This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by thinker247.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by lavoll. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Gibberish-rock-song-written-to-sound-like-English

From Wiki

"Prisencolinensinainciusol" is a song composed by Adriano Celentano, and performed by Celentano and Raffaella Carrà. It was first released as a single on November 3, 1972, and later on his album Nostalrock. The lyrics are pure gibberish, often described as sounding like American English as heard by a non–English-speaker.

Sounds like there saying allright!

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
and others.

You already named two of my faves, Roddy and Andre (who was a really nice guy), but I'd like to add Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.

It's funny how I was always embarrassed to admit that I watched that male-targeted soap opera... until it got 20 times worse.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm proud to have been a fan during the Golden Age of the WWF. It will never get any better than 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper, Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Randy 'Macho Man' Savage, The Iron Sheik, George the Animal Steele, Jimmy 'Mouth of the South' Hart, Mean Gene Oakerland and others.


They were defo legends, a little past my time, so maybe you'll accuse me of being too young, but......

Two words:

The Rock.

Nothing in the genre i have ever seen has come close to this man's ability to entertain me - and that's just through talking alone! I've never heard a crowd so mesmerised, so enchanted by a wrestler. He OWNS the crowd! THEY ARE CHANTING THE ROCK'S NAME!

Wow...this song is really quite old, although this particular version appears to be a newer mashup. It was originally released in 1972, and is indeed pure gibberish. The more I listen to it, the better I like it...even if it does only have one chord.

Little bits and pieces I found...the clearest blurb was at http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Prisencolinensinainciusol

While we have several different video versions (which led me to think this one's a mashup) best found at http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1838

Winstonfield claims he's seen all the data on global warming. Yeah.....sure....

To have seen ALL the data on global and climate knowledge, would take up 57 years of straight reading (assuming no one writes another book from this moment onward). In addition, that Winstonfield observed personally, EVERY, lecture given. Both with those recorded, and was their personally when they were not. If anyone is getting the idea, that Winstonfield's arguement is just alittle exaggerated...you might be correct.

Scientists look at data differently then do lay-persons would of data. Its to look at the data, and then try to give the best explainition for the data AT PRESENT. Winstonfield would do well to get a scientific education, before opening his mouth, and gush gibberish of flimsy thought.

There's more then enough data that points out, what scientists are explaining. Unfortunately, scientists, are not often good at explaining stuff to non-scientists. Sort of like how not many thought Michael Jackson was a genius of a musician, but instead, a wacko.

If you think climate change is not taking place, then the burden of evidence is up to you, to prove. For the moment, the evidence seems to point that there is a direct link between man's usage of things, and the climate worsening.

I find that Winstonfield is simply a conservative Republican lap dog. Saying and doing anything his masters wish, with total obedience and unwavering fanatic behavior. If they told him, the sky will be yellow zig zaps, purple poka-dots, and red curvy lines, three weeks from now. He would be on here, saying so, without an ounce of evidence or proof. In fact, he would show websites devoted to this concept, which in turn, are hardly non-bias. Remember that, when you read his stuff.

We have evidence now that primary figures in the so-called 'scientific community' were pre-disposed to be deceptive and misleading. They abandoned credibility for money. It was proven that they artificially weighted results. It was proven they had not been able to explain fundamental contradictions to thier conclusions. It was proven that their models were statistical gibberish. When asked to supply the data they used to make their specious conclusions, they admitted they threw it away. They lobbied to have opposing points of view suppressed from journals so that the appearance of 'consensus' was not disturbed by the harsh reality that 'peer reviews' were stacked by biased sources favorable to them. Their financial records proved they received huge amounts of money from politically motivated sources.

I've seen the data. The emperor has no clothes. The 'science' is nothing but unsupportable guesses garnished with faulty data and motivated by political payola. And yet the Warmer koolaid drinkers are still trying to jump the Hale-Bopp comet to Heaven's Gate based on pure faith. But the 'scientists' were on the take, had no proof, and who refused to undergo actual peer challenges. When faced with real scrutiny they have all been forced to admit they can't prove human activity is linked to temperatures. Period.

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4

>> ^westy:
i don't think this is much of an optical illusion.
no more so than say depth in a 2d drawing is an optical illusion or an animation is an optical illusion.
This works by masking off parts of the image by moving the grid you are unmasking a new part of the image. in itself this process is not confusing the brain. there is no optical illusion in the masking process (you brain is not confusing the data in anny way it is reporting what it can see correctly),
the ilissoin is in the animation and the 3d drawings , both of which are so common that we don't refer to them as illusion's.

still the first time I sore this in a kids book I was sat there fiddling with it for couple of minuets working out how it worked.


I tend to agree with this, and it never ceases to amaze me how you can make these relatively long posts with one or two minor typos, and make your short posts look like absolute dyslectic gibberish.

I have no trouble accepting dyslexia, and I do actually read your posts as if the typing didn't matter, but posts like this makes me wonder if you are faking it somehow.

My, but the standards for picking a roastee have certainly dropped. Choggie was our first recipient of this dubious honour, thanks to his huge contributions to the quality of Videosift, and his ongoing contributions to the incomprehinsibility of the English language via New Orleans redneck gibberish.

Now you get the prize just for showing up. Roasting this nerd, who NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF is kind of like giving some random black guy the Nobel Peace Prize just for not being George W Bush.

I mean seriously, this guy's biggest contribution is the great video "Removed due to copyright notification from Comedy Central". I watched that dog for like 10 minutes and here's a newsflash for ya'... NOTHING HAPPENS!!!

