"In Search Of" also did shows on UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

If there is one thing I have learned from cinematography, NEVER believe the lighting condition! it is insane how many night scenes are shot in the day and color corrected to night in the final.

I think the cgi-ness is our brains trying to associate what we see with what we have seen in the past. This vehical seems to be;

a) Super light weight hollow body
b) DC motor driven
c) all electric

It is literally a big boy version of modern RC helicopters which also exhibit weird looking physics because the motor totally overpowers the mass of the body.

Obviously most of the footage is of the only way this vehicle can hover, on its back. Being all electric and light, the flight time is likely only minutes.

We have seen many vehicles like this, the only puzzle piece no one is solving is a sustained source of power.

To me, the video sorta oversells the difficulty in identifying / escaping from "ridiculous claims", at least in comparison to my personal experiences.

I grew up in a very religious (Christian, Methodist) family / city / state / country. I was questioning the indoctrination at an early age (younger than 10), and rejecting it due to never receiving satisfactory answers to those questions by ~12. Actually, one of the most significant pushes for me was the ultimate reward/punishment thing. Zero consistency and open contradictions between different religions / sects / sources, etc. In symbolic logic, contradictions mean that one of your premises is wrong. Reconsider what you "know" and try again.

With regards to atheism vs (a)gnosticism, technically I'm an agnostic because I don't know with absolute certainty that there is no god / gods out there. However, in practice, I easily and comfortably would rather self-identify as an atheist. Why, when I don't know for certain? Because I also don't know that there isn't an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, or Leprechauns, yet I don't feel compelled to tell people that I'm "agnostic" about those things. No. They are pretty clearly human-invented bullshit, with readily apparent human motivations behind their invention. Sounds like religion to me.

That's basically Russel's teapot.

But that's how calling fake works, you go all in or nothing! No googling allowed! If I would have been right I could have been overly smug but now I have to be shamefully embarrassed... it was a risk I took willingly... I relied too heavily on the 360p-ness.

Interesting unconscious progression of Whoa-ness: He starts off "object oriented" (architecture & landmarks), and ends with more cultural and experiential shots.

*ban self link. https://serioussoundzz.ning.com/profiles/blogs/di-santos-vou-nesse-amor-i-will-go-feat-isadora-morais-ac-stico

That is not a fact until you have EVIDENCE for it, until then, it's a claim.

In general, the requirement for evidence is inversely proportional to the probability of the claim. If I say the sky is blue, most people don't need evidence of that because it fits with their world experience. If I say I'm the second coming of Christ, I damn well better start turning water into wine to prove my case.

Your CLAIM is that no white male police officer has ever been convicted of murdering a black male in America's entire history. I'm willing to accept that it's possible, but I'm not willing to take it as a fact until you can provide a reputable source.

And no, it's nothing like big foot or the loch ness monster. Criminal convictions are a matter of public record.

As it happens, I can't find any records of a police officer being convicted of murder (although there are several for manslaughter).

Doesn't make your childish behaviour any better though.

There was no claim made. There was only a factual statement about a truth that was shared. Asking for proof of a white male police officer being convicted of murdering a black male is like asking some one to capture Big Foot or trap the Loch Ness monster. There will always be those who believe they saw it somewhere, but the fact is they don't exist.

I think it's a good, interesting post. Thanks for posting it.

It's a bit 'unfair' in that it seeks to trick people using the different number of images and then Order of Operations, but I think it's still a fun little puzzle.

As for the 'logical'-ness of assuming 2 of something equals 2 x 1 of something I think it's pretty logical; however, the image does force you to make the assumption that the image representing 2 horseshoes is logically related to the image representing one horseshoe. It's perfectly logical to assume they're not 2 totally unrelated images and yet they still 'could' be.

Your video, Peter Ness trolls online Blackjack dealers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Bernie or bust.


25 things I trust more than Hillary Clinton:
• Mexican tap water
• A wolverine with a ‘pet me’ sign
• A mixed drink served by Bill Cosby
• A straight shave from Jodi Arias
• An elevator ride with Ray Rice
• Browns going to the Super Bowl
• Brian Williams memory
• Pete Carroll coaching decisions
• Loch Ness monster sightings
• Pinocchio
• The Boy that cried Wolf
• A snapping turtle in a mud bath
• A Nigerian inheritance email
• A pilot alone in the cockpit
• A factory packed parachute
• A test fart in bed with the flu
• Tying Anthony Weiner’s shoes
• Harry Reid’s exercise equipment
• A kiss from Judas
• An Afghan wearing a backpack
• A Dana White apology
• Keeping my healthcare plan
• A North Korean trial
• A BIC pen that won’t leak
• A tuna fish sandwich left on a city bus

Oh no!!

Will Santa Claus still visit me there? Or the Easter Bunny?

Maybe the loch ness monster will be there! Or a republican presidential candidate with an IQ above 50....

Can't really take her "diva-ness." The band's good, tho.

I wouldn't come to the defense of anyone who did actual terrible things like murder, etc. I just think that it is confusing and illogical to follow the common "for the sake of PC-ness" path of assuming that if any one person did some terribly evil or wrong thing, then *everything* that they ever did must by extension be evil and wrong.

I also agree with this aspect in particular of your other post:
"Awful shit is just awful!
And should ALWAYS overshadow any "good" accomplishments a person does."

With regards to how society at large, governments, etc. treat them -- absolutely. Those murderers etc. should be locked up and/or treated exactly like we would treat a "mere pleb" in the same circumstances. It is very frustrating that that is often NOT the case at all. Athletes, actors, and other stars get away with no punishment or slap on the wrist punishment for stuff WAY too often (which I think happens partly because of their idol status and partly because of $$$, two massive weaknesses in our criminal justice system).

...BUT, I still think that we can (should?) value and acknowledge the individual positive things that a person (any person) has accomplished, while at the same time condemning them for the bad stuff. I'm not religious at all, but I guess I can steal the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" and have it be pretty close to what I'm looking for.