You are Here:
Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered

Author (Read 28681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« on: Aug 31, 2012, 04:29:49 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest
Example 1

You can't even tie your shoes properly...

How to tie your shoes
http://www.wimp.com/shoestie/



 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #1 on: Aug 31, 2012, 04:32:22 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 2

All those carrots you ate didn't improve your eyesight.




Carrots have long been touted for their efficacy in improving eyesight, and generations of kids have been admonished to not leave them on their plates lest they end up needing glasses. But are carrots the sight-boosters popular wisdom asserts them to be? And if not, where did this belief begin?

While carrots are a good source of vitamin A (which is important for healthy eyesight, skin, growth, and resisting infection), eating them won't improve vision. The purported link between carrots and markedly acute vision is a matter of lore, not of science. And it's lore of the deliberately manufactured type.

In World War II, Britain's air ministry spread the word that a diet of these vegetables helped pilots see Nazi bombers attacking at night. That was a lie intended to cover the real matter of what was underpinning the Royal Air Force's successes: Airborne Interception Radar, also known as AI. The secret new system pinpointed some enemy bombers before they reached the English Channel.



British Intelligence didn't want the Germans to find out about the superior new technology helping protect the nation, so they created a rumor to afford a somewhat plausible-sounding explanation for the sudden increase in bombers being shot down. News stories began appearing in the British press about extraordinary personnel manning the defenses, including Flight Lieutenant John Cunningham, an RAF pilot dubbed "Cats Eyes" on the basis of his exceptional night vision that allowed him to spot his prey in the dark. Cunningham's abilities were chalked up to his love of carrots. Further stories claimed RAF pilots were being fed goodly amounts of this root vegetable to foster similar abilities in them.

http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #2 on: Aug 31, 2012, 04:34:10 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 3

The first American slaves were white.



Most of Australia's "convicts" were shipped into servitude for such "crimes" as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat's estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.

The arrogant disregard for the holocaust visited upon the poor and working class Whites of Britain by the aristocracy continues in our time because the history of that epoch has been almost completely extirpated from our collective memory.

When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.

The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.

The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.

I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #3 on: Aug 31, 2012, 04:43:34 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest
Example 4

The Great Depression did not start in 1929.

Actually, the great depression was not 1929. The stock market crash of 1929 was a significant event, but it was not the cause of the great depression. A study of the chart above shows that in fact the market had begun a robust recovery signaling growth in earnings and return to growth in the economy as a whole. But what happened in June of 1930 was what really sent the market reeling, the passage of the Smoot - Hawley Tariff. In an attempt to help the American worker the government made the horrible mistake of causing higher unemployment by having a trade war with foreign neighbors. The price of goods and services went higher as the demand globally fell correspondingly to the higher prices of American goods.

What was a political promise made by Hoover to gain worker votes turned out to be a horrible job killer.



Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

An Act To provide revenue, to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the industries of the United States, to protect American labor, and for other purposes.

The Tariff Act of 1930, otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff (P.L. 71-361) was an act, sponsored by United States Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.

The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in US history, exceeded by a small margin only by the Tariff of 1828[3] and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners reduced American exports and imports by more than half.

Some economists have opined that the tariffs contributed to the severity of the Great Depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act - WHRHS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMgWOECXKX4










 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #4 on: Aug 31, 2012, 04:45:59 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest
Example 5

We can only account for about 5% of the universe



There are all sorts of theories and fancy terms for what scientists think the universe is made of. But the fact is they just can't account for 95% of the matter that should make up the universe.

It could be said if scientists can only account for 5% of the physical universe, then they really only have 5% knowledge of everything.

Perhaps we are only smart enough to explain only that much of what we think exists around us.

BBC: Abandoning Dark Matter Theory? Most of Our Universe is Missing











Part 1 - Most of our Universe is Missing - BBC Horizon











Part 2 - Most of our Universe is Missing - BBC Horizon











Part 3 - Most of our Universe is Missing - BBC Horizon











Part 4 - Most of our Universe is Missing - BBC Horizon









 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #5 on: Aug 31, 2012, 04:58:01 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest
Example 6

The year is 1815 not 2012

The early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened.



Do we live in the 18th century?
http://youtu.be/XdIL4hJeS2g










A few fringe professors have caused rumblings with their controversial claim that three hundred years of human history have been entirely made up. But why do they believe in phantom time, and how do they think it happened?

Phantom Time Hypothesis and other methodologies of empire building... by Vox.. State University of New York
http://vimeo.com/10979688

Phantom Time Hypothesis and other methodologies of empire building... by Vox.. State University of New York from Vox on Vimeo.



The Phantom Time Hypothesis
Written by Alan Bellows on 04 October 2006

When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the “phantom time hypothesis,” he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to radically new ideas, because his claims are highly unconventional. This is because his paper is suggesting three difficult-to-believe propositions: 1) Hundreds of years ago, our calendar was polluted with 297 years which never occurred; 2) this is not the year 2005, but rather 1708; and 3) The purveyors of this hypothesis are not crackpots.

The Phantom Time Hypothesis suggests that the early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened, but were added to the calendar long ago either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents, or by deliberate falsification by calendar conspirators. This would mean that all artifacts ascribed to those three centuries belong to other periods, and that all events thought to have occurred during that same period occurred at other times, or are outright fabrications. For instance, a man named Heribert Illig (pictured), one of the leading proponents of the theory, believes that Charlemagne was a fictional character. But what evidence is this outlandish theory based upon?

read more: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-phantom-time-hypothesis/
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #6 on: Aug 31, 2012, 05:02:42 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 7

The 'Peace Symbol' is actually an ancient sign for despair and death.


The peace symbol (also called the "broken cross," "crow's foot," "witch's foot," "Nero Cross," "sign of the 'broken Jew,'" and the "symbol of the 'anti-Christ'") is actually a cross with the arms broken - DOWNWARD. It also signifies the "gesture of despair," and the "death of man."

