bullshit?

I've watched a number of discovery channel specials that interview people who invented things, and a lot of the time when they asked them how they came up with the idea, they often say it just "popped" into their head.

That fits with my understanding of intuition. They of course, then went with the idea and put it through rational testing and analysis to make their imagined invention a reality.

So then what is intuition and imagination?

e.g., some types of intuition incorporates a type of knowledge based on lived experiences... so there is a rational function to intuition... but experience crystalizes our ability to recognize patterns and make predictions. Perhaps a type of heuristic - a short cut, but one that needs to be confirmed/checked through our rational thinking bc heuristic may lead to errors (e.g., over generalizations and other cognitive distortions, even magical thinking). Imagination incorporates multiple levels of one's being and maybe integrated? So in all, they are dependent on a more holistic way of understanding life/self. That could mean rationality and intuition go hand in hand.

(04-14-2013, 03:52 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]some kind of point with that? If you bothered to read einstein!

Hey, chill! Not everyone can be as smart as you, to actually read the complete works of the world's most celebrated scientist! Some of us have to be content with the occasional cool quotes!

my point was there is nothing hidden or new with respect to what we're talking about, and his opinions on the subject were quite public.

Quote:Or, we might content ourselves with scientists like Nassim Haramein, who make physics fun, while they explain the solutions to Einstein's formerly unsolved equations.

I'm sure he's up for the Nobel Prize with his incredible contributions to making physics entertaining.

Quote:

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]You'd know th at free invention was essential for him.

Sorry, guilty as charged! I don't even know what you mean by 'free invention.' Care to educate me or should I google it?

as opposed to deductive reasoning from first principles. I.e. you can basically start with inductive reasoning and create postulates from which to derive a system of physics (as Larson did) or you can continually create mechanisms, fields, forces, agencies in an ad hoc manner (free invention).

Quote:

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]many if not most, embrace intuition. The knowledge framework is the box, not the perception faculty.

They give lip service to it but they have their own biases, just as we all do. Surely you aren't suggesting that scientists are free of distortions in their perceptions?

you've lost me with that. It sounds like you are somehow conflating use or non use of intuition with bias? And lip service? Free of distortions in their perceptions? What does that have to do with use of the intuition?

Quote:Also, if knowledge were the box, then they'd be neutral to new, 'unproven' information, rather than cynical. Healthy skepticism is fine, but most go beyond skepticism and into cynicism or even closed-mindedness. A scientist cannot expand his box if it's locked up by a negative view of everything outside the box. At the very least, the realm outside the box should be viewed with interest and curiosity!

The knowledge and intelligence of many scientists necessarily affords tremendous insight into the viability of so called "new" info. As a rule, most "new" info (I.e. from hand waving non scientists) is simply not new to them.

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Name one? That's easy, if I broaden the request to include my original statement, which wasn't just about intuition but about anything outside their established box.

The entire quackwatch.com team. Most mainstream MDs. Dr. Mercola. Dr. Weil.

you're again conflating ridicule of the intuition with some kind of perception of bias and close mindedness.

Quote:

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]it's same photons in space as it is in the atmosphere.

You didn't answer my question. You just stated what appears to be a fact to you, but it doesn't address the question. Photons might be the same, but that doesn't mean we see them the same.

essentially the same. A little less with light pollution.
Just about all our probes use stars as fixed reference points to ensure accurate guidance. Our orbiting spacecraft routinely record stars - yes the same stars we see on earth. It's almost embarrassing to have to point this out.

Quote:At any rate, even if you are a scientist, it's still all just theory, unless you've actually been up in space and report back. And even then, being that the so-called 'experts' in various fields have been known to lie to the public for political reasons, then we, the ignorant masses, cannot be certain that it's true.

"Ignorant masses" being intentionally confused by disinfo from websites which promote conspiracies such as bring4th.org. yes Monica, some things can't be known for certain but there is a point where conspiracy purveyors get shamelessly absurd.

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]This forum is a disservice when spreading bullshit and giving any credence to bullshit. Why would people want to learn from a place that promotes disinfo?

Hmmm...can you define bullshit? How does one recognize bullshit?
[/quote]
That which is blatantly false, not feasible, untenable, nonviable. One recognizes bullshit as it runs contrary with known facts from experience.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]my point was there is nothing hidden or new with respect to what we're talking about, and his opinions on the subject were quite public.

Then why not just say that? Why the jab "If you bothered to read Einstein" ?

Totally unnecessary.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure he's up for the Nobel Prize

Yes, in due time.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]as opposed to deductive reasoning from first principles. I.e. you can basically start with inductive reasoning and create postulates from which to derive a system of physics (as Larson did) or you can continually create mechanisms, fields, forces, agencies in an ad hoc manner (free invention).