I guess it was kind of an art piece or something.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
... they were wiling to sell their scientific integrity, and the credibility of the entire scientific community to do it.

Hang on - if individuals fudged their numbers, its an indictment of that individual.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day, and it gives my profession a bad name.

I'll tell you what makes statisticians look bad: Statistics

So often there IS a story in the data, but all data is different. I can understand data that has little "statistical precedent" must take time to learn what models/techniques work well. And when the modus operandi HAS to be experimentation - Im sure it looks awkward, error-prone, and ugly when viewed through the cherry-picked lense of a couple of emails.

Would this be a sensible observation? Or do you think its simply endemic fraudulence?



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I've seen some of the AGW numbers. The original data is never in the dataset. It's always the 'weighted' data, which is a big red flag to me.

It seems this red flag makes you basically indifferent to any other argument, and I'd like to have a look.
Do you mind linking the numbers, with a few words of summary?



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
If a source doesn't trust handing out their raw data, then it usually means they don't want you to see it because it was flawed data to start with, or they altered it so radically with their 'models' that it might as well be gibberish. The AGW movement has been trying very hard to make insignificant data 'meaningful' for years. That much was always blatantly obvious. The leaks merely prove that their methodology is flawed, and therefore their conclusions are bunk.


Ok so this is obviously your opinion before and after these emails. Why did you have this opinion before?

In summary - it took two entire weeks for the apologists to come up with a weak set of excuses to defuse the obvious misconduct of pro-AGW scientists. There is no excuse for supposedly 'neutral' scientists to fudge their numbers. It's plain as plain. They were stacking their numbers to get the result they wanted so they could keep riding a gravy train of political payola grant money - and they were wiling to sell their scientific integrity, and the credibility of the entire scientific community to do it.

I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day, and it gives my profession a bad name. I've seen some of the AGW numbers. The original data is never in the dataset. It's always the 'weighted' data, which is a big red flag to me. If a source doesn't trust handing out their raw data, then it usually means they don't want you to see it because it was flawed data to start with, or they altered it so radically with their 'models' that it might as well be gibberish. The AGW movement has been trying very hard to make insignificant data 'meaningful' for years. That much was always blatantly obvious. The leaks merely prove that their methodology is flawed, and therefore their conclusions are bunk.

Their language sounds like gibberish to me. I know I have an obvious English bias, but I can't get passed how much it sounds I'm going to have to wipe spit off of my face every time I hear it.

I'm sure English sounds like two elephants having sex on a giant inflated balloon to someone who hasn't heard the language before.

[wind noises]

If I could sample the wind, I would loop it

And let my life poem flow over its sacred beats.

Using Kilimanjaro as my djembe I would drum rainbows out of the moonlight and use them as hooks in between verses; verses of little girls spinning ropes in opposite directions, waiting for an opening to jump in.

As the world turns, double dutch, I jump, double time over oceans and back; the water waves and I wave back.

Rippling echoes of "sunshii-ii-iine" - folks get ground in the "sunshii-ii-iine."

But the lightning flaaash three times and its time for the chorus which includes corn bread, candy yams, and all that good stuff, which black folks on Saturn are made of.

As we approach the second verse the roots of trees are plucked from bass lines, which resonate and shake the earth -- devastating everything that's not built in harmony in it.

The second verse is a journey through the ruins of ruined souls; that valued all that was nothing, and nothing of the all-knowing ever flowing wind - which is the undercurrent of this current blowing, the funky drummer from here to eternity.

But even as ruined souls backspin, the wind mills forward and rocks steady 'till the sun hits the fader and the chorus kicks in; then the moon yells "Go!" and we all backspin -- ZULU! As the moonlight shines true blue silvery indigo light my spirit takes flight - because the moonlight is my indigo; indigo ON, to the break of dawn, I rock rock steady steady 'till the early morn, word is bond I'm talking about seeing your nature in nature innate in your nature - New York states of mind did not create ya.

Not until you listen to Rakim on a rocky mountain top have you heard hip-hop.

Extract the urban element that created it and let an open wide countryside let us illustrate it.

Riding in a freight train listening to Coltrane and my reality went insane and I think I saw Jesus; he was playing hop-scotch with Betty Carter who was cursing him out in a scat-like-gibberish for not saying "Butterfingers."

And like the grains of sand, like the seeds of time, the pains of Man, the frames of mind which built these frames which is the structure of my urban superstructure. The trains and planes can corrupt and obstruct your train of thought so that you forget how to walk through the woods which ain't good, 'cause if you never walked through the trees listening to 'Nobody Beats The Biz' you ain't never heard hip-hop.. and you don't stop, and you don't stop, and you don't...

STOP lettin' cities define you, confine you to that which is cement and brick.

We are not a hard peoples, our domes have been crowned with the likes of steeples. That which is our being soars with the eagles, and the Jonathon Livingston seagulls - Yes - I got wings, you got wings, we all got to got wings!

So let's widen the circumference of our nest, and escape this urban incubator -

You see, the wind plays the world like an instrument; blows through trees like flutes but trees don't grow in cement. And as heartbeats bring percussion, fallen trees bring repercussions; cities play upon our souls like broken drums, we drum the essence of creation from city slums - but city slums mute our drums and our drums become humdrum, 'cause city slums have never been where our drums are from - just the place where our daughters and sons become, off-beat heartbeats, slaves to city streets, where hearts get broken and heart beats stop - broken heart beats become break beats for niggas to rhyme on top, but they rhyme about... NOTHIN'.

You don't got nothin' to rhyme about 'cause you've never seen the moon, your styles can't be universal if you're not in tune, with the... [wind noises]