My Last Game Book Is Here! After two years of hard work, I'm proud to release Game. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
The Owen Benjamin Thread
Author Message
BortimusPrime Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,157
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 21
Post: #151
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
Aurini the thing I'd warn you about this sort of psychology is that the dude is most likely going to come at you with some science question that you probably remember learning about in high school or college, but can't precisely explain on command without looking it up. Then he'll seize on that lack of certainty or precision as proof that you can't answer the question and whatever you're talking about was really a hoax invented by the Jews to promote sodomy.

Watch the debate between JF and Vox Day over evolution. Now Vox had been crowing all the time beforehand about how he can defeat anyone who believes in evolution in debate. So when it finally came time to debate JF he had what he thought was a trump card: he calculated that the mutation rate in mitosis wasn't sufficient to allow a species to evolve into another species on any possible timescale. The thing is, JF had counter-arguments to that. He pointed out that adaptive mutations don't occur at a steady rate, for example the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was an instant selection favoring small animals that burrow in the ground. He also said that sexual reproduction allows for a much greater rate of adaptation than just mitosis, since each generation that reproduces sexually shakes the DNA bag around a bit and allows for faster adaptation.

A reasonable person would say "Ok those explanations make sense, or at the very least I could look it up if I'm not totally convinced. After all since I'm not a Ph.D Biologist like the guy I'm debating, I should consider that his position is likely better informed." Thing is Vox Day has a fixed disbelief in evolution, presumably informed by his religious views. He had what he thought was a crack in the scientific theory and was going to hold on to that for dear life no matter what anyone said to him because it justified his worldview. The bar JF had to reach to prove his point was always going to be out of reach. These guys also know that their beliefs sound screwy to other people, so they'll try to hide the woo with something like "Well I don't claim to know what's true, but all these little nitpicks I've found with the narrative show that the mainstream version must be false!" And they strawman all scientists as those smug little bugmen that do those "I fucking love science" videos on youtube. And they point to the reproducibility problem as if that somehow damns all scientific knowledge. You can exhaust yourself trying to debate but any evidence you bring will be considered invalid and you can't be trusted anyways since you disagree and must either be a sheeple or one of (((them))).
04-10-2019 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like BortimusPrime's post:
Aurini, Enoch, Sooth, RawGod
BortimusPrime Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,157
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 21
Post: #152
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
A good demonstration of the Earth being round I saw on youtube was a guy taking flight charts, taping them together, and drawing straight lines between three points on the Earth with the lines all orthogonal (with the same destination at both endpoints on the map). Then he taped those flight charts onto a spherical pvc frame to show those three 90 degree angles forming a triangle on that curved surface.
04-10-2019 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes BortimusPrime's post:
Aurini
Aurini Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,686
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 82
Post: #153
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
Yeah, that's my worry, which is why I'm not going to actively pursue it. Leave it in God's hands.

The mitosis argument reminds me of what AltHyp was dealing with from Atheistkult - their refusal to believe in human evolution until he could "show the genes" that cause differences between the races.

You don't need to show genes to prove that certain traits are inheritable; in fact, to even demonstrate that the genes lead to this or that trait, you first need to demonstrate the heritability of said trait through pure statistics, and then correlate said genes to said phenotype. The demands they were making were paradoxical!

Similarly, even if JF had no response to the mitosis mutation rate - that doesn't disprove evolution at all, it merely demonstrates that we don't understand by which mechanism it's working. Darwin didn't know what DNA was when he wrote Origin - he didn't need to. The observations were sufficient. Heck, St Augustine used Greek philosophy to figure out the broad strokes of evolution back in 400 AD.

Has anybody listened to Owen's moon landing theory? I looked into this one years back - asked some guys who were insisting on it to give me the best data they could - and the documentary they linked me to was so full of nonsense that I haven't looked back since.

EDIT: an even easier way to prove the Earth is round? Have your buddy travel a few hours north. Both of you put a yardstick into the ground so it's perfectly vertical. Track the shadow during the day, and mark off it's highest point. The differences in your measurement can be used to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They did this in 2500 BC, and got a number within 5% of today's estimate.

My website.
My posts on Return of Kings.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2019 05:11 PM by Aurini.)
04-10-2019 05:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Aurini's post:
Sooth, BortimusPrime, Leonard D Neubache
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,091
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 50
Post: #154
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 05:07 PM)Aurini Wrote:  ...