Ah, you mean relying solely on intuition and imagination as guidance? Putting intuition and imagination as 'more important than knowledge'?

Who gets to decide how much is too much? When is it acceptable to utilize the faculties of intuition/imagination and when does it become 'ad hoc'?

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]you've lost me with that. It sounds like you are somehow conflating use or non use of intuition with bias? And lip service? Free of distortions in their perceptions? What does that have to do with use of the intuition?

You missed (or ignored) the rest of what I said...it wasn't just about intuition but anything other than rational thinking.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]The knowledge and intelligence of many scientists necessarily affords tremendous insight into the viability of so called "new" info.

That is their mistake. If it is truly new, it might not fit into their box. It might create a new box, or enlarge the old box. But if they are limited to the old box, they miss the new developments.

This has happened throughout history. Great pioneers in thinking often aren't recognized as such until after their deaths.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]As a rule, most "new" info (I.e. from hand waving non scientists) is simply not new to them.

Right. And because of so many charlatans out there, the 'real' scientists often miss the genuine ones, because they lump them all in together.

That is bias, and it is particularly harmful to the scientific community, which is supposed to be free of bias and utterly scientific in their approach.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]you're again conflating ridicule of the intuition with some kind of perception of bias and close mindedness.

No I'm not. You are ignoring what I just said, not once but twice:

if I broaden the request to include my original statement, which wasn't just about intuition but about anything outside their established box.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Just about all our probes use stars as fixed reference points to ensure accurate guidance. Our orbiting spacecraft routinely record stars - yes the same stars we see on earth. It's almost embarrassing to have to point this out.

OK now that is useful info. It sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense to a non-scientist like me.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, since I'm not a scientist I don't know anything about the site that posted the article. Is it mainstream? Or in the category of what you call 'hand-waving?'

My first thought was that it was some sort of disinfo, for the purpose of validating the black sky in the moon landing footage, which, as we all know, was used as evidence to support the belief that the moon landing was a hoax. Personally, I thought it was so ridiculous for them to leave out the stars, that I thought it was evidence for the opposite - the authenticity of the footage.

Knowing what we know from Ra about moon bases, my guess is that the footage was staged, but not for the reasons the conspiracy theorists think...it was staged because they were already going there and had been for quite some time.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"Ignorant masses" being intentionally confused by disinfo from websites which promote conspiracies such as bring4th.org.

Well first of all, this is just a discussion site. It doesn't claim to be an authority on anything. So anyone who takes something they read here as absolute, must be very gullible. Because they have to know that the participants here aren't claiming to be experts on anything. It should be obvious by now that one cannot believe everything they read on the internet.

Much more heinous are those who claim to be in positions of authority, with thousands of followers, and then make blatantly false statements.

...Such as the chem1 'professor' who says a piece of medical equipment used in the country ranking #1 in the world for health is 'snake oil' and then mixing up acid and alkaline in his explanation, along with other blatant errors, which are so ridiculous that either he isn't actually a chemistry professor and is really stupid, or the deception is intentional...he is playing on the ignorance of the masses to promote his propaganda.

...Such as the so-called scientists who promoted the lies of the 911 Commission, amidst concrete evidence and eyewitness accounts that were ignored.

...Such as Dr. Mercola, with whom I have a love-hate relationship. I love his exposing of the corruption in the drug industry, but his info on diet shows his obvious biases. He routinely misleads the public by ignoring certain studies and data, in favor of the ones he likes, he reviews products he obviously hasn't taken the time to investigate at all, to the point where his review is actually comical, he routinely makes outrageous statements with twisted words, again, so ridiculous that it's obvious he is biased, likely due to promoting his own products, etc.

...Such as the guy who wrote the 'blood type diet' book, and the company that does the continuing training classes for chiropractors and naturopaths, and all the doctors who attend those classes, and totally eat it all up, treating that blood type diet book as though some sort of bible, as though fact, when it's all just theory. How many thousands or even millions of people follow that diet and take their supplements according to this 'theory' presented as fact.

Those are examples of people/websites putting themselves into positions of authority. Bring4th doesn't do that.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]yes Monica, some things can't be known for certain but there is a point where conspiracy purveyors get shamelessly absurd.

Very true! Then again, many of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' aren't theories at all but have more forensic evidence than the mainstream, official 'theory' which was presented as fact. A good example of this is 911.

(04-15-2013, 08:47 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]That which is blatantly false, not feasible, untenable, nonviable. One recognizes bullshit as it runs contrary with known facts from experience.

