BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Er zijn nog een hoop fossielen die veel ouder zijn nog dan dinosaurussen. Waarom zouden die dan nep zijn en de andere, oudere niet?quote:
Nee. heb ik nergens geschreven.quote:Op zondag 19 februari 2017 16:55 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
En dat maakt alle fossielen fake?
Moet je met je sidekick 'n 'part-time geschiedenis' bezoekje bij Dover doen.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Hey ho ! Grapjas met de saaie 'grapjes' !quote:Op zondag 19 februari 2017 17:04 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
China staat bekend om zijn neppe producten, wat dus in feite betekent dat het land zelf nep is, oftewel niet bestaat.
Dat zou ook veel verklaren.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Maar dinosaurus botten die worden gevonden zijn toch ook fossielen?quote:
You have to stop the Q-tip when there's resistance!
Fair enough, ik bedoelde dino fossielen.quote:
[..]
Nee. heb ik nergens geschreven.
Moet je met je sidekick 'n 'part-time geschiedenis' bezoekje bij Dover doen.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Q: At their peak, how many dinosaurs roamed the earth?
A : There are around a thousand different genera of dinosaurs known. We can’t directly measure the size of populations because we don’t know what percentage of individuals are preserved in the fossil record. Twenty million bison roamed America in the 18th Century and dinosaurs, being egg layers, could have reproduced faster. Assuming that the availability of plants was the limiting factor, large dinosaurs probably reached comparable population sizes in the Jurassic, 60 million years ago.
- Luis Villazon. BBC science writer.
http://www.sciencefocus.c(...)nosaurs-roamed-earth
--------------------------------
http://news.nationalgeogr(...)ng-asteroid-science/
End times
While most accounts focus on the spectacular violence of those first few minutes to days after the impact, it was the long-term environmental effects that ultimately wiped out most dinosaurs and much of the rest of life on Earth.
The prevailing dimness caused by the dust cloud meant photosynthesis would have been dramatically reduced. The soot and ash would have taken months to wash out of the atmosphere, and when it did, the rain would have fallen as acidic mud. Massive fires would have produced huge amounts of toxins that temporarily destroyed the planet’s protective ozone layer.
Then there was the carbon footprint of the impact itself, which released an estimated 10,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 100 billion tons of carbon monoxide, and another 100 billion tons of methane in one fell swoop, according to geologist David Kring of the Lunar and Planetary Institute.
A : There are around a thousand different genera of dinosaurs known. We can’t directly measure the size of populations because we don’t know what percentage of individuals are preserved in the fossil record. Twenty million bison roamed America in the 18th Century and dinosaurs, being egg layers, could have reproduced faster. Assuming that the availability of plants was the limiting factor, large dinosaurs probably reached comparable population sizes in the Jurassic, 60 million years ago.
- Luis Villazon. BBC science writer.
http://www.sciencefocus.c(...)nosaurs-roamed-earth
--------------------------------
http://news.nationalgeogr(...)ng-asteroid-science/
End times
While most accounts focus on the spectacular violence of those first few minutes to days after the impact, it was the long-term environmental effects that ultimately wiped out most dinosaurs and much of the rest of life on Earth.
The prevailing dimness caused by the dust cloud meant photosynthesis would have been dramatically reduced. The soot and ash would have taken months to wash out of the atmosphere, and when it did, the rain would have fallen as acidic mud. Massive fires would have produced huge amounts of toxins that temporarily destroyed the planet’s protective ozone layer.
Then there was the carbon footprint of the impact itself, which released an estimated 10,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 100 billion tons of carbon monoxide, and another 100 billion tons of methane in one fell swoop, according to geologist David Kring of the Lunar and Planetary Institute.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Your point being?quote:
Q: At their peak, how many dinosaurs roamed the earth?