EDIT: an even easier way to prove the Earth is round? Have your buddy travel a few hours north. Both of you put a yardstick into the ground so it's perfectly vertical. Track the shadow during the day, and mark off it's highest point. The differences in your measurement can be used to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They did this in 2500 BC, and got a number within 5% of today's estimate.

Medieval muslim scholar Al-Burini's method was easier, not requiring much travel, and more accurate. It is based on the surveying of a tall object (big hill or tall building). He was able to nail the circumference of the earth with over 99% precision by observing and contrasting the change in angle between the horizon and a mountain summit from up close vs from afar:

[Image: al-biruni-method.jpg]

Quote:Al-Biruni’s Method to Determine the Radius of the Earth

In the 11th century, Al-Biruni successfully determined the radius of the Earth by measuring the dip of the horizon from the top of a hill.

In the 21st century, we can easily repeat the same experiment with practically no effort. All we need are a smartphone and an opportunity to observe the horizon from a high altitude, like during a flight.

Al-Biruni carried out his measurement in two steps.

First, he measured the height of a mountain. He took two measurements of the angle to the top of the mountain from two different locations. From the results, he was able to determine the height of the mountain.

[Image: 8325357_f520.jpg]

Second, he climbed to the top of the mountain and measured the dip of the horizon. From the angle of the dip and the height of the mountain, he was able to calculate the radius of the Earth.

[Image: Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg_-540x486.png]

https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method

Al-Burini also put forth the hypothesis of a larger, inhabited continent between the Atlantic and the Pacific:

"In his Codex Masudicus (1037), Al-Biruni theorized the existence of a landmass along the vast ocean between Asia and Europe, or what is today known as the Americas. He deduced its existence on the basis of his accurate estimations of the Earth's circumference and Afro-Eurasia's size, which he found spanned only two-fifths of the Earth's circumference, and his discovery of the concept of specific gravity, from which he deduced that the geological processes that gave rise to Eurasia must've also given rise to lands in the vast ocean between Asia and Europe. He also theorized that the landmass must be inhabited by human beings, which he deduced from his knowledge of humans inhabiting the broad north-south band stretching from Russia to South India and Sub-Saharan Africa, theorizing that the landmass would most likely lie along the same band."


Quote:Has anybody listened to Owen's moon landing theory? I looked into this one years back - asked some guys who were insisting on it to give me the best data they could - and the documentary they linked me to was so full of nonsense that I haven't looked back since.

He based his opinion mostly on details and official statements from NASA officials, which were very dubious. FWIW, I don't think we went to the moon either, based on footage and analyses of said footage and other items. We've had a thread on this a couple of years ago, but here is a preview:









The original videotapes were destroyed by NASA, allegedly because they needed to reuse said tapes to record other stuff on them.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2019 06:52 PM by 911.)
04-10-2019 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like 911's post:
SamuelBRoberts, Syberpunk, Polniy_Sostav
Sooth Offline
Alpha Male
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,093
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 14
Post: #155
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
Anyone doing anything ground breaking publicly has tricks up their sleeve especially when it comes to marketing and media. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk - all their presentations are bullshit and they are selling something they don't have yet. The success of the product is a complex amalgam of marketing, finance, engineering, software and sales. In this day and age it is swayed heavily towards marketing, sales and finance.

The big launch presentations of large corporations are often smoke an mirrors to buy time for engineers to iron out bugs and an extra few days can be all that's needed to lock in a sucessfull product.

There is no doubt that these smoke and mirror tactics were used in the moon landing "product launch" to a certain degree and you will find inconsistencies if you look hard enough.

As for whether it happened or not I don't care as the debate is really about "is the government lying to us" which is a giant yes.
04-10-2019 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sooth's post:
Leonard D Neubache
BortimusPrime Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,157
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 21
Post: #156
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 05:07 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Has anybody listened to Owen's moon landing theory? I looked into this one years back - asked some guys who were insisting on it to give me the best data they could - and the documentary they linked me to was so full of nonsense that I haven't looked back since.