Can you give some examples from Bring4th that you consider bullshit?

Speaking of conspiracies, assuming the elite/illumanti exist, my #1 priority would be keep the non-curious masses ignorant via distraction comfort, and my #2 priority would be the curious questioning spiritual masses ignorant via hundreds of false flag conspiracies.

To me, it makes much logical sense that if there are a few legit conspiracies, the best way to prevent them from being detected is to flood the information channels with hundreds or even thousands of false flag fake conspiracies, to push the signal to noise ratio wayyyy down.

So on the one hand, its important to keep an open mind. On the other hand, if you really do believe in the shadowy elite, realize you're like a cop trying to track down a super smart serial killer. He's going to leave you with a thousand false leads, and laugh at you in the process. Take care in each and every conspiracy you read about.

Zen, often you have a little jab about fantasies and offer advice along the lines of 'get real' etc. That has been fine with me because I identify with an aspect of my being that tends strongly towards intuition and imagination, often at the expense of disregarding facts or scientific evidence.

This Ra quote however seems to be in contradiction to your views if I have understood them correctly. It would be great to have your take on this.

Quote:16.55 Questioner: To make this a little more clear, if I were to daydream strongly about building a ship, would this occur in one of these other densities?

Ra: I am Ra. This would, would have, or shall occur.

It would seem that we do indeed create realities with nothing more than thought or 'fantasies'

Edit to add this important 'crummy youtube video'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwbxlSnKE9U

(04-15-2013, 01:55 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]Zen, often you have a little jab about fantasies and offer advice along the lines of 'get real' etc. That has been fine with me because I identify with an aspect of my being that tends strongly towards intuition and imagination, often at the expense of disregarding facts or scientific evidence.

This Ra quote however seems to be in contradiction to your views if I have understood them correctly. It would be great to have your take on this.

Quote:16.55 Questioner: To make this a little more clear, if I were to daydream strongly about building a ship, would this occur in one of these other densities?

Ra: I am Ra. This would, would have, or shall occur.

It would seem that we do indeed create realities with nothing more than thought or 'fantasies'

Edit to add this important 'crummy youtube video'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwbxlSnKE9U

Reality has various aspects. You don't create a literal or historical reality in that.manner. you create patterns which provide opportunity for resonance, given another's seeking for that. By applying consciousness, something is neccessarily created, regardless of any structure or evaluation provided. Fantasy is "cheap" and you will always get what you pay for.

(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]The knowledge framework is the box,

Hmm. So do we know for sure that human eyes can perceive what a camera perceives? I haven't been to space. I don't exactly place faith in scientific paradigms. I see it much like religious dogma.

Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars.

The near-absence of an atmosphere means that stellar imaging is possible at many wavelengths which are not visible from Earth. Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 astronauts on April 21, 1972, from the surface of the Moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination...hotographs

Quote:This forum is a disservice when spreading bullshit and giving any credence to bullshit.

This is how I saw your words about "medical cures" for cancer. Sort of like cutting off your arm is considered a cure for your itchy hand.

I have noticed that what was science fiction as a child is now science "fact" as an adult. Wise words of bullshit fantasy were used by some even then.

(04-15-2013, 01:30 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of conspiracies,

I can't really call this a conspiracy. Who cares if you can see the sun in space, the whole idea was to temporarily take the mind out of the conditioned box.

(04-15-2013, 01:55 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]Zen, often you have a little jab about fantasies and offer advice along the lines of 'get real' etc. That has been fine with me because I identify with an aspect of my being that tends strongly towards intuition and imagination, often at the expense of disregarding facts or scientific evidence.

When you are a child it is ok to have a "healthy" imagination. Once you reach a certain age, that healthy imagination is reason to medicate you. Why does it scare certain people that individuals may not fit into a prepared and conditioned box?

(04-15-2013, 08:50 PM)BrownEye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2013, 01:30 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of conspiracies,

I can't really call this a conspiracy. Who cares if you can see the sun in space, the whole idea was to temporarily take the mind out of the conditioned box.

I agree my friend! I should have put a quote to make it clear - it was in reference to Monica's post immediately before that mentioned conspiracies.

Also when you are a child, that imagination is heavily distorted and uninformed. It is indeed pathological if taken into adulthood without the balance which evaluation provides. Still people will continue to glory in the shallow realm of vague and whimsical possibilities without taking their (adult) responsibility to balance.

