Most Planets May Be Seeded With Life
Sam Wormley
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1126/2
By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
26 November 2008
Astronomers have detected a building block of RNA floating within the hot, compact core of
a massive star-forming region in the Milky Way. The molecule appears to have formed with
all of the other stuff that makes up planets, suggesting that many other worlds are seeded
with some of life's ingredients right from birth.
Two of the greatest questions of existence--Are we alone? and How did we get here?--remain
unanswered. Clues keep coming, and they are tantalizing. Over the past decade, astronomers
have detected organic molecules inside meteorites and even in space (ScienceNOW, 28
March). But these latter substances have not been found in the clouds of dust and gas
around new stars that can form planets, making their link to life tenuous.
The new find, described this week in the journal Astro-ph, is stronger. Using the IRAM
radio dish array in France, a team of European astronomers has detected glycolaldehyde--a
simple sugar that makes up ribose, one of the constituents of RNA--within the core of what
appears to be a coalescing disk of dust and gas in a star-forming region called
G31.41+0.31, about 26,000 light-years away. The sugar molecule can apparently form in a
simple reaction between carbon monoxide molecules and dust grains.
The discovery is significant for two reasons. First, G31.41+0.31 lies far away from the
radiation-filled center of the Milky Way, so if any biological processes start up there,
they will have a chance to establish themselves. Second, the abundance of glycolaldehyde
in the G31.41+0.31 cloud suggests that the molecule is "common throughout star-forming
regions," says astrophysicist and co-author Serena Viti of University College London. The
implication is that wherever there is starmaking and planet formation going on, organic
building blocks could be assembling as well.
Maybe so, but radio astronomer Karl Menten of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy
in Bonn, Germany, says we're still a long way from observing life taking hold. In our own
planet's case, for example, he says, "It is not clear to what extent complex interstellar
molecules survived the violent forces accompanying Earth's initial formation."
Astrobiologist Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland,
says it's possible that life's building blocks arrive on planets after this violent period
has passed. Glycolaldehyde, for example, seems to be located in an area of the
star-forming region where it could become part of comets. If so, Mumma says, some of those
comets could eventually deliver the sugar to young planets.
Chris.B
. If so, Mumma says, some of those
> comets could eventually deliver the sugar to young planets.
I don't care what your Mumma says: If sugar was invented today they
would have to ban it as one of the most dangerous substances ever
discovered. Who'd have thought that in every bottle of Coke there's
several extra kilos of potential new life just wobbling to get out.
Sugar seems seems to be one of the few resources least likely to
become depleted. It just goes to show that SETI has been looking the
wrong way through their telescopes all this time. ;-)
Androcles
"Chris.B" <chr...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:cd9fd837-14a0-40c0...@g38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Your knowledge of biochemistry is sadly non-existent.
http://www.bmb.leeds.ac.uk/teaching/icu3/lecture/14/index.htm
gabydewilde
> It just goes to show that SETI has been looking the
> wrong way through their telescopes all this time. ;-)
SETI has debunked it self by showing no interest in government UFO
disclosures. UFO's don't prove they are aliens but if one would
dedicate a research foundation to X looking at X is mandatory.
Neuroscience is getting funny nowadays.
A is caused by B
B is caused by C
A>B>C>D>E>F>G>H>I>J>K>L>etc???
It seems to start with a random event that scores well beyond that
what may be expected from random choice.
Either the database is preserved from generation upon generation or
there is some background field influencing random events. Or both.
Anyone who is honest has observed some weird effect playing with
dices.
Academic research of the highest order has established people to be
able to influence effects as much as 4%. Also future events can be
guessed with to much accuracy to be called random.
A lot of animals are afraid of snakes. Tests showed that a monkey
never needs to see a snake to be afraid of it. Poisonous animals
advertise their poison with bright colors. Such data is clearly
preserved from generation upon generation.
Remote viewing and reincarnation live up to the scientific demands.
Lets also explain why this isn't a well known fact.
Every consciousness has the ability to both create things and destroy
things. The creative force is much stronger than the destructive one
because it has the ability to increase it's own power. The destructive
mindset has a much weaker amplitude. The destructive mind set knows
things work like this just like the constructive one. It's just not in
it's best interest to share this know how with others because it would
become weaker compared to the others.
This is the propellant for screaming hoax, cook and crank when
confronted with the facts. Ignorance will never cause the ignorant to
figure things out. The will is aimed towards censorship rather than
learning anything at all about the topic.
I could add thousands of links to this posting but you have a search
engine, if you want to know anything you can just search for it.
Can you not?
What is preventing you from checking up on the above stated facts?
You didn't know and this would make you all-knowing on the topic?
Do you really believe this to be true yourself?
have fun kids :-)
__________
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
john271108
You might be interested in this.
George Adamski wrote 'Flying Saucers Have Landed' in which
he provided many very clear photos of UFOs. The edition I read was
printed in 1957. He described how an ET had taken his
photographic plate and returned it with this drawn on it:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/adamvenus.gif
Then, when I wanted to re-read the book,
the edition I picked up was printed in 1963.
It was different.
An archaeologist/explorer Marcel Homet had dug
up a 20,000 year old petroglyph in Brazil in the meantime
with this on it:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/homet.gif
Ten years later, a petroglyph is dug up with
the same picture.
You know that picture we sent out
to space? This reminds me of that; an attempt
to pass on knowledge.
john
White Space Trash
Its a long way from simple sugars to dinosaurs and people.
Chris.B
> Your knowledge of biochemistry is sadly non-existent.
Your understanding of humour is sadly non-existent. :-)
Direct field observation suggests that bringing an action against Coca-
Cola for attempted global genocide would work wonders for the
biochemistry of several billion fat people simply by setting an
example. Sugar addiction is far more dangerous and widespread globally
than hard drugs abuse. The control of the latter employs many millions
and costs billions annually in a vain attempt to limit its production
and sale. Sugar is far more dangerous to more people's health across
the globe than hard drugs yet nobody is burning fields of sugar or
fighting wars to try and eliminate it's production. Coca Cola is
probably involved in the torture of hundreds of millions of innocent
people who cannot afford or even find modern dental care within a
thousand miles of Coca-Cola stockists or sales points. Yet nobody
mentions Coca Cola and the European Court of Human Rights in the same
breath. Sugar itself is not dangerous in limited quantities. The main
dealers who cut it with CO2 and water with a few artificial colourants
and chemical flavourings for extra kicks backed by the hard sellers on
street corners worldwide are responsible for ill-health costing
thousands of billions of dollars stretching health service budgets to
the limit.. People are so sensitive about their sugar addiction and
obscene obesity that it is largely a taboo subject in the West. This
is certainly not funny.
Androcles
On Nov 28, 10:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> Your knowledge of biochemistry is sadly non-existent.
Your understanding of humour is sadly non-existent. :-)
========================================
Oh dear, you seem to have snipped. I am pleased to replace the
appropriate item and return the compliment. :-)
http://www.bmb.leeds.ac.uk/teaching/icu3/lecture/14/index.htm
Perhaps if you care to replace what I snipped I might bother to read it.
Humorous, yes?
Chris.B
>
> SETI has debunked it self by showing no interest in government UFO
> disclosures. UFO's don't prove they are aliens but if one would
> dedicate a research foundation to X looking at X is mandatory.
I feel your pain. :-)
The absence of published research into the "paranormal" generally (I
use the unfortunate term in the broadest possible sense) is surely a
sign of professional cowardice. Funding is not necessary for those
within the necessary disciplines to study the many and various
subjects and aspects privately. It is the absence of data and theory
which provides so much sustenance to the great unwashed. Coincidence
alone is worthy of several lifetime's of serious work to try and pin
down the completely inexplicable. Are we really in a Matrix with
occasional crossed wires?
I think we may safely ignore much of the nonsense and hype surrounding
many sightings of UFOs and the abductions of wishful thinkers and
shallow dreamers. Not to mention those claims by seemingly totally
ignorant of the most basic everyday realities. Yet there must be some
underlying cause for unrecognisable objects to be seen apparently
flying in our time and space. Is their "cloaking" psychological rather
than physical? Are UFOs our own future seen across a normally opaque
time barrier rather than existing in our own present? Which forms of
radiation would one expect from time and space travellers disturbing
our own status-quo? Would this be detectable with present systems?