I'm not sure what Owen's version is, but as best I understand the common version of it is that Stanley Kubrick directed a fake moon landing on a movie set in order to one-up the Soviets when we didn't have the technological capability to actually put astronauts on the moon. Then Kubrick left a bunch of secret clues about the "truth" in The Shining. I'm guessing this is just because Kubrick directed 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The other "proof" I've heard is that in the pictures on the moon you can't see stars, but that's just because it was daytime on the moon. Your eyes and camera lenses have to adjust to the brightness of the sun and aren't going to be able to detect something as dim as starlight in daytime.
04-10-2019 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,091
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 50
Post: #157
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
Your eyes might need some adjustment time (a couple of minutes could do), but camera lenses pointed upwards wouldn't, because the moon has virtually no atmosphere.

Another point Owen emphasized was that astronauts from earlier missions had different answers about whether they could see stars, before they settled on "definitely not" in later missions.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2019 07:06 PM by 911.)
04-10-2019 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Aurini Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,686
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 82
Post: #158
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 07:03 PM)911 Wrote:  Your eyes might need some adjustment time (a couple of minutes could do), but camera lenses pointed upwards wouldn't, because the moon has virtually no atmosphere.

You're thinking of modern cameras where software automatically adjusts the exposure level. If a camera's set to see the stars, it will be blinded by anything bathed in daylight.

My website.
My posts on Return of Kings.
04-10-2019 07:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Aurini's post:
JackinMelbourne
TigerMandingo Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,608
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 43
Post: #159
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
I had a good friend that I had to cut loose because he would constantly argue with me over Flat Earth, despite the fact that I told him I had no interest in discussing it. He got deep into those YouTube videos and became a fanatic, and dismissed all scientists as “frauds” and said “they’re all in on it” Laugh He would start yelling and going berserk anytime the topic came up and I just couldn’t stand being around him anymore, which is a shame because he’s a decent guy otherwise.

The Flat Earthers are even bigger zealots than the 9/11 truthers, there is no point in trying to debate them. They’ve also added another weird element to their theory: that there is a dome or “firmament” which covers the Earth and prevents us from leaving Laugh My buddy would always point out that there are “signs” of this all around us - such as the dome over the Disney logo or the fact that rainbows have a dome shape lol.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Owen is serious about it. He just devoured too many red pills at once and is trying to make sense of it all. He’ll come around.

Kokkinakis banged your girlfriend. Sorry to tell you that mate.
04-10-2019 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like TigerMandingo's post:
Sooth, Aurini, Sankt Michael
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,091
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 50
Post: #160
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 07:06 PM)Aurini Wrote:  
(04-10-2019 07:03 PM)911 Wrote:  Your eyes might need some adjustment time (a couple of minutes could do), but camera lenses pointed upwards wouldn't, because the moon has virtually no atmosphere.

You're thinking of modern cameras where software automatically adjusts the exposure level. If a camera's set to see the stars, it will be blinded by anything bathed in daylight.

I've had an 1980s AE-1 SLR, with an auto and a manual setting, so I am a bit familiar with the photography basics, all they'd have to do is reset the aperture and shutter speed on their Hasselblad. A stand would help, but without one, and with the proper aperture/shutter speed, and even with a high film ISO, you would at the very least capture fuzzy but bright stars by pointing the lens upwards, or perhaps taking pictures from the capsule through the window on the way there or back. If you've ever observed the night sky from a dry desert/high altitude, you have to imagine the night sky from the moon being even brighter than that.

Incidentally, one of the damning critiques from the perspective of skeptic professional photographers was that nearly all the Apollo pictures were perfect, the photo sequences produced under those conditions were highly unrealistic in that sense.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2019 08:02 PM by 911.)
04-10-2019 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,091
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 50
Post: #161
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 07:21 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I had a good friend that I had to cut loose because he would constantly argue with me over Flat Earth, despite the fact that I told him I had no interest in discussing it. He got deep into those YouTube videos and became a fanatic, and dismissed all scientists as “frauds” and said “they’re all in on it” Laugh He would start yelling and going berserk anytime the topic came up and I just couldn’t stand being around him anymore, which is a shame because he’s a decent guy otherwise.

The Flat Earthers are even bigger zealots than the 9/11 truthers, there is no point in trying to debate them. They’ve also added another weird element to their theory: that there is a dome or “firmament” which covers the Earth and prevents us from leaving Laugh My buddy would always point out that there are “signs” of this all around us - such as the dome over the Disney logo or the fact that rainbows have a dome shape lol.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Owen is serious about it. He just devoured too many red pills at once and is trying to make sense of it all. He’ll come around.

