Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. That shows how much you are interested to learn, I guess.
  3. The United Nations is in place as a world governing body, but has no real power. People need to feel they have autonomy over their region and they should have. After all they are the ones who have to live there. The minute you say world government to lot of Americans go out and buy more guns. Another layer of government is a hard sell mostly, because the ones most of us have are so messed up. I don't want a government to tell me what religion I am, who I love, or what I'm having for dinner. I do want a government that fixes pothole up the street, clean water coming out of the tap, the fire department, schools, hospitals, etc.. . Infrastructure is the number one job of government. If they would just stick with that and keep their nose out my of personal affairs. As long as nobody is getting hurt it isn't anybody's business. I think eventually world government will happen, because we can't go on supporting arms profiteers. The price we pay to them with our children's lives is too high. Hopefully reason will prevail and we won't end up worst off than we are.
  4. Its easy to control others through belief and superstition. Especially with their mortality and desire for some type of eternal existence. It plays on existential fears.
  5. Way back then they barely knew what they were doing, now imagine a whole Chamber of them knowing exactly what they were doing ...
  6. Sorry I have nothing.
  7. You and Krater are slacking, do you not see the row of demon bats hanging on the top and below them towards the left we have a chinese emperor, maybe from the ming dynasty, and he has horns. Well i must say it is fun what you can look for within a window, reflections, indoor lighting, out door darkness, camera flash, and an imagination.
  8. Poor dawg-gy ~
  9. @oslove -- That is obvious, yes. I would think we all (or most of us) would agree. .... Ok, we have that first part down. ........ Now, this is where you will not have total agreements. Because, as oppose to our existence, in which we all can actually see and so forth, God, and God being the creator, cannot be readily accessible in seeing and so forth as truthfully being the creator cause of everything with a beginning. We all can prove our existence, how can it be proven that there is a God, and that he created it all to everyone? Do you see what I'm saying and why I'm saying it? You have an objective based outlook and using as proof from a subjective based outlook. Since you can prove that there is existence, you need to prove that God is the creator of it all including existence, in the same way, the same manner!! In an objective based outlook. Meaning, there is proof that he is definitely there in the same manner that our existence is. What you seem to present in all, from my point of view, is something that seems to leave out something important to link up your first point to your second point. How can there be evasion to something that is not being presented, ie: the proof of God's existence and that he is the creator. You think there is a God creator, but that is your outlook. I think there isn't a God in the manner that people perceive God, because I was raised secular, and have had no idea of there being a God, because I didn't see it in my first many years of life. But yes, in those first many years of life, I definitely have proof of my existence, because I saw and was aware of my existence. But the only proof to the start of my existence, I only saw my mother and my father. There was my proof of the reason of my existence, my parents. So, if I did not have the actual proof of God and God being the creator, how would think I would link something I never saw or noticed growing up, to why I am here? Maybe, if you put yourself in the shoes of those who don't believe, and see how you can prove to them the existence and proof of God, in the manner that they can see him, than maybe you can show them how God is linked to existence of everyone and everything. You need to prove that God is on the same ideal objective outlook as existence is. And I don't see how you can, when I can't help in seeing it as not being on the same level. Existence= Definitely proven to everyone God(Creator)= Not showing over all proof of his existence and that he's responsible for said existence. I'm sorry, but to me, it looks like to me, you're evading. I see that you're evading from showing proof of God to show how it can be simplistically and understandingly be proven that he is responsible for our existence. You need to link the second part to the first part logically. Having everyone sit there and constantly reflect on their existence is not going to give the answer that it was created by God. And considering, it is usually a mother and father, or was told a mother and a father brought on their existence, that will be the go to reasoning for their existence. I think, you need to stop making excuses and start looking outside your box, if you really want everyone to see what you're trying to do.
  11. It's nothing more than a "focusing tool" like a mandala or drum. Don't waste your money...
  12. Nope and double nope!! At least I can't - I guess most religious people do but I've already made it clear what my views are on that subject. But to reiterate: religion/god(s) was invented by people barely out of the 'tree swinging' stage who could not explain and protect themselves from things they didn't understand and were afraid of - in my mind, it's that simple. I am not afraid of things that I understand - take for example, snakes - I spent many years as a licensed land surveyor and know which snakes reside in my area and which ones can kill me (rattlers, cottonmouths, coral). The others (black snakes, corn snakes, king snakes, etc.) are not a threat and I know it and, therefore, feel no fear when I see one. The others I don't really fear but I respect them enough to steer clear. Lack of knowledge/ignorance (different from'stupid') leads to fear which is why we should keep learning as much as possible about our surroundings - the more knowledge, the less fear. You can't fear what you understand - respect, yes, but not fear. I think religion was picked up by shamans, medicine men, priests and rulers to further expand their own power and keep the populace under control - it's still that way today IMHO.
