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. Actually it provides a starting point for an historical investigation which, again, has been pursued by many academicsn and has discovered much historical material. Of course genesis is written as an allegorical creation myth but all the rest has some element of historical validity even if only in small proportions The proportion of historical accuracy increases as the old testament approaches more modern periods Pardon the nature of these sources but the y contain historical validated facts. 1. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology is reported to have said this about the Bible (referring to history, not spiritual teachings.) Here's part of a letter from the National Geographic It is natural that the most enthusiastic publishers of such information are believers, and sometimes their over enthusiasm is evident Such evidences do not prove the religious beliefs of jews and Christians to be true, they just prove the historical context in which those beliefs arose to be historically true. But the information gathered has been done by professionals in many fields and is accepted in the main as accurate.
  3. It does if the human is feral, around 7 feet tall and covered in thick hair....
  4. What war after war have we started? Do you mean the war we started when Afghanistan harbored Al'Quida after the World Trade Center attack? Or maybe Libya, where France and Germany provided more resources each then the US did? Or, maybe Syria, where we were supporting insurgents, and where Trump ended a $1 billion Obama CIA program to train rebels? Iran isn't exactly US friendly, but AFAIK they haven't done anything (other then nuclear weapon research) that warrants even a mild attack on their nation by the US. I think something on the scope of Afghanistan, or Iraq, would require something big to happen and be blamed on them. Illegal. Complete cool aid talk. Iraq 2003 is the only recent war that could even be attempted to be sold as illegal. And even then the vote in Congress was three to one in favor. Myself, I am more in favor of Isolationism. I'd pull our guys back and let the world flame itself out. The world sneers at the Policeman? Fine, no policeman then. Protect your own backsides. Unless some nation shows up on our shore and invaded, I'd let them be. Allies? Fine, I'll sell them gear, but let their own boys go die for their homelands. So, you propose to stop war worldwide, by allowing a domestic (civil) war here in the US? Interesting. Weren't you just saying all lives should be valued? Excuse me, but the US elects people to office. And then they (the representatives) get bought out. Hardly anyone has ever gotten into office by saying they are going to go start wars. Almost universally it is the opposite, when they are running for election. What we have is corruption, compounded by industry lobbyists who have lots of money. And that leads to voting in Congress in favor of supporting reacting to marginal threats to ourselves, or our allies.
  5. How do you answer that without asking a question?
  6. And they all, to a name, sold out to try to destroy Trump I'd say their effectiveness has been less than patchy, at least where even slightly critical thinkers are concerned
  7. B&W pudding is as Irish as shamrock. There is nothing uniquely national about any of this stuff, with some exceptions they are staple foods eaten everywhere in the British Isles for centuries.
  8. If synaptic patterns can be replicated why not? We are pattern recognition machines, why can't that be replicated? What's to stop an extensive series of connections mirroring human consciousness? Are you claiming the software cannot be written or that the responses cannot be replicated to react to surroundings and situations. If you could take the brain out of a person and put it in a vat, and keep it alive, how would you determine that it has consciousness?
  9. Don't you realise that none of us is as old as you, so how would we know?
  10. I watch documentaries by the BBC (england) and the ABC (austrlaia )( Both government media agencies ) And yes, maybe unlike american documentaries , the y are valid, with people of the calibre of sir David Attenborough narrating, and professional experts doing the research and field work. Documentaries in Australia and England present academic, professional standards of work ( I am guessing form your dismissive tone that this might not be the case in America where the y could be commercially backed and created The discussion was about how, and when, the bible can be seen as a source of history. You are absolutely wrong with your assertion about academia. Many scholars have used writings in the bible to begin investigations which not only confirmed biblical geography, topography, and genealogies etc But added to historic knowledge If it was only taken on faith, so many academic historians (including plenty of atheists) would not spend decades, investigating the; physical descriptions of towns, rulers, society,individuals and military forces within its words, as possible history
  11. I sometimes take mild mental aberrations. I was taught mental arithmetic in primary school and initially believed it was 'mad' (= 'mental') maths!
  12. You know what the problem is?It's very simple really., What's he famous for, Donald J. Trump I mean? No, not that, how did he become a Celebrity? By being on TV, hosting The Apprentice, right? And what's his catchphrase? See, like with most things, he probably says it in a jocular way "Ha ha! Rex, you're fired!"), but, being the Supreme Leader, all his subordinates immediately take him at his word and abase themselves before him, shuffling out of the Audience Chamber backwards, bowing and screaping, before going off to perform seppuku with the White House's ceremonial katana. It's just one of the hazards of being a despot.
  13. Slanted creed of newspaper editors PRESS
  14. Does the english include the Black and White? If no then its Irish.
  15. There is no historical evidence for a "divine" Christ capable of performing miracles, but plenty of evidence for his historical existence as a jewish preacher. That is why main stream historians tend to laugh at christ mythers among them Christ mythers simply deny the available historical evidences for the existence of this man, who had a contemporary following of jews, which in the first century grew, and evolved into a large separate christian body of worshippers, largely due to saul /paul's efforts to swap conversion attempts from jews to gentiles . There are, for example, cases of graffiti from the first century referencing christ found on ancient walls in Pompeii, which preexisted the eruption of 79 AD. A christian cross and altar were also uncovered in Herculaneum
  16. Bacon on the Orient Express
  17. Your guts for garters!
  18. Vlad got there before me. Where you reading my mind?
  19. No, no, no, no. You don’t get it. We’re the ones that have been trying to explain it to you. You’re the one not understanding. Where you are now, we’ve been there – done that. In a way, you are relinquishing control. That is how that works. But where your example fails is that we can’t just fire them on the spot. Most places do not have a clear cut recall procedure that doesn’t consist of some lengthy due process. I.e. the only way to remove them is by the next election. And that difference in time can be critical. So to continue your analogy, this contractor belongs to a union that has a good PR department and they will go to work on your neighbors to make it look like you are being unreasonable. They will make promises or give gifts for the neighbors to have a good feeling about the contractor. But the point is that once that union is “in the door”, they will marginalize your control over the job and will do it the way they think it should be done. Actually you are. The part of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is having the ability to protect those rights yourself. Our government only guarantees that it will protect the rights. It is still our responsibility to actually do so. They are supposed to protect our rights but if the government is socialist then it’s not so important to abide by the contract. Individual rights are not of primary concern to the socialist. It is the state that is. It is about power. And for too many the job is not done right. That is why, by contract (The Constitution), the Representative is limited to what they can do for (or to) the individual. That’s naïve to believe that. When somebody else is doing the job, the temptation to take a little more is always prevalent. All Rights are possessed by the individual and they need to zealously guard them. Why not let the individual hang on to their tax dollars and allow them to manage their own benefits? The government is not a nanny. We already have a system that ensures that for every American. It’s called Natural Rights. In a single-payer system, somebody still has to pay. Actually, it makes a lot of sense. In this case, the cops are the thieves. By contract, the cops are there to prevent theft. For now. In the 1880s, modern social programs were instituted for the first time in Europe. It was quite benevolent and by the 1930s it had been manipulated for something else. It is simply a matter of time before Socialism becomes tyranny. No, the current system is being manipulated. Obamacare was designed to collapse in such a way that the only way to fix it is to have Congress step in and institute single-payer. That is the prime example of a government gone bad. If we go single-payer, do you realize that you could tax the wealthy at 100% and we still won’t have the money to cover the costs? How long do you think this nation will exist? It is not the place of government to give free things to the people. What a government can give, it can just as easily take away. There is a tradition in the military where the officers do not fraternize with the enlisted. Do you understand why? To the enlisted, the officer is their government. The officer shouldn’t get involved with the enlisted in gambling (for example). The officer should never put themselves in a position where they can take from the enlisted. That is just simply bad for morale. Of course, if the government doesn’t care for the individual’s well being, then there is no problem. I believe in a very strong military. In order to save blood and treasure, we need to assure that we spend more than the next 15 nations combined (at the minimum). Defense spending is one of the five charges of this government as listed in the Preamble. But for this moment in time, we didn’t need that increase in the budget. We need to focus on immigration more. $700 billion is hardly oblivion for a primary function, therefore not backward. There is just so much that is wrong with that statement. I guess it is the basic premise. Government spending has nothing to do with billionaire’s hording their own money. In fact it is their right to do so. But I don’t think most actually horde their money. They put it to work. You are right about our spending on useless s-hit, like Planned Parenthood and NPR. We’re even defending the borders of other nations but not ours. That is insanity. It is very valid. As I’ve said before, when one is living in a gilded cage, they are not aware of the rights they are lacking. Thanks to the Age of Enlightenment, Man has eaten of the apple. Once the individual becomes aware of this, living in a Socialist nation is no longer satisfying. But the concepts of those great thinkers died in Europe and were reborn in America. We were not meant to be blissfully ignorant (happy). Our happiness comes in the pursuit of it. The gaping wound is caused by Socialism. It is the classic signs of anarchy. Anarchy is used to change the current government into something else. In this case, a Republic into Socialism. That is a betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers held dear. That’s the old Socialist lie. No one blames the poor or the immigrant. It is the politician that is responsible. They perpetuate the Plantation mentality among these groups. Bringing illegals into the mix only makes it worse. I wouldn’t have much of a problem with illegals if they had no access to welfare and they had to struggle like the rest of us. Then whatever they earned would be theirs. The way to fight the super rich is through proper consumerism. The consumer drives the market. Most people are not wise consumers. Until they are, then they deserve what they get. The same thing with politics, we deserve the government we elect. So if we are foolish enough to elect socialism, then we can’t blame anyone but ourselves. Nice story. Too bad it is fake. You seem to be blaming others pretty well on your own. Except that it is the social programs foisted upon us that make everything harder. The wealthy are our models. The rest of us need to emulate them to become successful. They have found the key to success and it’s not because of wealth redistribution. It is because of having a strong work ethic.
  20. Looks like a full Irish to me.
  21. His outburst constituted an even greater interruption of the film than your mobile phone ringing. PS - this is an interesting way of getting around the prohibition on using the 'f_ck' word on this forum!
  22. Vlad the Mighty

    The quotes are priceless lately.

    "“It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States.”

    ~John Bolton, Donald J. Trump's newly appointed "National Security" Advisor. :hmm:

    1. and then

      and then

      Well, if "international law" is anything that originates in the U.N., I'd have to agree with Bolton.  I consider international law to be constrained to actual Treaties that have been signed with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.  Other than those agreements, sovereign nations make their own laws and if others choose not to respect them then that's okay by me.  

    2. Vlad the Mighty

      Vlad the Mighty

      Well, why did Russia's Vladimir V. Putin become the Global Monster? Because he "seized Crimea", right? Well, he felt it was in his national security interests to do so. Now President Donald J. Trump's senior authority figures are saying that's perfectly ok, and Internation Law can be ignored if the nation's interests overrule it. So they have no grounds to sit in judgement on others, do they.

  23. Aaaaand looks like insomnia has returned. Also I'm slowly getting over the latest bs in my life but it hasn't been easy. Anger has mostly left, now I'm in a state of mild annoyance. I have turned into a bit of a dick but I try and be as cool as possible. In more positive news folks keep trying to recruit me for their pool teams, one being APA other UPA. One of the guys is top 10 in the nation in 9 ball. Honestly he doesn't seem that good and I've launched my own investigation as to how he's ranked so high.
  24. Why are they bothering with zillions of expenditure on mind control weapons? They've been using them for years, even if their effectiveness has, well, patchy. Here's a small list of some of the sophisticated thought control weapons the US Establishment has: The Washington Post CNN The New York Times Facebook
  25. I only meant to make a statement about Reasonable Doubt. Even in your discussion with Jerry, what it "reasonable" differs between you and him. To him you are being Un-reasonable, and him to you. Thus the term does not help greatly in arguing over evidence and what the Jury "should" have decided. Because what you think the Jury should have decided is not necessarily what Jerry, or I, or Regi, or anyone else on this forum thinks it should have decided. Perhaps you are right and the trial will be a wonder of Scott appreciation, however, I myself doubt that would be the case. And, just my opinion, but I think historically, unless there is something that directly points at someone else, like DNA, or a confession, the result is usually the same. What "legal" definition of Reasonable Doubt are you using? I only found that the Jury is told, "reasonable doubt", but not required to understand what that means, or have it defined for them. If a lawyer does so, in Defense, or Prosecution, do they not try to spin the definition toward their own aim?
  26. That's too bad. Here I was thinking he was getting lenient and tolerant as he ages. I didn't want to assume Islam, though I agree to a point that Islam is a danger in the world. A choice, as in one ignorant, but relatively tolerant, religion (Christianity), or one that is ignorant and also intolerant? I don't know, to hear some people talk about Tesla, or even some modern inventors/celebrities, you'd think they are the New Gods. The name Kardashian comes to mind. President Obama was another, who was practically worshiped by masses of people. Give it 50 to 100 years and you could see religion based on the "teachings" of some of these people. All it takes is a philosophy and a figurehead.
  1. Load more activity