The problem with stupid people is that they will always be stupid.

You see, in a scientific environment you are always willing to revisit what you currently understand when you find new evidence.

For example, as I've seen in the recent "mummy dinosaur" specials on National Geographic Channel, these "mummies" with unusual characteristics are changing the way we think about fossils, fossilization, preservation ect. The scientific mind sees this evidence and reconsiders the mechanics of how dinosaurs were preserved and edits the possibility of what can be found...

The stupid mind sees an unusual fossil and immediately jumps to raptor-riding jesus. That's a huge jump fucktard.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'national geographic, octopus, sea lion, crittercam' to 'national geographic, octopus, sea lion, crittercam, predator, predation' - edited by RhesusMonk

This video just shows a fraction of what this fish market really is as well. I still have the National Geographic issue that has a wonderful article on this place. One can only imagine what this place is like on a busy day...

>> ^xxovercastxx:
While I disagree with a large portion of it, Haught's response is interesting. I'm surprised some of you are having such a hard time comprehending it.


There is a rather passionate and immediate rejection of it, isn't there? Although there is a great deal of "careful talking", Haught clearly did not move to defend creationism science and tries to separate himself from the passionate followers of ID or creation science.

Does he believe in them? Well this is a short clip and I haven't watched the rest so I can't say. But I'd wager that neither did the other commentators. In reality he probably has some hazy position, but it is interesting to watch people jump to their immediate mud-slinging position without effort or seemingly without listening comprehension. No one from National Geographic is chasing you... you don't have to jump off the cliff.

I like overcast's descriptions:

- Graphic depictions of human masturbation are not allowed.
- Graphic depictions of human sexual intercourse are not allowed.
- Frontal nudity should be limited to comedic, artistic or educational context.

And I am fully on the side of the sift being very strict with this. Yes you can have nudity (National Geographic and educational videos etc.), you can even have sex (The internal view of people having sex comes to mind), but I think it should be a case of... put forward those guidelines, but also it has to come down to a personal decision in some cases, and it's your decision is final, and if you don't like it then go to youporn.

I have no issues with porn per se, I DO have huge issues with the trend of mainstream porn at the moment to degrade women to a huge degree and completely forget the erotic side of sex. So I am completely with you on that front Dag... and, as you say, there are plenty of places to find porn on the web if you want it, so why does it need to be here? I have this site open at work, and so would rather not have to explain some thumbnail on the front page if it's open when my boss comes around.

And trying to suggest that the video in question was ok because a) It wasn't degrading, and b) It was cut such that it was supposed to be funny is missing the point. This is not about whether or not we're prudish, it's merely drawing a line in the sand as to what should go on this site, and a video of women masturbating, and showing the full act, can clearly be blocked for stepping over that line.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'national geographic, katana, sword, japan, samurai, weapons' to 'national geographic, katana, sword, japan, samurai, weapons, art' - edited by choggie

Here is the entire documentary.

Yup, Doc Ellis took the acid.. So did Dan Rather, Cary Grant, Aldous Huxley, Francis Crick, Anais Nin, Bill Gates, the creators of South Park, and others.


Good thing it's finding its way back into clinical studies.

Not fit for the Science channel....hopefully the full National Geographic piece will be of higher quality.

Vollenweider's work is interesting though: http://www.dcp.uzh.ch/vollenweider/

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by campionidelmondo.

Nah, totally different video...Oh who am I kidding

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Family-Guy-National-Geographic-special-on-the-fire-truck

Dupe? http://www.videosift.com/video/Family-Guy-National-Geographic-special-on-the-fire-truck

You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.
At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.
I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.
In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?
FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.
I ask you sir...
srsly?

I did read your post and yes, it does discredit the video, but it brings up other questions just as absurd.

The protocol was never been to shoot down any civilian aircraft that deviates from flight plans and doesn't respond to hails. That is absolutely false and you know it. That policy may have been tightened and changed since these events, but before 9/11 there is no way that the government would shoot down a commercial airliner for those reasons. The simple fact is that no one knew what was going on and where these planes were headed until it was too late.

Like I said before, things were absolutely chaotic that day and people were trying to use their best judgment based on what information they had, which was minimal at best. Watch any of the excellent Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel documentaries about that day and you'll see how little people had to go on. It is easy to look with hindsight and second guess what people should have done, but in the moment, things are not that simple.

Dick Cheney had no say regarding shooting down anything, so I'm not sure why you are going after him, aside from your obvious anger. Belief in conspiracy theories are so dangerous because they essentially become like a religion: people believe what they believe because they believe it and nothing can persuade them otherwise once they have decided to believe. Even a "moderate" conspiracy theorist like yourself must realize that you have no real evidence to back up your claims, especially claims that the government was complicit, passively or otherwise.

Here are a few videos I would consider must sees for anyone wanting to better understand the world we are in, and the terrible choices every foreign policy maker is faced with. I suppose this would be my own, current, top 5.

Between the Mullahs and the Military:
Pakistani born journalist Ziauddin Sardar returns to his country in 2007 and reports on the state of the nation and speaks to many influential people in the country and travels to some of the most unstable and dangerous parts of it. If you care about the war in Afghanistan, you really must watch this film to appreciate it's significance.

Inside North Korea:
The sift version of this is currently dead, I'll change both links if/when it comes back.
National Geographic manages to get a film crew into the country as aides to a surgeon that was allowed to work in the country for a short time. The commentary might seem over the top to some, bordering on propaganda. As you watch the documentary you will start to realize that it isn't hyperbole and the situation in North Korea is simply so awful there are hardly words to describe it.

George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens debate Iraq:
This isn't a documentary of course, it is instead a debate between two of Britain's best debaters. They are also both people who have visited and spent time in Iraq under Saddam and seen what it was like. Galloway was even able to personally meet with Saddam in the mid 1990's. I'm not sure if this is more informative or entertaining, but it's worth your time for both reasons all on their own.

Al-Anfal Campaign:
This video accounts victim testimony's from one of the worst genocides of our time. As the Iran-Iraq war ended Saddam set out to exterminate the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq, this video provides a brief glimpse of that tragedy.

Ghosts of Rwanda:
This is the single most important video I would recommend for anyone convinced that the world would be better with zero American intervention. The absolutely horrific account of what happened in Rwanda while the entire world agreed on non-intervention is vitally important to be remembered. Be warned, it is extremely difficult to watch some of this. It is like watching a recounting of the most brutal slasher/horror film ever produced, but where the 800,000 victims were real live human beings in our own world.

Yeah, seemed a bit fishy to me as well. That's how they had it in the description on the official National Geographic channel, though, so I figured I'd present it here as it was presented there, more or less. I've changed the title, now.