  13. I'd like to enlighten my cigarette, anyone got a match jmccr8
  14. Who me jmccr8
  15. First of all, I will conceded that there apparently was in fact some data there that you pointed out that missed my attention. I apologize for the mishap. I could blame it on exhaustion or whatever else, but when I'm wrong I'm wrong. So congrats on that. Regardless though, you once again missed my entire point. I wasn't rejecting your links simply because they come from a conservative source. I was pointing out the right-leaning media biases so as to show that those specific sources have a clear political motive behind what they're presenting here. I didn't just say "This comes from a right-wing website, therefore it's fake news." I believe I was crystal clear in my explanation as to what the motives were. For instance, I said in regards to the first link: "With Forbes, their job is primarily to promote strong capitalist ideals, which promotes businesses. Therefore since it is a magazine designed around big business, they have a clear motivation to promote conservative ideologies." Stating that a source has a motive behind what they present does not automatically mean that the data that they present to us is flawed, or completely false. Nor does it mean that absolutely everything from said source is utterly false by definition. There is no such thing as a politically neutral media source, so if that were the case then you couldn't trust anything presented in any news article ever. What it does mean however, is that what is presented may not be the whole story, or it may be a slight misrepresentation of the actual data itself. Furthermore, the means by which they actually collect the data may have a slight leaning in one direction over another. So essentially, bringing up the political leaning of a news source is not without merit. My entire point of the previous post was not to discredit the data itself, but rather, to point out the political motivations that could alter how exactly the said data is presented. 1) I cited the Wikipedia article for the purpose of providing the basic knowledge of Steve Forbes running as a Republican political candidate. Do I really need to go any further than that in proving such basic info? 2) I'm not rejecting their findings ad hoc. My point is simply that there may be various factors being left out here, and so we have to at least to some extent just take them at their word. Given that they do have a clear political motivation behind said findings, it makes their findings questionable. The single greatest error in most data collecting are sins of omittion. There may be something they've left out (which I will address here specifically in a sec) for political purposes. This is where you're right, I missed this for whatever reason. Was pretty late at night, so yeah. I'll use that as an excuse. Now let's talk about the data itself. This is what I mean by there could be some aspects of the data being left out: As you can see, it's not as simple as "they're just more conservative". There are other factors, and indeed, other studies, that show that Gen Z is even more liberal in some cases. Not to mention the fact that most are still very young, and have a lot more time to mature a grow into their political beliefs. It's not like we can look at a bunch of teens and preteens and instantly determine that that's exactly what they're going to be their entire lives. This is where I'm saying that such articles like the ones you linked have a clear conservative bias here. They're leaving out key factors that would influence our interpretation of the data. Here's the underlying problem with this... The mainstream Democratic party is not liberal. At least not on the world stage, and certainly not in the eyes of us actual grass roots progressives. True progressives seek to get all big money out of politics entirely, and are not beholden to special interests. The mainstream democratic establishment is a center-right organization that is just as beholden to the whims of the corporations as the republicans are. The only real difference is that democrats happen to be a bit more lax on social issues. There are plenty of corporations who support that, since they don't necessarily want to alienate any key demographic from buying whatever it is they're trying to sell. You're right that Goldman Sachs often leans towards the democratic ticket. However, what they have supported are establishment democrat shills like Hillary Clinton. They would never support a candidate like Bernie Sanders, who seeks to enact major campaign finance reform, and supports things like a minimum wage of $15 an hour and massive tax increases on corporations and millionaires/billionaires such as them. To call Goldman Sachs 'liberal' only makes the least bit of sense here in America, where the democratic party is center-right, and the republican party is super far-right. They do not represent truly progressive ideologies. Not in the slightest. So to put simply, yes, they are undoubtedly biased, and quite possibly the single most biased of all the ones you've sourced. They are absolutely unequivocally pro-corporate. Just because both dems and reps are pro-corporate, does not mean us Bernie-esque progressives are pro-corporate. Again, not in the slightest. First off, I already admitted to you that I unintentionally overlooked some of the sources. That was a mistake on my part. That wasn't any sort of intentional bias. Second, I cited more than just Wikipedia, and the only time I ever cited Wikipedia was to prove a simple basic ass fact that anyone could look up with a simple Google search. I was simply saving you the trouble. Lastly, if you fail to take the political leanings of certain sources into account, then you fail to acknowledge the potential for missing variables within the data presented. This doesn't mean that the data presented is necessarily flawed, just that there may be more data that's missing which when placed in conjunction with the previous data paints a slightly different picture. Therefore noting the political motivations behind certain sources is undoubtedly a critical part in any sort of research. So with that I rest my case.