A : There are around a thousand different genera of dinosaurs known. We can’t directly measure the size of populations because we don’t know what percentage of individuals are preserved in the fossil record. Twenty million bison roamed America in the 18th Century and dinosaurs, being egg layers, could have reproduced faster. Assuming that the availability of plants was the limiting factor, large dinosaurs probably reached comparable population sizes in the Jurassic, 60 million years ago.
- Luis Villazon. BBC science writer.
http://www.sciencefocus.c(...)nosaurs-roamed-earth
--------------------------------
http://news.nationalgeogr(...)ng-asteroid-science/
End times
While most accounts focus on the spectacular violence of those first few minutes to days after the impact, it was the long-term environmental effects that ultimately wiped out most dinosaurs and much of the rest of life on Earth.
The prevailing dimness caused by the dust cloud meant photosynthesis would have been dramatically reduced. The soot and ash would have taken months to wash out of the atmosphere, and when it did, the rain would have fallen as acidic mud. Massive fires would have produced huge amounts of toxins that temporarily destroyed the planet’s protective ozone layer.
Then there was the carbon footprint of the impact itself, which released an estimated 10,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 100 billion tons of carbon monoxide, and another 100 billion tons of methane in one fell swoop, according to geologist David Kring of the Lunar and Planetary Institute.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Top Ten Scientific Flaws in the Theory Of Prehistoric Dinosaurs
http://thetechreader.com/(...)ehistoric-dinosaurs/
2. There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around.
Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.
To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. This is anti-science, or pseudo-science. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.
Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed. They would find a bone, and think, "well, this might be similar to what I imagined a dinosaur bone would look like", while holding a cow or whale bone.
It is like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature that you think might be able to exist and then trying to find the imaginary creature in real life. It's not going to happen unless you make it happen. That's exactly what happened with Dinosaur theory. Could dinosaurs exist? Maybe. But is it probable? Not based on science as we know it.
http://thetechreader.com/(...)ehistoric-dinosaurs/
2. There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around.
Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.
To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. This is anti-science, or pseudo-science. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.
Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed. They would find a bone, and think, "well, this might be similar to what I imagined a dinosaur bone would look like", while holding a cow or whale bone.
It is like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature that you think might be able to exist and then trying to find the imaginary creature in real life. It's not going to happen unless you make it happen. That's exactly what happened with Dinosaur theory. Could dinosaurs exist? Maybe. But is it probable? Not based on science as we know it.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Oh, ik dacht dat je het serieus bedoelde..quote:
[..]
Hey ho ! Grapjas met de saaie 'grapjes' !
Fossielen ook binnen jaren (decennia) kunnen vormeren.quote:
[..]
Maar dinosaurus botten die worden gevonden zijn toch ook fossielen?
Misschien botten fossielen van 'n heel andere beest zijn.
In 'n laboratory kunnen ze ook fossielen binnen dagen maken.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Nog meer over de dinosaur scam.
Amusante manier van schrijven vind ik..
Voor de geinteresseerde:
http://thetechreader.com/(...)at-may-surprise-you/
5. Dinosaurs were not huge at all
In the early 1900s, museums were in competition to get the biggest skulls possible. This period known as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush was fueled by bribery, theft, and fraud in order to get the biggest bones possible and outdo the other museums [ 13 ].
So they filled up their museums with the biggest skulls they could find or make out of chicken bones and plaster. Soon, people started to think giant monolithic dinosaurs once roamed the earth. However, this is simply a result of competition among museums, and not an accurate depiction of any extinct animals that may have existed.
Jack Horner said in a Google Talk that our perceived size of dinosaurs is far larger than they really were (if they existed at all) as a result of this "dinosaur rush". In reality, says Horner, most of the bones found infer much smaller dinosaurs .
4. Dinosaurs likely did not exist all in one "period"
If you find a skull of an extinct animal, that doesn't make it a dinosaur. But paleontologists love to call it a dinosaur, and to name it as a dinosaur, because, in the words of Jack Horner, "scientists love to name things" [ 15 ]. It doesn't matter whether it's accurate or not. It makes them feel important.
If the giraffe went extinct a couple centuries ago and there wasn't a record of the animal previously, paleontologists would be quick to call the fossil of the giraffe as a new form of "brontasaurus" or something similar, and say that it "undeniably" went extinct something like 65 million years ago. Pfft. Even though it not only was a giraffe and not a dinosaur, and even though it would have only went extinct recently.
Amusante manier van schrijven vind ik..
Voor de geinteresseerde:
http://thetechreader.com/(...)at-may-surprise-you/
5. Dinosaurs were not huge at all
In the early 1900s, museums were in competition to get the biggest skulls possible. This period known as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush was fueled by bribery, theft, and fraud in order to get the biggest bones possible and outdo the other museums [ 13 ].
So they filled up their museums with the biggest skulls they could find or make out of chicken bones and plaster. Soon, people started to think giant monolithic dinosaurs once roamed the earth. However, this is simply a result of competition among museums, and not an accurate depiction of any extinct animals that may have existed.
Jack Horner said in a Google Talk that our perceived size of dinosaurs is far larger than they really were (if they existed at all) as a result of this "dinosaur rush". In reality, says Horner, most of the bones found infer much smaller dinosaurs .
4. Dinosaurs likely did not exist all in one "period"
If you find a skull of an extinct animal, that doesn't make it a dinosaur. But paleontologists love to call it a dinosaur, and to name it as a dinosaur, because, in the words of Jack Horner, "scientists love to name things" [ 15 ]. It doesn't matter whether it's accurate or not. It makes them feel important.
If the giraffe went extinct a couple centuries ago and there wasn't a record of the animal previously, paleontologists would be quick to call the fossil of the giraffe as a new form of "brontasaurus" or something similar, and say that it "undeniably" went extinct something like 65 million years ago. Pfft. Even though it not only was a giraffe and not a dinosaur, and even though it would have only went extinct recently.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Dat ze in competitie waren voor de grootste skeletten betekend niet dat die nep waren...quote:
Nog meer over de dinosaur scam.
Amusante manier van schrijven vind ik..
Voor de geinteresseerde:
http://thetechreader.com/(...)at-may-surprise-you/
5. Dinosaurs were not huge at all
In the early 1900s, museums were in competition to get the biggest skulls possible. This period known as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush was fueled by bribery, theft, and fraud in order to get the biggest bones possible and outdo the other museums [ 13 ].
So they filled up their museums with the biggest skulls they could find or make out of chicken bones and plaster. Soon, people started to think giant monolithic dinosaurs once roamed the earth. However, this is simply a result of competition among museums, and not an accurate depiction of any extinct animals that may have existed.
Jack Horner said in a Google Talk that our perceived size of dinosaurs is far larger than they really were (if they existed at all) as a result of this "dinosaur rush". In reality, says Horner, most of the bones found infer much smaller dinosaurs .
Dat is bekend ja, voor de mensen die ook maar iets van dit onderwerp afweten.quote:4. Dinosaurs likely did not exist all in one "period"
Keiharde leugen. Dino's en zoogdieren hebben hele andere anatomie, inclusief de vorm en samenstelling van de botten. Die zouden nooit op die manier door elkaar gehaald worden.quote:If you find a skull of an extinct animal, that doesn't make it a dinosaur. But paleontologists love to call it a dinosaur, and to name it as a dinosaur, because, in the words of Jack Horner, "scientists love to name things" [ 15 ]. It doesn't matter whether it's accurate or not. It makes them feel important.
If the giraffe went extinct a couple centuries ago and there wasn't a record of the animal previously, paleontologists would be quick to call the fossil of the giraffe as a new form of "brontasaurus" or something similar, and say that it "undeniably" went extinct something like 65 million years ago. Pfft. Even though it not only was a giraffe and not a dinosaur, and even though it would have only went extinct recently.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Even serieuze vraag aan Tingo.
Ben jij van mening dat dino's nooit hebben bestaan?