Agree about Owen.

On your point about Flat Earthers and 9/11 truthers: this is exactly why FE has been unleashed and weaponized, it is meant to discredit 9/11 truth by lumping it with FE, as you did above. FE is a great poison pill, that's why a lot has been invested in this cognitive infiltration psyop.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2019 08:12 PM by 911.)
04-10-2019 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 9 users Like 911's post:
Jones, Syberpunk, Leonard D Neubache, VNvet, Man of Truth, JackinMelbourne, username, Sankt Michael, debeguiled
Synezthetic Offline
Beta Orbiter
*
Gold Member

Posts: 105
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 2
Post: #162
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 06:30 PM)Sooth Wrote:  Anyone doing anything ground breaking publicly has tricks up their sleeve especially when it comes to marketing and media. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk - all their presentations are bullshit and they are selling something they don't have yet. The success of the product is a complex amalgam of marketing, finance, engineering, software and sales. In this day and age it is swayed heavily towards marketing, sales and finance.

The big launch presentations of large corporations are often smoke an mirrors to buy time for engineers to iron out bugs and an extra few days can be all that's needed to lock in a sucessfull product.

Completely agree on this part.

Occasionally you even have the brazen people like Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos who really push the envelope and invent complete bullshit they haven't even truly gotten started on yet...
04-10-2019 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Syberpunk Offline
Alpha Male
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,054
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 15
Post: #163
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
A body language/speech expert who didn't think the moon landings were faked at all, was disturbed when he decided to watch the press conference afterwards. He analysed a seven minute video, analysis lasts 25 minutes.

26:30 for the conclusion:



04-10-2019 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Syberpunk's post:
Aurini, 911, Polniy_Sostav
Malone Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 944
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 14
Post: #164
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 07:51 PM)911 Wrote:  
(04-10-2019 07:06 PM)Aurini Wrote:  
(04-10-2019 07:03 PM)911 Wrote:  Your eyes might need some adjustment time (a couple of minutes could do), but camera lenses pointed upwards wouldn't, because the moon has virtually no atmosphere.

You're thinking of modern cameras where software automatically adjusts the exposure level. If a camera's set to see the stars, it will be blinded by anything bathed in daylight.

I've had an 1980s AE-1 SLR, with an auto and a manual setting, so I am a bit familiar with the photography basics, all they'd have to do is reset the aperture and shutter speed on their Hasselblad. A stand would help, but without one, and with the proper aperture/shutter speed, and even with a high film ISO, you would at the very least capture fuzzy but bright stars by pointing the lens upwards, or perhaps taking pictures from the capsule through the window on the way there or back. If you've ever observed the night sky from a dry desert/high altitude, you have to imagine the night sky from the moon being even brighter than that.

Incidentally, one of the damning critiques from the perspective of skeptic professional photographers was that nearly all the Apollo pictures were perfect, the photo sequences produced under those conditions were highly unrealistic in that sense.

So who put the retroreflector on the Apollo 11 site then? They faked the human landing but then did a robot landing to place the retroreflector, in 1969?

The Moon Landing Is Fake is on the same intellectual level as The Earth Is Flat: Moronic.

This link is interesting: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/index.html

as is this:



(This post was last modified: 04-11-2019 01:40 AM by Malone.)
04-11-2019 01:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Malone's post:
BortimusPrime
BortimusPrime Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,157
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 21
Post: #165
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-11-2019 01:32 AM)Malone Wrote:  So who put the retroreflector on the Apollo 11 site then? They faked the human landing but then did a robot landing to place the retroreflector, in 1969?

It's not that you can't fire a rocket into space, the problem is that any human that goes into space immediately has his soul consumed by Yog-Sothoth. Duh.
04-11-2019 02:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like BortimusPrime's post:
Malone, Aurini, Sankt Michael
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,091
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 50
Post: #166
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
There are human artifacts on Venus and Mars as well, both planets having been explored by unmanned missions.