---

(04-15-2013, 12:56 AM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]So then what is intuition and imagination?

e.g., some types of intuition incorporates a type of knowledge based on lived experiences... so there is a rational function to intuition... but experience crystalizes our ability to recognize patterns and make predictions. Perhaps a type of heuristic - a short cut, but one that needs to be confirmed/checked through our rational thinking bc heuristic may lead to errors (e.g., over generalizations and other cognitive distortions, even magical thinking). Imagination incorporates multiple levels of one's being and maybe integrated? So in all, they are dependent on a more holistic way of understanding life/self. That could mean rationality and intuition go hand in hand.

pretty much as cogently stated, but I'd say not just some types of intuited info incorporates knowledge-based experience, all types do otherwise there would be nothing with which to identify. Remember, with magical thinking there can be no errors by design and desire. What is merely perceived to be possible is actual and viable, esp because the magical notion serves to reinforce prejudice and offers unconsciously motivated perception of balance (rather than consciously determined).

Since you can't have experience without evaluation, and intuition can't function without experience - they are mutually dependent on each other. In the process of development here, there is a valuing meme where one begins to explore "interiors" or subjective nature of realty (I.e. which finally supports notions of relativism, egalitarianism, etc). Since this meme is a new reality for many, they are prone to use the intuition in an unbalanced manner, just as a child would indulge a diet of candy without care. The imbalance is not inherent to the meme, but to the individual and sub collective choices - as each meme offers opportunity for both healthy and pathological expression of its vibrational patterns.

(04-15-2013, 08:50 PM)BrownEye Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm. So do we know for sure that human eyes can perceive what a camera perceives?

Aha! Important distinction! Thank you; I missed that! That changes everything!

So...the article was about what the human eye can perceive, not what cameras can perceive.

(04-15-2013, 08:50 PM)BrownEye Wrote: [ -> ]I don't exactly place faith in scientific paradigms. I see it much like religious dogma.

Most definitely! Science can be a religion, no doubt about it. Just as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist of the religions.

(04-15-2013, 08:50 PM)BrownEye Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:This forum is a disservice when spreading bullshit and giving any credence to bullshit.

This is how I saw your words about "medical cures" for cancer. Sort of like cutting off your arm is considered a cure for your itchy hand.

don't recall that, perhaps you do or perhaps that's merely how you chose to remember it? Most likely the latter.

Quote:I have noticed that what was science fiction as a child is now science "fact" as an adult. Wise words of bullshit fantasy were used by some even then.

Is this the part where hand waving says "not ALL guesses turn out to be totally wrong"? Thus using rare exceptions to legitimize the sloth of guessing for speculative amusement.

Quote:

(04-15-2013, 01:30 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of conspiracies,

I can't really call this a conspiracy. Who cares if you can see the sun in space, the whole idea was to temporarily take the mind out of the conditioned box.

the conspiracy is implied. Basically this article adds unnecessary confusion for amusement purposes, no matter how you want to later spin its purpose to avoid accountability for its disgraceful content.

Read this quote today and thought it may be relevant to the thread.

Quote: Saint Paul expresses it very well: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things” It is a matter of growth. It is all right for little girls to play with dolls and little boys to play with toy cars, but no sane adult plays with dollies or toy cars. It is good for an infant to crawl, but after a while he must stop crawling and walk. And when he is skilled at walking he needs to learn to run. It is good for an infant to feed from a bottle and eat liquefied food, but in time he must eat mostly solid food. A child should be under the control of his parents, but not forever; he must become independent in deed and thought. School is good, but not if we never graduate. An airplane is wonderful to travel in, but would be a trap if we could never get out. A medication may be good for us to take, but not once we recover. Throughout life we encounter situations and things that are good for us until we move beyond them. They then are either useless or detrimental. It is good to be a child–but not for all our life. There is a time when belief in Santa Claus may be cute, but not into adolescence and adulthood. The Law is this: Grow, Grow Up, and Grow Beyond. “Brethren, be not children in understanding: but in understanding be men” .

Clip from The Truman Show relevant to this thread.
Watch 3.15-3.47.

I found this video that shows that in space you can see stars.

http://www.wimp.com/earthspace/

(04-23-2013, 06:25 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I found this video that shows that in space you can see stars.

http://www.wimp.com/earthspace/

Oh NO GW, what you are looking at is a video from a camera which had recorded stars, you didn't see them directly with your own eyes - ergo "The Sun is Not What we Have Been Told".

Quote:Most definitely! Science can be a religion, no doubt about it. Just as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist of the religions.

I think Dewey Larson would agree with you.

Reject 'mainstream' and accept the 'alternative' - The 'let's reject everything we don't like/that doesn't align with our belief system' seems to parallel religion. No system is perfect. There are possibilities for errors and limitations in science. we have to learn to be good consumers of scientific research and to be able to assess the rigor of the research to understand how valid or useful a research is. Then we can keep improving scientific understanding.