En hoe oud is de aarde?
En denk jij dat dino's samen hebben geleefd met de mensen?
Ben jij van mening dat dino's nooit hebben bestaan?
En hoe oud is de aarde?
En denk jij dat dino's samen hebben geleefd met de mensen?
You have to stop the Q-tip when there's resistance!
En 'couple of centuries ago' dan kan je botten nog prima carbon-14 daten, daar zal dan uit blijken hoe oud die giraffe botten zijn.quote:
[..]
Dat ze in competitie waren voor de grootste skeletten betekend niet dat die nep waren...
[..]
Dat is bekend ja, voor de mensen die ook maar iets van dit onderwerp afweten.
[..]
Keiharde leugen. Dino's en zoogdieren hebben hele andere anatomie, inclusief de vorm en samenstelling van de botten. Die zouden nooit op die manier door elkaar gehaald worden.
Makkelijk ja. C14 gaat tot iets van 40-50k jaar, en voor langer terug heb je weer andere methoden.quote:
[..]
En 'couple of centuries ago' dan kan je botten nog prima carbon-14 daten, daar zal dan uit blijken hoe oud die giraffe botten zijn.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Ja en het is niet alleen bekende succesvolle yt-ers, al is dit geen nieuws meer maar twitter is ook targeting onwelgevallige meningen.quote:
There is only one religion
Twitter en youtube hebben de laatste paar maand de neiging om mensen te blocken of niet meer te ondersteunen als die mensen een andere mening hebben dan links.quote:
En daarbij is pewdiepie zijn youtube 'partner' kwijt door fout knip en plak werk van The Washington post.
You have to stop the Q-tip when there's resistance!
Waar blijkt dat precies uit?quote:
[..]
Twitter en youtube hebben de laatste paar maand de neiging om mensen te blocken of niet meer te ondersteunen als die mensen een andere mening hebben dan links.
Dat websites bepaalde meningen liever kwijt dan rijk zijn lijkt me sowieso niet opmerkelijk. Dat is net zo goed het geval op fok.quote:
[..]
Ja en het is niet alleen bekende succesvolle yt-ers, al is dit geen nieuws meer maar twitter is ook targeting onwelgevallige meningen.
Conscience do cost.
Uit pewdiepie zijn wegvallen van inkomsten van zijn youtube partner.quote:
[..]
Waar blijkt dat precies uit?
[..]
Dat websites bepaalde meningen liever kwijt dan rijk zijn lijkt me sowieso niet opmerkelijk. Dat is net zo goed het geval op fok.
The Washington post heeft een volkomen verkeerd/verknipt bericht over hem geplaatst.
Selectief knip en plak werk waardoor het leek alsof hij een nazi was.
Milo Yiannopoulos op bijna zelfde manier van Twitter geblokkeerd door neppen retweets.
Media is zo links als de pest en grijpen alles aan om iemand die niet dezelfde gedachten heeft om die blocken of belachelijk te maken.
You have to stop the Q-tip when there's resistance!
Welke youtube partner? Als ik het goed begrijp is er een project van samenwerking met Disney in het water gevallen. De reden daarvoor had niets met links of rechts te maken.quote:
[..]
Uit pewdiepie zijn wegvallen van inkomsten van zijn youtube partner.
Dat weet ik, en daarom heeft Disney enigszins terecht afstand van hem genomen. TWP is verder trash uiteraard, maar Disney kan zich simpelweg niet associëren met iemand die op zo'n manier in een artikel verschijnt. Ongeacht of dat artikel 100% onzin is.quote:The Washington post heeft een volkomen verkeerd/verknipt bericht over hem geplaatst.
Selectief knip en plak werk waardoor het leek alsof hij een nazi was.
Nogmaals: Wat heeft dit met links of rechts te maken? En wat heeft youtube vermeend gecensureerd?quote:Media is zo links als de pest en grijpen alles aan om iemand die niet dezelfde gedachten heeft om die blocken of belachelijk te maken.