The Mythbusters video above is pretty dumb, and using it as some kind of proof of a manned landing on the moon is totally misguided. Unfortunately the great majority of the general public has no discernment.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2019 07:22 AM by 911.)
04-11-2019 07:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes 911's post:
Jones
TigerMandingo Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,608
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 43
Post: #167
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
Owen just put this one up LaughLaughLaugh




Kokkinakis banged your girlfriend. Sorry to tell you that mate.
04-11-2019 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 9 users Like TigerMandingo's post:
Leonard D Neubache, Aurini, debeguiled, 911, Jones, iop890, Man of Truth, username, DJ-Matt
Malone Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 944
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 14
Post: #168
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-11-2019 07:18 AM)911 Wrote:  There are human artifacts on Venus and Mars as well, both planets having been explored by unmanned missions.

The Mythbusters video above is pretty dumb, and using it as some kind of proof of a manned landing on the moon is totally misguided. Unfortunately the great majority of the general public has no discernment.

Your contention is that in 1969 the US government used some kind of primitive robot to put a retroreflector on the moon and started a conspiracy of thousands just because they either couldn't or didn't want to land a manned expedition there.

Then they did it 5 more times, just because, each time involving more and more people in this conspiracy which has held up for over 50 years, with not one of the thousands of people leaking the "Truth."
04-11-2019 07:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,091
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 50
Post: #169
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-11-2019 07:59 AM)Malone Wrote:  
(04-11-2019 07:18 AM)911 Wrote:  There are human artifacts on Venus and Mars as well, both planets having been explored by unmanned missions.

The Mythbusters video above is pretty dumb, and using it as some kind of proof of a manned landing on the moon is totally misguided. Unfortunately the great majority of the general public has no discernment.

Your contention is that in 1969 the US government used some kind of primitive robot to put a retroreflector on the moon and started a conspiracy of thousands just because they either couldn't or didn't want to land a manned expedition there.

Then they did it 5 more times, just because, each time involving more and more people in this conspiracy which has held up for over 50 years, with not one of the thousands of people leaking the "Truth."

The Manhattan Project was bigger than the Apollo program, with 120,000 people employed, yet no leaks. These projects are highly compartmentalized, with engineers and managers working on their specific tasks and no reason to doubt the project. The number of people with who would actually be in a position to put the pieces together and doubt the Apollo project was relatively small, and some of those did in fact speak out.

The Apollo missions are an essential part of the modern American mythology, and because of this, there will be a huge psychological barrier against any form of skepticism, the same way a feminist would absolutely refuse to consider the notion that their movement was funded by the deep state to undermine and control them. Try telling a modern feminist that Gloria Steinem was a CIA agent... Many people will never be able to rationally examine the facts here because the lunar missions are a fundamental part of the values they were raised with.

On the lunar reflectors, once again there is no doubt whatsoever about the ability to land a small piece of equipment on the moon in the 1960s. In fact the Soviets managed to land a probe on Venus, a far greater challenge than landing a probe on the moon, given the distance and harsh conditions on Venus, and they did it in 1967, with the Venera 4 probe:

[Image: 345px-Venera_4_%28MMA_2011%29_%281%29.JPG]


Both the Soviets and Americans had landed probes on the moon by 1967, Luna 9 and Surveyor 1 respectively. The fact that this happened shows the kind of disinfo that popular shows like the Mythbusters clip Malone posted above engage in, I mean they could have found with 5 min research that landing a piece of equipment on the moon was done and not contested. Instead they use this fact as proof of a manned mission, engaging in a sleight of hand.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2019 08:59 AM by 911.)
04-11-2019 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like 911's post:
Syberpunk, Jones, Man of Truth
The Catalyst Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 968
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 5
Post: #170
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-10-2019 04:32 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  And they point to the reproducibility problem as if that somehow damns all scientific knowledge.

Doesn't it? I think that alone is enough to make me not trust scientific knowledge as such.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2019 08:46 AM by The Catalyst.)
04-11-2019 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 10,240
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 197
Post: #171
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
The thread is veering but what the hell.

My beef with evolution has always been the existence of multi-stage organisms. Particularly ones with migratory habits during any phase of their life stages.

Via natural selection, how does a creature go from birth>breed>die to birth>chrysalis>functionally-different-creature>breed>die?

If gets even more retarded when you reach birth>chrysalis>functionally-different-creature>migrate-1000-miles>breed>return-1000-miles>lay eggs>die.

Let's suppose that an insane grab-bag of "won the lottery 10 times in a row" genetic defects created a caterpillar that underwent a freak chrysalis stage to emerge as the world's first butterfly. What butterfly can mate with a caterpillar and pass on its genetic mutation?