"The Germanic tribes who used it attributed strange and mystical properties to the sign. Such a 'rune', in reverse is said to have been used by 'black magicians' in incantations and condemnations....To this very day the inverted broken cross - identical to the socialists' 'peace' symbol - is known in Germany as a 'todersrune', or death rune. Not only was it ordered by Hitler's National Socialists that it must appear on German death notices, but it was part of the official inscription prescribed for the gravestones of Nazi officers of the dread SS. The symbol suited Nazi emphasis on pagan mysticism."

http://www.onlygooddreams.com/articles/peace.php
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #7 on: Aug 31, 2012, 05:05:46 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest
Example 8

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist and inspired the Nazi salute.



Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy














The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the stiff-armed salute adopted later by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis). For more information visit RexCurry.net, the site that archives the discoveries of the noted historian Dr. Rex Curry, author of the book "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets."


Whitest Kids U'Know: Pledge of Allegiance














* cat  screams at Palmerston



Last Edit by Palmerston
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #8 on: Aug 31, 2012, 05:08:10 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 9

Heliocentrism was suggested as early as the second century BC



Plutarch (c. 45-125) reports that Seleucus of Seleucia (born c. 190 BC)  was championing the heliocentric system and teaching it as an established fact, in the second century BC  (Seleucia was an important Greek city in Mesopotamia, on the west bank of the Tigris River).  At that exact same time, however, Hipparchus of Rhodes (190-120 BC) reverted to the geocentric belief and was instrumental in killing the heliocentric idea altogether  [cf. Thomas Little Heath (1861-1940)].

The idea was strongly suppressed by the Church for centuries.  Reviving it took  more than a little courage  on the part of Copernicus and his early followers.

http://www.numericana.com/answer/record.htm#copernican
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #9 on: Aug 31, 2012, 05:27:41 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 10

The Electric Sun/Electric Universe vs The Nuclear Star/Gravitational Universe theory



The Electric Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q4fecFbYBg

The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo's Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized "gases") which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields.

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction


In this day and age there is no longer any doubt that electrical effects in plasmas play an important role in the phenomena we observe on the Sun.  The major properties of the "Electric Sun (ES) model" are as follows:

  • Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges).  Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level. The Sun is surrounded by a plasma cell that stretches far out - many times the radius of Pluto. These are facts not hypotheses.
  • The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts.
  • Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun.  This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades. Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma experiments, such as anode tufting.  The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode).
  • The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and is always attacked by critics while they ignore all the other explanatory properties of the ES model. In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect.  It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars.  Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the sizes of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high.  The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage.  As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm


 The Electric Universe theory Wikihttp://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #10 on: Aug 31, 2012, 05:48:40 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 11

You have more than five senses. You have somewhere between 9 and 21 senses.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUn7zy8Ya20

There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to the number of senses because of differing definitions of what constitutes a sense. One definition states that an exteroceptive sense is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived. The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste, a classification attributed to Aristotle. Humans are considered to have at least five additional senses that include: nociception (pain); equilibrioception (balance); proprioception and kinaesthesia (joint motion and acceleration); sense of time; thermoception (temperature differences); and possibly an additional weak magnetoception (direction), and six more if interoceptive senses (see other internal senses below) are also considered.

One commonly recognized categorisation for human senses is as follows:

  • chemoreception
  • photoreception
  • mechanoreception
  • thermoception
This categorisation has been criticized as too restrictive, however, as it does not include categories for accepted senses such as the sense of time and sense of pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #11 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:00:42 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 12

Einstein did not invent the "Theory of Relativity".



Though Einstein is the scientist most frequently associated with the theory of relativity, there are several thinkers who are responsible for its formulation.  (he is responsible for the theories of special relativity and general relativity)

The first known person to theorize about relativity was Galileo, who articulated the first "relativity principle" in the seventeenth century. In generating his relativity principle, Galileo removed the distinction between stationary and moving observers, arguing that people on earth cannot tell if they are really at rest or if they are moving with the rotation of the earth each day. To demonstrate this, Galileo used the example of a cannonball falling from the top of a ship's mast. He noted that the cannonball will land at the base of the mast whether the ship is moving steadily through the ocean, or whether it is at rest in a dock. Even if they observe the falling ball, people on the ship cannot tell if they are really at rest or if they are moving with the ship. They cannot distinguish their state of rest from the ship's state by observing motion that takes place within the "reference frame" of the ship. In other words, a person at rest on the deck of a ship cannot determine whether the ship is at rest or moving at a steady speed through the ocean by observing actions that happen on the ship itself. That person must observe the ship relative to its surrounding environment in order to make such a determination.
http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/galileo.html

QI: Who created the theory of relativity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt41Y673gtM
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #12 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:02:30 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 13

People of the Middle Ages knew the earth was round.

The Flat Earth Myth



The 'flat earth' myth was concocted and popularized by Washington Irving and a French erudit and the 'flat error' was declared by Darwininst historians, who compared the denial of Darwin's theory to Columbus's struggle for acceptance by his scholastic religious contemporaries.

Neither Christopher Columbus, nor his contemporaries, believed the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers--even noted historians.

We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are even under the impression that Galileo's trial centred on the subject rather than whether the Earth orbited the sun.

It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period.

So what was Columbus's mistake? The disagreement between him and his critics was over the size of the world - not an easy thing to measure. The story of this controversy can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and the various ways their writings were transmitted to the West.

The invention of the flat Earth myth can be laid at the feet of Washington Irving, who included it in his historical novel on Columbus, and the wider idea that the everyone in the Middle Ages was deluded has been widely accepted ever since.

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

ref
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027595904X/lewrockwell/
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #13 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:04:28 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 14

Louis Pasteur did more harm than good. Germs do not cause disease, the terrain or condition of the host is what causes disease.

The germ – or microbian - theory of disease was popularized by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), the inventor of pasteurization. This theory says that there are fixed, external germs (or microbes) which invade the body and cause a variety of separate, definable diseases. In order to get well, you need to identify and then kill whatever germ made you sick. The tools generally employed are drugs, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Prevention includes the use of vaccines as well as drugs, which - theoretically at least - work by keeping germs at bay.

Just prior to the time that Pasteur began promoting the “monomorphic” germ theory, a contemporary by the name of Claude Bernard (1813-1878) was developing the theory that the body's ability to heal was dependent on its general condition or internal environment. Thus disease occurred only when the terrain or internal environment of the body became favorable to disease.