Conscience do cost.
Zet de tv eens aan of lees een krant/online krant.quote:
[..]
Welke youtube partner? Als ik het goed begrijp is er een project van samenwerking met Disney in het water gevallen. De reden daarvoor had niets met links of rechts te maken.
[..]
Dat weet ik, en daarom heeft Disney enigszins terecht afstand van hem genomen. TWP is verder trash uiteraard, maar Disney kan zich simpelweg niet associëren met iemand die op zo'n manier in een artikel verschijnt. Ongeacht of dat artikel 100% onzin is.
[..]
Nogmaals: Wat heeft dit met links of rechts te maken? En wat heeft youtube vermeend gecensureerd?
Alles is links georiënteerd.
Vooral oude media is een heksen jacht begonnen tegen mensen met andere meningen.
De humor die zelfs te rechts schijnt te zijn kan niet meer.
En ik heb pewdiepie nooit als "lid" van Disney gezien, dat was ook nergens terug te zien in zijn videos.
The Washington post heeft misbruik gemaakt van hun positie om hem te benadelen.
En over milo yiannopoulos schreeuwen mensen dat hij homofoob is en nazi.
Hij is zelf een homo en jood..
Hij is het niet eens met de nieuwe feministen en sjw'ers
Dus zal hij wel een homofoob zijn.
Hij heeft een duidelijke mening over asielzoekers dus zal het wel een xenofoob zijn ect ect
Maar waarschijnlijk staan jou neus en mijn neus beide een andere richting op, dat is geen probleem natuurlijk.
Zo lang er maar normaal over gesproken kan worden
You have to stop the Q-tip when there's resistance!
Dat valt nogal mee. Bovendien kan je via internet eenvoudig allerlei soorten bronnen aanspreken. De macht van de TV en krant is sterk overschat. Gros van de wereld haalt z'n nieuws van internet, met alle problemen die daaruit voortkomen.quote:
[..]
Zet de tv eens aan of lees een krant/online krant.
Alles is links georiënteerd.
Vooral oude media is een heksen jacht begonnen tegen mensen met andere meningen.
Hoe kom je daarbij? Wat voor soort (rechtse) humor bedoel je dan en heb je een voorbeeld van een gelegenheid waar dat niet meer kon?quote:De humor die zelfs te rechts schijnt te zijn kan niet meer.
Hij is ook niet lid van Disney. Hij zou samen met Disney een project gaan doen. Toen Disney te horen kreeg over dat domme artikel heeft Disney zich teruggetrokken van dat project. Daar ging dat hele filmpje van pewdiepie over. Weet je zeker dat je het wel gezien hebt?quote:En ik heb pewdiepie nooit als "lid" van Disney gezien, dat was ook nergens terug te zien in zijn videos.
Dat zeker.quote:The Washington post heeft misbruik gemaakt van hun positie om hem te benadelen.
Maar kan je dan nog antwoord geven op mijn eerdere vragen? Welke youtube partner heb jij het over? En wat heeft dat hele verhaal rondom pew te maken met links, rechts of censuur?quote:Maar waarschijnlijk staan jou neus en mijn neus beide een andere richting op, dat is geen probleem natuurlijk.
Zo lang er maar noraal over gesproken kan worden
Ik heb het trouwens over deze video van hem. (nooit gedacht dat ik nog eens uitgerekend pewdiepie zou gaan adverteren
)
Conscience do cost.
De term "partner" was in het verleden, dat als jij groot genoeg was geworden op youtube je geld kan verdienen met de video's die jij upload op de website.
Zo zag ik Disney als een "partner" voor pewdiepie.
Zoals veel Nederlandse YouTubers bij MSI zijn aangesloten.
Zo zag ik Disney als een "partner" voor pewdiepie.
Zoals veel Nederlandse YouTubers bij MSI zijn aangesloten.
You have to stop the Q-tip when there's resistance!