  16. Hi, I'm new on the forum, so excuse me for any mistakes that I'll make. Recently I got very interested by energy connected things. It started from being interested in making orgonites and as I'm still waiting for ingredients to come I decided to broaden my internal energy. Without reading too much (I think that most of the things will come naturally) I've done today my first meditation for half an hour (it's difficult having two little children...) and I've seen only darkness from which later escalated darker spots. They in the end were turning into images like big wave coming and quickly becoming a bunch of flying birds then a man iceskating in front of me. My question is whether it was a state of meditation or just my imagination or I don't know what else?
  17. you evil man.
  18. it clearly appears that all Fila knows about the Phoenix Lights is looking at a CGI image posted on the front page of a newspaper. The rest is made up drivel.
  19. The shooter has died.
  20. You don't know who Tim Ley is after I repeatedly pointed him out to you? Are you serious? I don't believe you or you are admitting that you know nothing whatsoever about the Phoenix Lights and have not examined any of the links provided to you. This just tells us that everything post is ignorant rubbish. Nothing you post matters since you have not made any effort to look at links presented to you to educate you in this matter. You write 'The discrepancies can be due to a variety of factors." That's just off the cuff ramblings because you are not making even a trivial effort to find out about the Phoenix Lights. Everything you post is just rubbish after rubbish after rubbish. It is just rubbish. Why not take the time to read at least some of the numerous links presented to you? Why not make at least a modest effort to find out what you've been ignorantly blathering about for dozens and dozens of posts? I can't take any of what you post as worth reading. Take this comment. "Pretty lame to say there is no official conclusion from ..." That is meaningless rubbish from someone that knows not a single thing about the Phoenix Lights. After making this uneducated comment ' Going off reports from witnesses.., the craft was very large. " I now know it is complete and utter rubbish. Back to the challenge from the rubbish spewer: Okay, Fila time for you to provide what the witnesses stated. Use witness statements to: Tell us how many lights were seen that night. Choices range from 4 to 11. Tell us the shape seen that night. Choices include boomerang, half circle, vee, straight line, no shape. Tell us if the lights were high or low. Tell us if the lights moved fast or slow. Tell us the color of the lights. Choices include red, green, blue, white. orange. Tell us how many craft there were that night. Choices range from 1 to 12. Tell us the size of the supposed craft. Choices include small to a football field to nearly a mile across. Tell us if the lights consistently moved in the same direction or not. I suspect this is going to be really hard to figure out since you've never really looked into the issue. Tell us if stars could be seen between the lights or not. Again, this might be really hard to figure out for you since it is very clear you've never looked into the issue. Tell us if the lights passing overhead ever were audible. This is not as hard as the previous two statements but I expect you to fail miserably. Tell us if witnesses ever reported the number of lights changing. That should keep you busy ... NOT. You've never looked into the Phoenix Lights before. I don't expect you to now.
  21. Yes but can you have blind faith in nothing? jmccr8
  22. Our ancesters died for the right to say what they thought fascist wearing their uniform like the brown-shirts of the 1930s tried to shut down speakers corner this weekend who would have predicted that thugs in masks would be allowed to roam the streets beating anyone who didn't toe the facists line, these 'brown-shirts' are not only allowed to spread their hate on university campus but encouraged to do so by some of their teachers the government and media appear implicit the old chestnut 'the silence is deafening' as never been more apt, who'd believe that blasphemy laws would be used in 2018.
  23. This leads to a problem. A paradox. If you believe in nothing, you believe in something. That something is nothing, yet if you believe in nothing you can't believe in something. Around and around this you can't believe in nothing, because believing in nothing is believing in something.
  24. Who can see better in the dark a blind man or one who can't see in the dark? jmccr8
  25. Blind nothingness well I guess a guy wouldn't miss much then. jmccr8
  26. Emperor Constantine story doesn't go in favor of that claim tho because, even after Constantine, it was clear that majority of population in Roman Empire was not Christian but actually still pagan or Roman multi deity thingy so it would be more easier to continue to control population by using old, tested ways rather than trying to 'Christianize' it. Rome was certainly aware that such attempt would just make power imbalance and possibly threaten the Empire (as it did in centuries after). You can't make tool to preserve the Empire in that which would disrupt it from head to toe, so to say. And that was witnessed in history, both Christian and scholar. I don't know it seems to me that reason why is very simple because religion has to find the way into people before it can even get to the point of becoming major influence in Roman Empire of those times. It seems more plausible to me, rather than having to imply all sorts of political games etc. There has to be believer base first, politics and games come only after? My focus is in believer base and why they chose Jesus Christ, not sure if my approach is correct tho that's why i write here
  1. Load more activity