An extremely brilliant contemporary of Claude Bernard's was Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908).  Bechamp had degrees in physics, chemistry and biology. In addition he was a medical doctor and a university professor. Bechamp built upon and extended Bernard's idea, developing his own theory of health and disease which revolved around the concept of “pleomorphism.”

Through meticulous research and in contrast to Pasteur's subsequent, misinformed promotion of "monomorphic" or single-formed, fixed state microbes (or germs), Bechamp had discovered tiny organisms (or microorganisms) he called “microzyma” which were “pleomorphic” or “many-formed.” (Pleo = many and morph = form.) Interestingly, these microzyma were found to be present in all things whether living or dead, and they persist even when the host has died. Many were impervious to heat as well.

Bechamp’s microzyma, including specific bacteria, could take on a number of  forms during the host’s life cycle and these forms depended (as Bernard contended)  primarily on the chemistry of their environment, or the biological terrain, or to put it a third way, the condition of the host. In other words there is no single cause of disease. Instead disease results when microzyma change form, function and toxicity according to the terrain of the host.   Bad bacteria, viruses and fungi are merely the forms assumed by the microzymas when there is a condition or terrain that favors disease and these "bad" microzyma themselves give off toxic byproducts, further contributing to a weakened terrain.

This is how Bechamp himself put it in his last book The Third Element of the Blood: ". . . the microzyma, whatever its origin, is a ferment; it is organized, it is living, capable of multiplying, of becoming diseased and of communicating disease. . . All mycrozyma are ferments of the same order - that is to say, they are organisms, able to produce alcohol, acetic acid, lactic acid and butyric acid.  . . In a state of health the microzymas of the organism act harmoniously, and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. In a state of disease, the microzymas do not act harmoniously, and the fermentation is disturbed; the mycrozymas have either changed their function or are placed in an abnormal situation by some modification of the medium. . ."

Through his research, Bechamp showed that the essence of life is a “fermentation” process of digestion, assimilation, disassimilation and excretion. Interruptions in any of these functions would result in a lack of energy, full blown disease or even death. Rather than causing disease, Bechamp showed that harmful mycrozyma – which Pasteur took to be external germs attacking a host - actually arises when the body's normal metabolic processes - or "fermentations" - are disturbed.

Thus, according to Bernard, Bechamp and their successors, disease occurs to a large extent as a function of biology and as a result of the changes that take place when metabolic processes are thrown off. Germs become symptoms that stimulate the occurrence of more symptoms - which ultimately culminate in disease. A body thus weakend also naturally becomes vulnerable to external harmful microzyma - or if you prefer pleomorphic germs. So, our bodies are in effect mini-ecosystems, or biological terrains in which nutritional status, level of toxicity and PH or acid/alkaline balance play key roles.

For these and other reasons Bechamp argued strenuously against vaccines, asserting that "The most serious disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood."  Untold numbers of researchers have agreed with him. Nonetheless Pasteur and his like-minded contemporary Robert Koch - both being shameless self-promoters - easily won the propaganda war favoring the widespread use of vaccines - which then made boatloads of money for everyone associated.  In fact, according to researcher E. Douglas Hume, if it had not been for mass acceptance of vaccines, the germ theory might very well have died a quiet death.

Decades after Pasteur's death researchers tried to expose the fact that Pasteur liberally "borrowed", plagiarized and misinterpreted the work of others, especially that of Bechamp - which is how Pasteur came up with the “germ” theory. The efforts of these researchers unfortunately have had little effect on the practice of medicine or the way we think about disease.

Instead, as Dr. Bernard Jensen and Mark Anderson assert in their book Empty Harvest, "The germ theory is still believed to be the central cause of disease because around it exists a colossal supportive infrastructure of commercial interests that built multi-billion-dollar industries based upon this theory. To the scientific satisfaction of many in the health field, it has long been disproven as the primary cause of disease. Germs are, rather, an effect of disease."

Interestingly and to this day, the whole theory of microzymas and how they operate has never been disproved - or proven false - by opposing research. To the contrary, decades of research – beginning with Pasteur himself - has only served to bolster the mycrozyma theory. Not only does the germ theory remain unsubstantiated today, but Pasteur himself recanted it in his private journal, writing the famous words which were revealed many decades after his death:

 “It is not the germ that causes disease but the terrain in which the germ is found.”

http://thehealthadvantage.com/biologicalterrain.html

For more information see:

The third element of the blood
Antoine Béchamp, Montague Richard Leverson, 1912



the 1935 books Bechamp or Pasteur?  and Pasteur Exposed, both by E. Douglas Hume.

   
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #14 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:08:01 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 15

Technology hasn't made music sound better. It is just louder.



The loudness war Video Example
http://wimp.com/loudnesswar/

The Loudness War Analyzed
Recorded music doesn’t sound as good as it used to. Recordings sound muddy, clipped and lack punch. This is due to the ‘loudness war’ that has been taking place in recording studios. To make a track stand out from the rest of the pack, recording engineers have been turning up the volume on recorded music. Louder tracks grab the listener’s attention, and in this crowded music market, attention is important.   And thus the loudness war – engineers must turn up the volume on their tracks lest the track sound wimpy when compared to all of the other loud tracks. However, there’s a downside to all this volume. Our music is compressed. The louds are louds and the softs are loud, with little difference. The result is that our music seems strained, there is little emotional range, and listening to loud all the time becomes tedious and tiring.
http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/


The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122114058
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #15 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:19:04 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 16

The mnemonic rule I before E except after C is wrong 21 time more often than it is correct.



There are more words spelled E before I, than I before E used in the English language! There are 923 words that have the letter combination CIE in them.
There are 21 times as many words that break the rule than that follow it.

Ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_before_E_except_after_C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duqlZXiIZqA
http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0003-ibeforee.htm
beige, cleidoic, codeine, conscience, deify, deity, deign,
 dreidel, eider, eight, either, feign, feint, feisty,
 foreign, forfeit, freight, gleization, gneiss, greige,
 greisen, heifer, heigh-ho, height, heinous, heir, heist,
 leitmotiv, neigh, neighbor, neither, peignoir, prescient,
 rein, science, seiche, seidel, seine, seismic, seize, sheik,
 society, sovereign, surfeit, teiid, veil, vein, weight,
 weir, weird


http://alt-usage-english.org/I_before_E.html

 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #16 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:21:27 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 17

Being drunk is no excuse...

Alcohol may not cause promiscuity, violence and anti-social behaviour! Alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly. But it does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules.




Viewpoint: Is the alcohol message all wrong?

BBC Radio
11 October 2011 Last updated at 23:54 GMT

Many people think heavy drinking causes promiscuity, violence and anti-social behaviour. That's not necessarily true, argues Kate Fox.

I am a social anthropologist, but what I do is not the traditional intrepid sort of anthropology where you go and study strange tribes in places with mud huts and monsoons and malaria.

I really don't see why anthropologists feel they have to travel to unpronounceable corners of the world in order to study strange tribal cultures with bizarre beliefs and mysterious customs, when in fact the weirdest and most puzzling tribe of all is right here on our doorstep. I am of course talking about my own native culture - the British.

And if you want examples of bizarre beliefs and weird customs, you need look no further than our attitude to drinking and our drinking habits. Pick up any newspaper and you will read that we are a nation of loutish binge-drinkers - that we drink too much, too young, too fast - and that it makes us violent, promiscuous, anti-social and generally obnoxious.

Clearly, we Brits do have a bit of a problem with alcohol, but why?

The problem is that we Brits believe that alcohol has magical powers - that it causes us to shed our inhibitions and become aggressive, promiscuous, disorderly and even violent.

But we are wrong.

In high doses, alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly. But it does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules. It does not cause us to say, "Oi, what you lookin' at?" and start punching each other. Nor does it cause us to say, "Hey babe, fancy a shag?" and start groping each other.

The effects of alcohol on behaviour are determined by cultural rules and norms, not by the chemical actions of ethanol.

There is enormous cross-cultural variation in the way people behave when they drink alcohol. There are some societies (such as the UK, the US, Australia and parts of Scandinavia) that anthropologists call "ambivalent" drinking-cultures, where drinking is associated with disinhibition, aggression, promiscuity, violence and anti-social behaviour.

There are other societies (such as Latin and Mediterranean cultures in particular, but in fact the vast majority of cultures), where drinking is not associated with these undesirable behaviours - cultures where alcohol is just a morally neutral, normal, integral part of ordinary, everyday life - about on a par with, say, coffee or tea. These are known as "integrated" drinking cultures.

This variation cannot be attributed to different levels of consumption - most integrated drinking cultures have significantly higher per-capita alcohol consumption than the ambivalent drinking cultures.

Instead the variation is clearly related to different cultural beliefs about alcohol, different expectations about the effects of alcohol, and different social rules about drunken comportment.
Youth drinking Buckfast tonic wine In the UK, heavy drinking is associated with a range of stereotypes

This basic fact has been proved time and again, not just in qualitative cross-cultural research, but also in carefully controlled scientific experiments - double-blind, placebos and all. To put it very simply, the experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol.

The British and other ambivalent drinking cultures believe that alcohol is a disinhibitor, and specifically that it makes people amorous or aggressive, so when in these experiments we are given what we think are alcoholic drinks - but are in fact non-alcoholic "placebos" - we shed our inhibitions.

We become more outspoken, more physically demonstrative, more flirtatious, and, given enough provocation, some (young males in particular) become aggressive. Quite specifically, those who most strongly believe that alcohol causes aggression are the most likely to become aggressive when they think that they have consumed alcohol.

Our beliefs about the effects of alcohol act as self-fulfilling prophecies - if you firmly believe and expect that booze will make you aggressive, then it will do exactly that. In fact, you will be able to get roaring drunk on a non-alcoholic placebo.

And our erroneous beliefs provide the perfect excuse for anti-social behaviour. If alcohol "causes" bad behaviour, then you are not responsible for your bad behaviour. You can blame the booze - "it was the drink talking", "I was not myself" and so on.

More: http://www.acpet.edu.au/students/student-support/relocations/australian-institute-technology-and-education-aite

AUDIO OF INTERVIEW: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/fourthought/fourthought_20111012-2101b.mp3
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #17 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:24:27 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 18

Hitler's did not "snub" Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.




Who really snubbed 1936 Olympic champion Jesse Owens?

Although many people know better, the myth of Hitler's snub of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin is persistent. But that's not where the Olympic myths end. The alleged snub is not even the most important of several Berlin Olympics misconceptions that need correcting.

In his day, Ohio State track star James (“J.C.” Jesse) Cleveland Owens (1913-1980) was as famous and admired as Carl Lewis, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan are today. (1996 Olympic champ Carl Lewis has been called the “second Jesse Owens.”) But there are significant differences between then and now. Because of racial discrimination in his native land, Jesse Owens was not able to enjoy anything close to the huge financial benefits that African American athletes can expect today. When Owens came home from his success in Nazi Germany, he faced barriers that he would not face today. After the ticker-tape parades, he received no Hollywood offers, no endorsement contracts, and no ad deals. His face didn't appear on cereal boxes. Three years after his victories in Berlin, a failed business deal forced Owens to declare bankruptcy. He made a modest living from his own sports promotions, including racing against a thoroughbred horse. After moving to Chicago in 1949, he started a successful public relations firm. Owens was also a popular jazz disc jockey for many years in Chicago.

The fact that there were American athletes competing in the 1936 Olympics at all is still considered by many to be a blotch on the history of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Germany's open discrimination against Jews and other “non-Aryans” was already public knowledge when many Americans opposed U.S. participation in the “Nazi Olympics.” Opponents to U.S. participation included the American ambassadors to Germany and Austria. But those who warned that Hitler and the Nazis would use the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin for propaganda purposes lost the battle to have the U.S. boycott the Berlin Olympiade.

Which brings us to another Olympic myth. It is often stated that Jesse Owens' four gold medals humiliated Hitler by proving to the world that Nazi claims of Aryan superiority were a lie. But Hitler and the Nazis were far from unhappy with the Olympic results. Not only did Germany win far more medals than any other country at the 1936 Olympics, but the Nazis had pulled off the huge public relations coup that Olympic opponents had predicted, casting Germany and the Nazis, falsely, in a positive light. In the long run, Owens' victories turned out to be only a minor embarrassment for Nazi Germany.

But Jesse Owens' reception by the German public and the spectators in the Olympic stadium was warm. There were German cheers of “Yesseh Oh-vens” or just “Oh-vens” from the crowd. Owens was a true celebrity in Berlin, mobbed by autograph seekers to the point that he complained about all the attention. He later claimed that his reception in Berlin was greater than any other he had ever experienced, and he was quite popular even before the Olympics.

The Snub Myth
Hitler did shun a black American athlete at the 1936 Games, but it wasn't Jesse Owens. On the first day of the Olympics, just before Cornelius Johnson, an African American althlete who won the first gold medal for the U.S. that day, was to receive his award, Hitler left the stadium early. (The Nazis later claimed it was a previously scheduled departure.) Prior to his departure, Hitler had received a number of winners, but Olympic officials informed the German leader that in the future he must receive all of the winners or none at all. After the first day, he opted to acknowledge none. Jesse Owens had his victories on the second day, when Hitler was no longer in attendance. Would Hitler have snubbed Owens if he had been in the stadium on day two? Perhaps. But since he wasn't there, he didn't.

Ironically, the real snub of Owens came from his own president. Even after ticker-tape parades for Owens in New York City and Cleveland, President Franklin D. Roosevelt never publicly acknowledged Owens' achievements (gold in the 100 meter, 200 meter, 400 meter relay, and long jump). Owens was never invited to the White House and never even received a letter of congratulations from the president. Almost two decades passed before another American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, honored Owens by naming him “Ambassador of Sports” — in 1955.

http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth10.htm
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #18 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:26:28 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 19

There is no such color as pink



There is no pink light
http://www.wimp.com/pinklight/

You've probably seen light that looks pink, but where does this colour come from? Different wavelengths of visible light correspond to colours of the rainbow - and pink isn't one of them. In our latest One-Minute Physics video, animator Henry Reich takes us through the mysterious make-up of pink light.


There’s No Such Thing as the Color Pink

Want to have your brain blown for a few minutes today? Dip your head in some physics, and realize that there's no such thing as pink. Scientifically speaking, that is: it's just something our brain makes up.

MinutePhysics puts it in predictably concise terms: all colors correspond to wavelengths of light. But there's no wavelength in there for pink! Instead, it's a combination of neural trickery—our brains strip green out of the spectrum to fill in for pink. Brains!
http://gizmodo.com/5850825/theres-no-such-thing-as-pink
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #19 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:29:39 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 20

Statistics are used to trick you.





Go figure: Why nothing is really news at all

Michael Blastland By Michael Blastland

GO FIGURE - Seeing stats in a different way

Seen the news today? It's all about what happens. In his final Go Figure column, Michael Blastland wants to know about what didn't.

Say it's reported that candy floss doubles your risk of dying suddenly. Sounds bad.

Now flip this risk around so that it's expressed as the chance of nothing happening.

The first way of looking at it is a 100% increase in risk.

The second might mean a fall in your chance of nothing happening of 0.00001%.

This is because the actual daily risk of sudden death from accident, violence or poisoning and the like is about one in a million. Double it and you get two in a million. That's your 100%.

Meanwhile, the chance of being OK might fall from 999,999 in a million, to 999,998 in a million. Suddenly, it doesn't sound so bad.

This characteristic of risk, to see things only in terms of what happens, or might happen, rather than what doesn't, is actually a bias. Sometimes what doesn't happen is as important a way of seeing the world as what does.

In a sketch by comedians Mitchell and Webb, a filmmaker (Mitchell) is interviewed about his oeuvre after a clip from his latest work - Sometimes Fires Go Out. In the film, a small fire in the kitchen - yep, you got it - goes out. That's it.

Quotethat mitchell and webb look - Sometimes Fires go out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYmXiP0-PnA
The interviewer (Webb) says the film has been reviewed as "unrelentingly real", "a devastatingly faithful rendition of how life is" and "dull, dull, unbearably dull".

He introduces another: "The Man who had a Cough and it's just a Cough and he's Fine." Two Victorian lovers meet on the station platform. The man, spluttering, looks more pallid and doomed with each encounter.

"It's just a cough," he says, stoically. Except that it is - just a cough. In the last scene, he's dandy. It is one of the finest comic sketches about probability you'll ever see. But then, not much competition.

Stories are about what happens - they're not about what doesn't. Anton Chekov said: "If in Act I you have a pistol hanging on the wall, then it must fire in the last act." If nothing happens in a story, it's a joke. But the boring truth in real life is that, usually, nothing happens. Usually, the gun isn't fired.

Likewise, a cough is not a statistically significant event, but if a man coughs in an episode of the hospital drama Casualty, it's a triple heart bypass.

Jerker Denrell teaches at Oxford Business School. He describes hearing a presentation about the attributes of top entrepreneurs. Writing in the Harvard Business review, he said the argument went as follows: "All of these leaders shared two key traits, which accounted for their success: They persisted, often despite initial failures, and they were able to persuade others to join them."

The only trouble was, said Denrell, these selfsame traits are necessarily the hallmark of spectacularly unsuccessful entrepreneurs.

The difference is that the successful ones are still around and they're the ones we look to for examples. The ones for whom success didn't happen have gone - and are often ignored.

Denrell wrote that some studies have shown a failure rate of 50% of all new businesses during their first three to five years. After rapid growth in the US tyre industry for example, the number of firms peaked in 1922 at 274. By 1936, more than 80% were gone. That is, usually, boringly, big success doesn't happen.


"Anyone studying the industry in the 1930s," said Denrell, "would have been able to observe just a very small sample of the population that had originally entered."

If you want to study success, you have to pay as much attention to those for whom it didn't happen as to those for whom it did to see if your explanations for success are exclusive to success. But business bestsellers are not known for stories of those who never made it.

One last example. In his book Picturing the Uncertain World, Howard Wainer describes the apparent success of small schools, bringing massive charitable funding to the cause of making schools smaller.

And it's true that small schools were more often at the top of the leagues than you'd expect. About 12% of the top 50 schools for maths scores came from the smallest 3% of schools overall. The only problem was that small schools were also more often at the bottom of the leagues than you'd expect - about 18% of the bottom 50.

Wainer's explanation for the small schools phenomenon was that the ability of children in small schools just bounces around a lot more from year to year because it's a smaller sample.

But if you're looking for the keys to success, maybe you don't look at the bottom. Lack of success might strike you as a non-event, if it strikes you at all.

This is the last Go Figure. It's about to become a regular non-event. Hearty thanks to all who've followed us.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17434638
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #20 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:35:55 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 21

Popular explanations of how wings (aerodynamic lift) work are often erroneous and scientifically unsound



The paper airplane guy (Bernoulli's principle comment at 7:50)
http://www.wimp.com/airplaneguy/

It is amazing that today, almost 100 years after the first flight of the Wright Flyer, groups of engineers, scientists, pilots, and others can gather together and have a spirited debate on how an airplane wing generates lift. Various explanations are put forth, and the debate centers on which explanation is the most fundamental.
— John D. Anderson, Curator of Aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum

Other alternative explanations for the generation of lift
Many other alternative explanations for the generation of lift by an airfoil have been put forward, of which a few are presented here. Most of them are intended to explain the phenomenon of lift to a general audience. Although the explanations may share features in common with the explanation above, additional assumptions and simplifications may be introduced. This can reduce the validity of an alternative explanation to a limited sub-class of lift generating conditions, or might not allow a quantitative analysis. Several theories introduce assumptions which proved to be wrong, like the equal transit-time theory.

An explanation of lift frequently encountered in basic or popular sources is the equal transit-time theory. Equal transit-time states that because of the longer path of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to catch up with the air flowing around the bottom, i.e. the parcels of air that are divided at the leading edge and travel above and below an airfoil must rejoin when they reach the trailing edge. Bernoulli's Principle is then cited to conclude that since the air moves faster on the top of the wing the air pressure must be lower. This pressure difference pushes the wing up.

However, equal transit time is not accurate and the fact that this is not generally the case can be readily observed. Although it is true that the air moving over the top of a wing generating lift does move faster, there is no requirement for equal transit time. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply
.

The assertion that the air must arrive simultaneously at the trailing edge is sometimes referred to as the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy".

Note that while this theory depends on Bernoulli's principle, the fact that this theory has been discredited does not imply that Bernoulli's principle is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29


Popular explanations of how wings work are often erroneous and scientifically unsound



Bernoulli's principle
Wrong explanations may be given by well-meaning teachers and others, but false teaching may sometimes be just for convenience. Many years ago, a famous aerodynamicist, Dr. Theodore Von Karman, instructed his assistant: "When you are talking to technically illiterate people you must resort to the plausible falsehood instead of the difficult truth." (From Stories of a 20th Century Life, ISBN 0-915760-04-5, by W.R. Sears, former assistant to Von Karman). Falsehood, whether intentional or not, is still being taught.



The most popular theory of wing operation, which we may call Hump Theory, because it requires a wing to have a more convex upper surface as compared to the lower, is easily shown to be false. Hump theory is based on an assumption of equal transit times, that air passage over a curved upper wing surface must occur in the same length of time as air passage below where the surface is more flat, and hence of a shorter path length. In order to have the same transit time, flow at the longer path upper surface must be of greater velocity than that at the lower surface. Thus, in accordance with Bernoulli's law, it is reasoned that upper surface pressure must then be less than at the lower surface, thereby producing upward lift. Equal transit time is sometimes illustrated by representing bits of passing flow above and below an airfoil or wing as shown here:

Although Bernoulli's law is sound and well proven, this popular explanation, world-wide, of wing operation is false. Upper surface flow is indeed faster than the lower, so much so that upper surface transit time is normally less than the lower, as indicated here:



Although the assumption of equal transit time is wrong and has no basis in known physics, it can be found in books from otherwise reputable publishers such as National Geographic, Macmillan and others in this country and abroad. College level teaching of aerodynamicists and aeronautical engineers does not include equal transit time, which cannot survive mathematical investigation

The fallacy of equal transit time can be deduced from consideration of a flat plate, which will indeed produce lift, as anyone who has handled a sheet of plywood in the wind can testify.

http://www.regenpress.com/



A fluid flowing past the surface of a body exerts surface force on it. Lift is any component of this force that is perpendicular to the oncoming flow direction. It contrasts with the drag force, which is the component of the surface force parallel to the flow direction. If the fluid is air, the force is called an aerodynamic force.

Lift is commonly associated with the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft, although lift is also generated by propellers; kites; helicopter rotors; rudders, sails and keels on sailboats; hydrofoils; wings on auto racing cars; wind turbines and other streamlined objects. While the common meaning of the word "lift" assumes that lift opposes gravity, lift in its technical sense can be in any direction since it is defined with respect to the direction of flow rather than to the direction of gravity. When an aircraft is flying straight and level (cruise) most of the lift opposes gravity. However, when an aircraft is climbing, descending, or banking in a turn, for example, the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical. Lift may also be entirely downwards in some aerobatic manoeuvres, or on the wing on a racing car. In this last case, the term downforce is often used. Lift may also be horizontal, for instance on a sail on a sailboat.

An airfoil is a streamlined shape that is capable of generating significantly more lift than drag. Non-streamlined objects such as bluff bodies and plates (not parallel to the flow) may also generate lift when moving relative to the fluid, but will have a higher drag coefficient dominated by pressure drag.

Many other alternative explanations for the generation of lift by an airfoil have been put forward, of which a few are presented here. Most of them are intended to explain the phenomenon of lift to a general audience. Although the explanations may share features in common with the explanation above, additional assumptions and simplifications may be introduced. This can reduce the validity of an alternative explanation to a limited sub-class of lift generating conditions, or might not allow a quantitative analysis. Several theories introduce assumptions which proved to be wrong,

"Popular" explanation based on equal transit-time


An illustration of the (incorrect) equal transit-time theory

An explanation of lift frequently encountered in basic or popular sources is the equal transit-time theory. Equal transit-time states that because of the longer path of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to catch up with the air flowing around the bottom, i.e. the parcels of air that are divided at the leading edge and travel above and below an airfoil must rejoin when they reach the trailing edge. Bernoulli's Principle is then cited to conclude that since the air moves faster on the top of the wing the air pressure must be lower. This pressure difference pushes the wing up.[36]

However, equal transit time is not accurate[37][38][39] and the fact that this is not generally the case can be readily observed.[40] Although it is true that the air moving over the top of a wing generating lift does move faster, there is no requirement for equal transit time. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply.[6]

The assertion that the air must arrive simultaneously at the trailing edge is sometimes referred to as the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #21 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:42:06 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 22

Primates, gorillas and Chimpanzees, cannot lean to "speak" in sign language.



The Reality Behind Koko & Signing Apes - Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXJXAgX_xOA

The Reality Behind Koko & Signing Apes - Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1

Dr. Roberty Sapolsky of Stanford University discussing the the bizzare story of Dr. Francine 'Penny' Patterson and Koko the 'signing' gorilla.



Are gorillas using sign language really communicating with humans?

[...]

A couple obvious problems present themselves when one looks into this talking-ape business. The first, as you suggest, is that interpretation of the gorilla's conversation, if such it be, is left to the handler, who generally sees any improbable concatenation of signs as deeply meaningful. During the 1998 on-line chat you saw bits of in Harper's (the whole thing is at www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html), for example, Koko, without being prompted or questioned, made the sign for nipple, which Francine Patterson, her trainer, interpreted as a rhyme for "people." (Patterson further claimed that this was a reference to the chat session's audience.) Even if you buy the idea that gorillas, who cannot speak, grasp the concept of rhyme, this sounds like wishful thinking. Similar examples abound: "lips" is supposedly Koko's word for woman, "foot" her word for man. Koko made a lot of signs, and sometimes expressed desires or other thoughts, but nothing in the transcript suggests a sustained conversation, even of the simple sort you might have with a toddler.

That brings us to the second problem. What constitutes language use? In 1979 Herbert Terrace of Columbia University published a skeptical account of his efforts to teach American Sign Language to a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky. Nim accomplished the elementary linguistic task of connecting a sign to a meaning, and could be taught to string signs together to express simple thoughts such as "give orange me give eat." But in Terrace's view Nim could not form new ideas by linking signs in ways he hadn't been taught--he didn't grasp syntax, in other words, arguably the essence of language. (A dog, after all, may understand that bringing his leash to his owner is a sign that he wants to go out, but nobody sees that as evidence of language use.)

Terrace's work was a major blow to talking-ape proponents. But their case started looking stronger in 1990, when researcher Emily Sue Savage-Rumbaugh of Georgia State University presented evidence of language development in a bonobo chimp named Kanzi. One of the more telling complaints made about gorillas like Koko who communicated via sign language was that they often babbled, producing long, apparently meaningless strings of signs. Their handlers would then pluck a few lucky hits from the noise and declare that communication had occurred. Savage-Rumbaugh got around this problem by teaching Kanzi to point to printed symbols on a keyboard, a less ambiguous approach. She claimed that the ape demonstrated a rough grasp of grammar using this system. What's more, when presented with 653 sentences making requests using novel word combinations, Kanzi responded correctly 72 percent of the time--supposedly comparable to what a human child can do at two and a half years old.

Today, from what I can tell, scientific opinion is divided along disciplinary lines. Many researchers who work primarily with animals accept or at least are receptive to the idea that apes can be taught a rudimentary form of language. Linguists, on the other hand, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense. Personally I'm happy to concede that the boundary between animal and human communication isn't as sharply drawn as we once thought. Animals (not just primates--check out Alex the talking African gray parrot sometime) can use language in limited ways. They can respond to simple questions on a narrow range of subjects; they can express basic thoughts and desires. I'll even buy the possibility that some are capable of employing elementary syntax. However, all this strikes me as the equivalent of teaching a computer to beat people at chess--a neat trick, but not one that challenges fundamental notions about human vs nonhuman abilities. I've seen nothing to persuade me that animals can use language as we do, that is, as a primary tool with which to acquire and transmit knowledge. I won't say such a thing is impossible. But in light of the muddled state of the debate so far, the first task is to decide what would constitute a fair test.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2443/are-gorillas-using-sign-language-really-communicating-with-humans

Does Koko the Gorilla pass the Turing test?
http://cantonbecker.com/canton/weird/koko/index.html
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #22 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:44:16 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 23

It's the FAR side if the moon not the DARK side.



Myth: The side of the moon that is facing away from the Earth is in permanent darkness, hence the name.

Reality: With the exception of the Pink Floyd album of the same name, the idea of the “dark side of the moon” is totally erroneous.

Of course, that doesn’t actually stop film makers representing it as dark.

The reality is that the term “dark side” only really refers to our understanding of the nature of the moon. In space, the “far side”, as it should really be known, gets equal if not greater solar rays upon it’s dusty grey surface.

http://www.everythingyouknowisalie.co.uk/science/files/579f8cf3730253c6c27c7a336f66996e-29.html

Far side of the Moon
"Both the near and far sides receive (on average) almost equal amounts of light from the Sun. However, the term "dark side of the moon" is commonly used poetically to refer to the far side."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #23 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:50:00 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 24

Flying is NOT the safest form of transport



The air transport industry will almost always choose a per km based statistics, which is optimum for them, as most fatalities occur on landing and take-off, while the distances are large.

The one thing that stands out is that, whichever way you look at it, motorcycles are disastrously the most dangerous form of transport. Bus and rail are the safest form of transport by any measure, while road traffic injuries represent the leading cause in worldwide injury-related deaths, their popularity undermines this statistic.

http://www.fp7-restarts.eu/index.php/home/root/state-of-the-art/objectives/2012-02-15-11-58-37/75-book-video/how-a-plane-can-fly-assuring-safety/156-the-risk-of-travel


Statistically, the rank of transport mode is as follows (per passenger hour):

  • (safest): Rail - by far!
  • Road
  • (least safe): Air
Per passenger kilometer (which is sometimes used), the ranking is as follows:

  • (safest): Rail
  • Air
  • (least safe) Road - by far!
I tend to prefer to measure my life by hours, not kilometers.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_flying_the_safest_mode_of_transport#ixzz1zoDsPX3K

Now, don't get me wrong. Flying is very safe. But is it the safest, as is often claimed?

Statistics on the subject are based upon the number of deaths per year per transport. On the face of it, air travel does appear to be relatively safer than other options.

In 2004 - 347 died worldwide due to air traffic accidents while in the UK alone 3,221 died due to road accidents. Which on the face of it makes air travel at least ten times safer (not even taking in account all the other road deaths in the world).

However, as things work out its never so simple. For example, the number of UK flights in the same period numbered 3.5 million while car journeys can be estimated to be in the region of 22 billion. So the reality is that car travel is actually safer per journey than air travel, and by some margin.

Killed in an airline flight - 0.000136986301369863013698630 1369863%
Killed by car -                  0.000000018264840182648401826 48401826484%

http://www.everythingyouknowisalie.co.uk/science/files/4dd7515e3ff4c1d87e45f5014b199618-15.html
 

Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong - I was social-engineered
« Reply #24 on: Aug 31, 2012, 06:55:46 pm »
 

Brocke

  • Guest

Example 25

Seamen give women and children priority when ships are sinking.


'The Sinking Ship' by Mark Bryan www.artofmarkbryan.com

Women and children aren’t saved first

August 1, 2012 - 07:15
By: Hanne Jakobsen

It’s a myth that seamen give women and children priority when ships are sinking. Women have much less chance of surviving and children are even worse off.

When the Titanic sank in 1912, women and children were allowed first on board the lifeboats. It’s one of very few instances in history where this chivalrous maritime norm was actually practiced.

The century-old story of the Titanic is well known:

When it struck an iceberg, the men on board the ocean liner gave women and children priority access to the lifeboats. As a consequence, the odds of survival for women were three times higher than for men.

The notion that women and children should be evacuated first has proliferated in popular culture since the Titanic sank and now it’s seen as a common maritime social norm. It’s called the unwritten law of the sea and such chivalry is regarded as a trait among mariners.

Swedish researchers now say this is hogwash.

In an evaluation of 18 major disasters at sea from around 1800 to today, they found that women have only half as much of a chance of surviving as men. The odds for children to survive are even slimmer.

Men had twice as good odds
The fates of more than 18,000 people at sea were decided in the 18 shipwrecks analyzed by the researchers in this study.

Economists Mikael Elander and Oscar Erixson at the University of Uppsala in Sweden have looked at several factors, including the odds of survival for crew members compared to that of the passengers, whether the captain’s behaviour have any impact on the results and whether the ratio of women to men on board have any significance.

In general there is little indication that this form of chivalry is a nautical norm:

Women had a bit less than an 18-percent chance of surviving these calamities at sea, whereas men had twice that – nearly 35 percent.

In fact, women fared better than men in just two of the shipwrecks: the Titanic in 1912, and aboard the HMS Birkenhead, which went down in 1852.

The latter, a British troopship, was the shipwreck that established the protocol of women and children first, but on this steam frigate the women comprised just a little over one percent of the passengers.

“We were really surprised by these findings. We’d expected the norms to apply,” says Elinder.
The crew before the passengers

Elinder and Erixson started their study of the myth by investigating the Estonia tragedy in 1994. The sinking of the ferry Estonia, which sailed between Tallinn and Stockholm, was Europe’s biggest sea disaster since World War II. Only 137 of the 989 people on board survived.

Of these 137, only 26 were women.

“In this particular wreck, men had a four-fold chance of survival. Estonia was also one of the disasters in which the crew had better odds than the passengers,” says Erlinder.

According to him, some countries have regulations, not just a norm, specifying that the crew must help the passengers safely to lifeboats and life rafts before boarding these themselves. But in reality this rule is often overlooked, the report states:

In nine of the 18 accidents the crew had an advantage over the passengers. The crew are usually alerted to the accident earlier and are better acquainted with the ship and more accustomed to the sea. So the odds are on their side, unless they choose to help passengers evacuate the ship first.
The Estonia accident was a terrible disaster, killing 852 people. Out of the survivors, only 20 percent were women, and researchers think this indicates the 'women and children first' rule wasn’t practiced on board. (Photo: Wikimedia Creative Commons)

No differences in survival rates between passengers and crew were found in the other nine accidents. But the passengers had no advantage, as would be expected if they were given priority.
Worst for the children

The figures showed that the children involved in such disasters are worst off. Erlinder and Erixson didn’t have all the data for children, but information was available about how many children were on board for nine of the ships that went down. These indicate the survival odds for children:

“The children had about a 15-percent chance of surviving a sinking, and that’s the lowest rate of all,” says Erlinder.

“We can only speculate on the reasons, but it coincides well with the picture that the most vulnerable victims perish the most," he says. "If each person only thinks about saving his or her own skin, it’s natural for children to fare the worst.”

Aid from women’s liberation
Other factors the researchers included were the share of female passengers on board, how long the voyage had been before the disaster struck and of course how many passengers the ship had in total. None of these had any impact on relative survival rates.

However, the researchers chalked up one positive trend:

The odds for women have improved in the post-WW II years – the rates of survival between the sexes have evened out some, even though men still have the advantage.

Women’s liberation can take credit – women have generally become more capable of saving themselves. Two factors that help in this context are girls getting more swimming instructions and changes in female clothing styles.

It comes as no surprise that it’s easier to swim in jeans than in heavy skirts, copious undergarments and corsets.
The command evens out natural disadvantages

“These are rather depressing results," says Erlinder. "Nevertheless it’s better to know what the situation really is instead of sustaining and believing a myth. This can help people to better figure out what to do when disaster strikes.”

An obvious question rises in a more modern and gender equal world:

Is there really a need for rescuing women before men today? Isn’t that discriminating?

Erlinder thinks the standing orders to save women and children first should remain in effect. Men are usually stronger than women; they have physical and mental capabilities that increase their odds of survival when a ship is going down.

For instance they are better at scrambling out of chaotic and clogged corridors after a ship capsizes. An aggressiveness fuelled by testosterone can help them fight their way to the deck and to better places in line when it’s 'every man for himself'.

“If you give the command to save women and children first there is still no guarantee they will survive more than men would. But it can ensure the two sexes nearly equal chances,” says Erlinder.


More:
http://sciencenordic.com/women-and-children-aren%E2%80%99t-saved-first
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2012/juli/328746
 

 

Powered by EzPortal