Are "they" the ghosts of old rather than the un-dead of popular
belief? Why are they so hard to film or photograph clearly and never
seem to eclipse or transit any object being studied, photographed or
imaged? This, despite the billions of imaging systems of the last and
present century. Why are sightings so rare? So many questions. So few
apparently willing to attempt an intelligent study. If only to lay
some completely daft notions to rest.
gabydewilde
Knowledge is lost all the time. Until we find a way to preserve
knowledge, innovation and other discoveries we don't really have time
to look at old things. We must find a way to preserve what we have
today. Then we can study the things we lost in the past. We
repopulated this planet hundreds of times, we rediscovered our
technologies hundreds of times. Next time ET comes around to bring us
his scribblings we better take notes and make sure we don't loose
them. ;)
Benj
> Maybe so, but radio astronomer Karl Menten of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy
> in Bonn, Germany, says we're still a long way from observing life taking hold. In our own
> planet's case, for example, he says, "It is not clear to what extent complex interstellar
> molecules survived the violent forces accompanying Earth's initial formation."
Whew! Thank God that man is still the only lifeform in the universe
and the Earth is still the total center of all creation. For a minute
there I started to think that we'd all have to re-think our ideas that
all creation simply "evolved" by "chance"and "natural selection". If
life were actually seeded (even by higher beings) we'd probably all
have to start feeling guilty for murder and other immoral acts instead
of simply dismissing them as inner workings of "evolution".
What a relief that God is still in his heaven and all's right with the
world!
Benj
> You might be interested in this.
> George Adamski wrote 'Flying Saucers Have Landed' in which
> he provided many very clear photos of UFOs. The edition I read was
> printed in 1957. He described how an ET had taken his
> photographic plate and returned it with this drawn on it:http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/adamvenus.gif
> Then, when I wanted to re-read the book,
> the edition I picked up was printed in 1963.
>
> It was different.
Why would anyone want to reread any trash from that lying government
shill? I'll give you many clear "chicken brooder" photos and tell you
what the "Venusians" told me too. You can't STILL be trying to get
some disinformation mileage out of those old lies?
For anyone that still has a brain: UFOs are REAL. Adamski was/is a
FRAUD, a purposeful disinformation fraud.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Adamski was a kook.
As regards "is", he died in 1965.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
john271108
Atoms are mostly space.
It is simply a matter of having all the atoms
in sync, and matter becomes mostly space.
It's called science.
john
Androcles
"john271108" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:5a51262a-12bd-47b4...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
True.
> It is simply a matter of having all the atoms
> in sync, and matter becomes mostly space.
False.
> It's called science.
> john
No, it's called "stupid". You are the epitome of stupid. (Look it up.)
gabydewilde
> On Nov 28, 11:17 am, gabydewilde <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > SETI has debunked it self by showing no interest in government UFO
> > disclosures. UFO's don't prove they are aliens but if one would
> > dedicate a research foundation to X looking at X is mandatory.
>
> I feel your pain. :-)
I assure you it is their loss not mine. I will immediately jump to the
conclusion they are trying to accomplish the exact opposite of what
they claim to be doing.
This because if they would be, this would be what it would look like.
> The absence of published research into the "paranormal" generally (I
> use the unfortunate term in the broadest possible sense) is surely a
> sign of professional cowardice.
I would call it mind control.
There are plenty of horrible events we can make jokes about. But some
insignificant events are taboo.
There are plenty of horrible characteristics we make jokes about but
some insignificant features are taboo.
There are plenty of totally absurd scientific theories people talk
about very seriously but some 100% valid topics cause peoples mind to
completely shut down.
People are cowards about those topics because they have been
indoctrinated to be cowards.
> Funding is not necessary for those
> within the necessary disciplines to study the many and various
> subjects and aspects privately. It is the absence of data and theory
> which provides so much sustenance to the great unwashed. Coincidence
> alone is worthy of several lifetime's of serious work to try and pin
> down the completely inexplicable. Are we really in a Matrix with
> occasional crossed wires?
Jep, it is one giant lunatic asylum. If I gave you just one example
chances are you would be depressed the rest of your life. I'm not
going to.