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2019 10:37 AM by Leonard D Neubache.)
04-11-2019 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Syberpunk Offline
Alpha Male
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,054
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 15
Post: #172
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-11-2019 01:32 AM)Malone Wrote:  
(04-10-2019 07:51 PM)911 Wrote:  
(04-10-2019 07:06 PM)Aurini Wrote:  
(04-10-2019 07:03 PM)911 Wrote:  Your eyes might need some adjustment time (a couple of minutes could do), but camera lenses pointed upwards wouldn't, because the moon has virtually no atmosphere.

You're thinking of modern cameras where software automatically adjusts the exposure level. If a camera's set to see the stars, it will be blinded by anything bathed in daylight.

I've had an 1980s AE-1 SLR, with an auto and a manual setting, so I am a bit familiar with the photography basics, all they'd have to do is reset the aperture and shutter speed on their Hasselblad. A stand would help, but without one, and with the proper aperture/shutter speed, and even with a high film ISO, you would at the very least capture fuzzy but bright stars by pointing the lens upwards, or perhaps taking pictures from the capsule through the window on the way there or back. If you've ever observed the night sky from a dry desert/high altitude, you have to imagine the night sky from the moon being even brighter than that.

Incidentally, one of the damning critiques from the perspective of skeptic professional photographers was that nearly all the Apollo pictures were perfect, the photo sequences produced under those conditions were highly unrealistic in that sense.

So who put the retroreflector on the Apollo 11 site then? They faked the human landing but then did a robot landing to place the retroreflector, in 1969?

The Moon Landing Is Fake is on the same intellectual level as The Earth Is Flat: Moronic.

This link is interesting: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/index.html

as is this:




The moon's is naturally reflective and a laser can make its way back to earth without the reflectors. They were doing it well before 1969.
04-11-2019 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JStrongbow Offline
Male Feminist

Posts: 6
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 0
Post: #173
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
I like Owen Benjamin
04-11-2019 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like JStrongbow's post:
Jones, iop890
BortimusPrime Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,157
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 21
Post: #174
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
(04-11-2019 10:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The thread is veering but what the hell.

My beef with evolution has always been the existence of multi-stage organisms. Particularly ones with migratory habits during any phase of their life stages.

Via natural selection, how does a creature go from birth>breed>die to birth>chrysalis>functionally-different-creature>breed>die?

If gets even more retarded when you reach birth>chrysalis>functionally-different-creature>migrate-1000-miles>breed>return-1000-miles>lay eggs>die.

Let's suppose that an insane grab-bag of "won the lottery 10 times in a row" genetic defects created a caterpillar that underwent a freak chrysalis stage to emerge as the world's first butterfly. What butterfly can mate with a caterpillar and pass on its genetic mutation?

It happens gradually. The caterpillar might start out just going into some form of hibernation while it becomes a butterfly. Then generations later its descendants evolved to excrete some kind of insulating or protective film when hibernating that keeps parasites off it. As that proves advantageous it eventually turns into a full fledged chrysalis.

Even with stuff like flight which seems useless unless fully evolved, when you look at it there are advantages to the partial evolution. I've seen regular gray squirrels fall out of trees and they splay themselves out for air resistance to break their fall. It's obvious how the skin flaps flying squirrels have would be selected for. Then your gliding animal has a pretty straightforward path to a flying animal like a bat.
04-11-2019 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
RawGod Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,776
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 33
Post: #175
RE: The Owen Benjamin Thread
Owen has a high IQ and high trait of openness. It's something that can result in wild experimental ideas coming out in a scattergun approach. Rather like Alex Jones, though he is more of an angry contrarian. Guys like that can come up with a lot of bullshit and bad ideas, but then there is the one truth hidden in there that more disciplined minds never hit upon.

Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.
04-11-2019 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Jordan Owen Attacking Roosh Yet Again... RickyGP 101 44,188 10-31-2018 11:21 AM
Last Post: Off The Reservation
  Owen Shroyer "The Cuck Destroyer" Thread Ivanis 15 8,833 12-03-2016 04:36 PM
Last Post: Ivanis
  "Bastards" Movie - Ed Helms, Owen Wilson are bastard children Sam Malone 4 2,944 09-17-2016 06:55 PM
Last Post: wi30

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication