Hey peoples,
Ive always wondered why rich people like sport people and actors, have never funded an expidition or project to solve a mystery or thoery, like Agharta(hollow earth) or underground civilisations. I mean they had to have been interested about these phenominons when they were younger.

Or maybe their just enjoying life, with thier garage door sized plasma's and massive pools, mansions and such a big payroll they bathe in money, it makes me wanna SCREAM.

Cause if i were rich i would be spending my money on expiditions to the pole entrances and caves where their supposed to lead down to agharta.

Anyone agree with me?

They aren't interested, same reason i don't donate to children's help fund.

You gotta point, but dont you wanna find out and solve mysteries? What would you do if u were rich?

Absolutely, because I'm interested. They wouldn't because they are not.

Not everyone's got a curious streak

As to why they play sport...well, most rich people have already experienced what money can provide. They get bored.

And what would I do? I'd acquire nuclear weapons and point every one of them at Queensland. Oh, you mean in regards to a mystery? Well, once I'm finished with Queensland I'd probably invest a good deal of money to disprove the existence of psychic abilities such as telepathy, telekinesis and precognition. If I see just one more psi-ball post...

Too late.
Whats there left to explore.


"When sh*t becomes valuable, the poor will be born without assholes." -Henry Miller

Don't you mean the middle east?

I think rich people are either:
A. Uninterested
B. Aliens
C. Dicks

Really, that's all I have to say.

Than prepare to get drop kicked MUAHHAHAHA!

No! I don't wanna be dropkicked!

Too late, your mine.

There is plenty to still be discovered. I suspect it goes into private collections but I don't know that for sure.

You sound like a wonderful human being. BLAH!!


aHHH My mistake, didn't realize that you, yourself were a kid. sorry bout that.

Why do you care how they spend their money? Who the heck are you to cast judgement? I give to charity each year. Its a much more worthy cause.

Who are you to question my ethics.
No man can decide whats right and whats wrong.
What does age have to do with anything?
Clearly nothing because at your age your showing a real lack of maturity.

And you will give them charity every year for the rest of there life. Whats that saying give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for life.

Its easier to throw money at someone, than it is to stop and actualy help them. Do you know the names of the people who recieve your money? Have you spent a day with em so they dont feel like there worthless cause there poor? Did you help someone get back on there feet so they could get a job?

No, like most people you throw money at someone and then pat yourself on the back. What a cause.

Okay wabbit. I work 60 hours a week and have a family I have to find time for. So I choose give some money. Just FYI, I grew up under the poverty line in Pascagoula Mississippi. I know what it is like so save your smack talk. Get over yourself. I do what I can with what I have. Sorry it is not good enough for you.

I would rather see celebrities donate to funds to help better the world rather than searching the truth about theories. Afterall, who would still go to stonehenge if we found out its true reason for being built? Who would go visit the nazca lines if we found out why they were made? It takes the beautiful mystery out of them. I, for one, would rather keep theorizing.

Some of them probably have explored the mysteries of the world. Dan Aykroyd is an avid believer and investigator of U.F.O's for instance. If all the celebrities were investigated im sure you would find a dozen of them who have spent some money on a mystery. You are probably just going on the major media's and havent looked into the small presses that report this kind of thing.

I generally agree with the consensus, everyone has different priorities, what’s important to you doesn't make it important to me.



You wouldn't happen to be a Blues supporter would you?

Wow.
No man can decide what's right and what's wrong?
Okay, so I'm looking out my window one day and there's my neighbor, beating his wife with a 2X4.
Well, ain't none of my business to your way of thinking.
After all, he may be right to beat her. Perhaps she spilled his coffee this morning when she brought it, or perhaps he caught her with another man.
Boy, she's getting awfully bloody.
Still, none of my concern because he may be right.
Who am I to say what's wrong?
Hmmmm .. she's not moving anymore and he's still beating her.
Gee, I wonder who was right?
I'll just close my drapes. I hate the sight of blood.
Wonder what's on the TV?

Dude! That just happened outside my house. Are you spying on me?

O' well.

1. She could leave him.
2. She could fight back.
3. She could kill him.

Theres a world out there and its full of choices, it's up to her to choose.

Call me cruel call me sick, this is reality. Deal with it.

If I had loads of money to spend on Alcohol drugs and Women I probably wouldn't get much done either

anyone wanna loan me some money for some research

Teaching a person to fish isn't free you know!! It takes organising and logistics which I leave to the experts in the field. iwould rather donate my 10% directly to Oxfam or Medecin sans Frontieres than make a complete mess by going it alone.... sounds to me like you spend ALL your time helping people get back on their feet. Or do you just whinge and refuse to give any money based on your selfish theories, and actually do nothing at all proactive?

Echo team get a sniper set up on that hill, Charlie team set up a radio in that fox hole, Zulu team set up sand bags around the perimeter.
I'll get in the bunker and man the ROAV. BAKER GET THAT MAN A FISHING ROD! ASAP! I want Johnson and Baxter to help him with his cast.

"what now sir" Now we wait.....

if someone can't figure out how to fish in the first place then theyre a total no hoper arent they
and I am a little concerned about the practicalities of fishing in a desert region anyway
if I was in that situation the next time the united nations food truck came round I'd get on it

Most rich people only care about themselves. They don't want to waste their money on other people.

But some rich people DO give their money away. To make other people have a better life. Any among other things.

To the OP, maybe they do. Sure, we're always hearing about the rich donating to charities, that makes them look good. But it wouldn't necessarily look good to everyone if they started publicly donating to funds for paranormal research.


Just got an answer for everything, don't ya, kiddo? She could leave him, with a huge risk of getting beat up or killed. She could fight back, refer to previous answer. She could kill him, refer to previous answer and add prison to that. Fantastic response! You might want to think about all the people in prisons, think about WW2, then think about taking an ethics class next semester. Sometimes we have to decide what's right and wrong, it's called jury duty.

She could also call the police and have them arrest him. Good idea. Chances are that if you try to do something the crazy bugger's gonna hit you with a 2x4.

OR MAYBE!?!?! She should get a divorce. And maybe you should stop living in your protective bubble.

the answer to your question starts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amer...philanthropists
Its a long list though - 197 pages.
To allege that the rich do not support exploration and scientific research is very unfair and totally incorrect. The rich have been the backbone of exploration and scientific research around the world for centuries. Early Polar exploration was greatly dependent upon private subscribers drawn from commerce.
Much early research in Egypt was supported almost entirely by wealthy individuals.

Not true. Scientific research and exploration attract great support from wealthy individuals. To answer your question I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amer...philanthropists
Its a long list though - 197 pages.

Glad to see you're exploring more options.. better than killing him. A protective bubble is something you live in when you think you can go through life without other people's actions ever affecting your own life. I know better. Good try though.

Personally I think it's no one's business what "the rich"; however they are defined; do with their money. Your definition of rich and someone else's definition of rich could be completely different. They give to a ertain charity; awesome...whatever.

I prefer to look at what I do and what I can contribute.

Sure beats getting my panties in a wad over something others think should or should not be done. Ya know?

Living in a protective bubble, is not accepting the full harshness of reality because it frightens you. And before i was just exploring some of the actions, she could have taken in that situation.

Because we don't want to...

I'm not here to argue definitions or derail, Primeval. If you're comfortable sitting by while people get harmed or killed, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

What about Oprah? She's been dubbed a follower of the New Age movement and is pretty hush hush about her money. She starred in Beloved which apparently has some plot references to ghosts. I couldn't imagine she hasn't had at least a few episodes devoted to the subject of the paranormal.

During the spiritualist movement there were many famous people devoting time and money (and reputation).

I really cant say anything bad about her, although i don't like her. (but thats not important) She has donated lots of money, and thats good i guess.

What about the rich guy who,s offering a million bucks to anyone who can prove they have e.s.p. or telikenetic powers etc... ? I don,t think anyones been able to make a claim on the money yet though!

Yea, Sylvia Browne supposed to take him up on that right? I'll believe it when I see it and I'm a sensitive. LOL.

James Randi? he's not rich, he just has lots of fans in high places.

When it comes to money...i'm no different to the next bloke. In my line of work i earn good money and the benefits are sweet.
I sleep a whole lot better at nights when my bank account is well fed and my pockets full.

But i draw the the line between being rich and filthy mega rich.
These people pay next to no taxes and are sucking the system dry wherever they go widening the gap between mega rich & poor ever so more without any remorse whats so ever.(link)

Some of the riche$t...thats BILLIONAIRES not millionaires on the globe...

Top 100 Billion Club


Just for the record there are 691 ''Billionaires'' on Earth .

fyi - when it comes to the US , being one of the richest countries , we are pretty stingy.

The World’s Most Generous Misers
Tsunami reporting misrepresented U.S. giving

By Ben Somberg


In March 1997, a joint poll by the Washington Post, Harvard University and the Kaiser Family Foundation asked Americans which area of federal expenditure they thought was the largest. Was it Social Security (which actually constituted about a quarter of the budget)? Medicare? Military spending? Sixty-four percent of respondents said it was foreign aid—when in reality foreign aid made up only about 1 percent of total outlays (Washington Post, 3/29/97).

Today, Americans think about 20 percent of the federal budget goes toward foreign aid. When told the actual figure for U.S. foreign aid giving (about 1.6 percent of the discretionary budget), most respondents said they did not believe the number was the full amount (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 3/7/05).

It’s no wonder that most Americans think they live in an extremely generous nation: Media reports often quote government officials pointing out that their country is the largest overall aid donor, and the biggest donor of humanitarian aid. But what reporters too often fail to explain is how big the U.S. economy is—more than twice the size of Japan’s, the second largest, and about as big as economies number 3–10 combined. Considered as a portion of the nation’s economy, or of its federal expenditures, the U.S. is actually among the smallest donors of international aid among the world’s developed countries.

The Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development compiles statistics on how much Official Development Assistance the world’s 22 wealthiest countries give each year. The organization’s numbers show that as a portion of Gross National Income (roughly equivalent to GDP), the U.S. now ranks second-to-last in giving, at 0.16 percent. (In 2004, Italy dropped into last place below the U.S.)

The U.S. also gives much less than what the industrialized countries pledged to give at the 1992 Rio Conference, which was 0.7 percent of their GDP. U.S. development aid, at 0.16 percent of GDP, represents less than one-quarter of this promise.

While foreign aid giving is hardly the only issue, domestic or international, on which Americans hold distinctly incorrect beliefs—misperceptions around the circumstances of the Iraq War are another good recent example—the disparity between the public’s perception and the truth in this case is abnormally large. A look at media coverage of U.S. foreign aid giving in the days after the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster of December 26, 2004 helps reveal why Americans might think they’re more generous than they are.

“Known for generosity”



Coverage of the Bush administration’s pledges of aid to Asian nations battered by the tsunami failed to give context to the amounts mentioned, painting the U.S. in a charitable light. The day after the tsunami, the U.S. pledged $15 million in aid; a day later, the total was $35 million. After widespread criticism, the administration upped its pledge three days later to $350 million. The media almost always compared these numbers to the total aid pledges of other countries, not looking at how they ranked as a fraction of the nations’ economies. The $350 million pledge, therefore, was the “largest contribution” at the time (CNN.com, 1/1/05).

The administration’s line regarding aid giving was exemplified by Colin Powell’s words in the days after the tsunami (ABC’s Nightline, 12/30/04): “We are the most generous nation on the face of the Earth. Now, if you measure it as a percentage of GDP, you can make the case that we’re not as high as others. But if you measure it as actual money going out the door to help people, we are the most generous nation on the face of the Earth.”

Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, similarly said that “we’ve never accepted the notion” that aid comparisons by national wealth are relevant (Fox News Channel, 12/29/04):


Our GNP dwarves all other countries. Our economy grows much faster. Japan’s economy has basically been not growing much over the last decade. And the Europeans have not grown that much, certainly in comparison to the United States. So what some people have done is to use the one indicator that makes us look bad to argue this. And I have to say it is ridiculous.


Fox host Chris Wallace at the end of his interview thanked Natsios for “giving us a perspective, a little bit of a reality check on all of this.”

Establishing foreign aid giving standards based on the size of a nation’s economy is no newfangled idea, though; it was in 1970, after all, that the U.N. General Assembly first supported the standard of developed nations giving 0.7 percent of their GDP towards non-military foreign aid (a percentage that the United States has never come close to reaching). Generosity that isn’t measured based on ability to give would inevitably paint smaller countries as stingy—unless they gave an astronomical percentage of their incomes.

NPR correspondent (and Fox in-house “liberal”) Juan Williams, appearing just minutes after Natsios (12/29/04), also disputed criticisms that U.S. humanitarian efforts are only a tiny portion of GDP: “That notion, I think, is misplaced, because I think our Gross Domestic Product is just so much larger and continues to grow.” In other words, it somehow isn’t fair to expect the U.S. to contribute the same percentage as other countries—because the U.S. is so much wealthier.

“Private giving is tremendous”

Williams continued with another standard defense of American generosity: “And so it doesn’t properly represent the degree of largess and philanthropy that takes place. Either if you consider just government, or if you consider, in addition, an even larger sector, the private sector. Private giving is tremendous in this country.”

American private giving during the tsunami crisis was significant, indeed; one month after the tsunami, it was over $400 million, outpacing the U.S. government pledge of $350 million. But just as with government donations, the private giving of Americans was smaller in proportional terms than that of most Western European and Scandinavian countries. That fact didn’t slow down NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams (1/7/05), who said that Americans were “proving all over again why they are known worldwide for their generosity.” Williams made no comment about the generosity of, say, the British or Germans, each of whom sent far more money, per capita, in both private and government donations.

When George W. Bush spoke of individual donations and the “good heart of the American people,” ABC’s Peter Jennings (1/3/05) agreed that Bush was “saying what almost all Americans will surely believe, that Americans are innately generous at times of crisis.” Whether or not such beliefs reflect reality was not addressed.

While exact figures are impossible to come by, the highest estimates from recent years put individual U.S. donations to overseas aid at 0.16 percent of national income, according to the Center for Global Development’s Steven Radelet. (More conservative estimates suggest that this number may actually be as low as 0.03 percent; an OECD estimate put the number at 0.06 percent.) Add the optimistic 0.16 percent estimate to the 0.16 percent of national income in government donations and you reach a combined 0.32 percent of national income—which is still less than the governmental aid alone of roughly half of the world’s wealthiest nations.

When it came to comparing the tsunami relief to aid in other humanitarian disasters, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos (1/2/05) briefly stood out from the field. After Kofi Annan noted in an interview that international donations in just one week had eclipsed those for all other humanitarian appeals in 2004, Stephanopoulos replied, “That would suggest that the world had not done enough for these other disasters.”

“We call them the orphaned disasters,” Annan replied. “They are not in the headlines. They are not on TV. And they are ignored and overlooked, whether it’s northern Uganda or elsewhere. You take the Congo, eastern Congo, thousands of people die every month.” With that said, Stephanopoulos returned to talk of the tsunami.


Perhaps the best discussion of tsunami aid was provided by the Boston Globe’s Charles Sennott (12/31/04), who wrote in his second sentence that “both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation’s wealth, America’s emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations, some of the world’s top economists and analysts of international development aid said yesterday.”

The Globe’s honest analysis helped highlight the lack of context common in tsunami coverage elsewhere in the print media. A USA Today report on American giving (1/7/05) noted that “per capita, citizens in some other countries are giving more than Americans are”—but not until the last paragraph of the article. Meanwhile the paper editorialized (1/4/05) that Bush’s pledge of $350 million—a little more than a dollar per citizen—“should silence critics who said the world’s wealthiest nation was being stingy.”

The Washington Post (1/2/05) was similarly impressed in its news pages with the $350 million pledge, concluding that “the president has assumed a leadership role in the global relief, rescue and rebuilding effort and quieted his critics.” The Post had nothing to say about the “leadership role” of the leaders of European nations that were giving sums that represented far larger portions of their nations’ economies.

In the New York Times, the administration’s logic sometimes went unchallenged as well. “We are by far the largest donor’’ of disaster relief, the paper quoted Natsios (12/30/04). “No one even comes close to us.’’ His statement was technically true at the time, but the article provided no information about how this ranked the U.S. giving as a portion of GDP.

When the Bush administration increased its aid pledge to $350 million, the Times (1/1/05) wrote: “With the newly announced commitment, the United States moves from the middle of the pack of countries that have announced aid to the region to the top. The $350 million is more than three times the amount committed by Britain.” The article didn’t mention that the U.S. has five times Britain’s population and six times its GDP.

On the op-ed page, the Times (1/4/05) gave space to Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute to defend American aid giving. She claimed that looking only at public giving made Europeans “appear generous”: “Norway ranks first in allocating 0.92 percent of its gross national income to foreign aid. But Norway’s $2 billion of yearly aid is less than what American companies alone give.”

Given that Norway’s economy is less than 2 percent that of the U.S., it’s not surprising that its total foreign aid budget is not large in absolute terms. But it’s not true that Americans are privately more generous than Norwegians: Norway’s per capita private aid contributions are almost five times the U.S.’s, according to the Center for Global Development (12/29/04).

The Times’ editorial page (12/30/04) did give a context to U.S. aid giving, both for the tsunami disaster and for development in general, leading the page to call the U.S. “stingy.” Observing the difference between how Americans view their aid-giving and the reality, it said that “Bush administration officials help create that perception gap.” Selective reporting contributes as well.


Coverage of foreign aid is as notable for what it doesn't say as for what is does. Areas the media usually don't examine include:



Debt Payments. Many aid recipients in the developing world are burdened by debt payments to the wealthy nations and institutions, often for loans taken out decades earlier by dictatorial regimes that squandered the money. While the developing world receives about $80 billion in aid each year, it pays the developed world about $200 billion; it is still uncertain how much of that will be relieved.


Pledges are just pledges. George W. Bush's Millennium Challenge Account—announced in March 2002 with great fanfare—hasn't disbursed a dollar yet. After the 2003 Iran earthquake, many nations only delivered a fraction of the aid they had initially pledged. The media should treat pledges as what they are: promises that may or may not be kept.

Adjusting for inflation. When the New York Times and Washington Post reported on George W. Bush's announcement of the Millennium Challenge Account (3/15/02), the articles said the pledge represented a 14 percent increase in U.S. aid flows, but with inflation factored in, it was only a 7 percent increase (Economic Reporting Review, 3/18/02).


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676

Thats how you get rich...by being a tight ass. lol!

America maybe the richest Ripley, but it's also the deepest in debt...''48 Trillion'' and growing every minute of every day...
click>

true now we are in hock up to our necks , but our perception of giving and actually doing so has been at odds for years. It isn't just this administration sorry to say. It's been since the conception of foriegn aid.

I dunno, by some standards I might be considered "rich" .... but I'm not particularly interested in dumping my money on something that isn't very useful like hollow earth, ET's and para-whatcha-macallit.

No, 60% of my income goes to a childrens hospital endowment for families who can't afford medical care. That seems like a far more worthy cause than the other.

BTW, the earth isn't hollow... you've been watching too much Saul of the Mole Men. haha

Whoever works and earns the money has the right to it and shouldn't feel compelled to donate it or fund anything they don't want to.

That's the way I feel about it.

Why do people feel that you should share it just because you have more? That concept is weird to me.

If you work for it and earn it, it's yours and yours to pass down to your family. IMO.

Agreed.