> I think we may safely ignore much of the nonsense and hype surrounding
> many sightings of UFOs and the abductions of wishful thinkers and
> shallow dreamers.
You are wrong, simply because you have no idea what it is you are
ignoring. If 999 out of a thousand would live up to your ignorant
prejudgement you would still miss out on one peace of the puzzle.
Because you will never have all the peaces this one peace may prevent
you from creating the whole picture.
This willful ignorance is something you copy from others who also
ignored everything. They don't have a clue about the very thing they
are ignoring, it is what it means "to ignore".
> Not to mention those claims by seemingly totally
> ignorant of the most basic everyday realities.
"Seemingly"; That is just like Bush killing potential terror suspects.
(read babies) Things are not what they seem. Your reality doesn't
match the real world, you are trying very hard to upgrade it to match
it as closely as possible but you will never get there. By eliminating
input because you can also insult the source you are not expanding
your reality. Insult suggests you would rather see the person stop
talking about the subject. He or she should stop talking about it
because of your "seemingly". Things are not what they seem but here
you upgrade something that only seems up to something that is real.
Until you give the person a honest chance to explain his view you are
in the wishful thinking zone yourself. Just because the whole world is
mentally retarded doesn't mean you should make fun of those people.
Look at it as a chance to help some one. I've been there way to many
times and it is a huge embarrassment to figure out you have dismissed
things that are down right obvious.
> Yet there must be some
> underlying cause for unrecognisable objects to be seen apparently
> flying in our time and space.
More like a dozen different causes.
> Is their "cloaking" psychological rather than physical?
YES, you have chosen a very good example here.
Listen to the fantastic double speak here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQUmRUB6FP0#t=1m
People who know this is a mind control system will hear him talk about
it, people who dont know it is a mind control system will think it
controls radio and Tee Vee channels. But he clearly states it caused
deserters and it kept people calm.
Also listen how the docu makers are all fired up about how exiting it
is to kill people. LOOL?
> Are UFOs our own future seen across a normally opaque
> time barrier rather than existing in our own present?
It could be, shots from the past are more obvious but you are
faltering yourself. The galaxy is full of life.
> Which forms of
> radiation would one expect from time and space travellers disturbing
> our own status-quo?
Light and thoughts, they will radiate thoughts that you will think of
as your own.
> Would this be detectable with present systems?
haha, you can see them cant you? And you can have ideas :-)
> Are "they" the ghosts of old rather than the un-dead of popular
> belief?
This is a bit of a problem zone, even if it is just a hallucination
people are still seeing it.
> Why are they so hard to film or photograph clearly and never
> seem to eclipse or transit any object being studied, photographed or
> imaged?
The good images all disappear, the poor images we get to keep.
Deflecting gravity also deflects light. Any good ships or advanced
critter shouldn't be visible at all.
> This, despite the billions of imaging systems of the last and
> present century. Why are sightings so rare?
It is because of the censor-ship.
> So many questions. So few
> apparently willing to attempt an intelligent study.
The answers become obvious when studying other topics. Like ancient
history or anti-gravity technology.
But if you look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I#t=2m11s
and you don't see hundreds of things flying around there is something
wrong with you. You have to focus all your willpower on not seeing
anything in this video.
NASA always tries to point the camera away from those, but zooming in
doesn't clean up the picture at all. Those things are gigantic. If
this was "a little bit of debris" we couldn't have build a space
station there.
> If only to lay
> some completely daft notions to rest.
A friend of mine suggested that video was not NASA footage but
something some one made at home. hahaha I thought that was a pretty
original cop-out. There is all kinds of government UFO material
released. I remembered Pravda had a headline with "alien pictures
disclosed". So I looked up that page for him, then it was movie stills
of Hollywood stars standing next to ET's. People like will smith. -.-
His 20 second effort was all used up after that. hehehe But if I tell
him the moon landing is fake he says I'm crazy. As if proof isn't
necessary for that. It's pretty hilarious how tight the lid is closed
on some people.
"If you think like that you might as well start doubting everything";
he says. Hearing that knowing the whole world history is one big lie
just makes me cry from laughter.
It's really true! People are funnier than anyone.
:-)
White Space Trash
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:77cce113-2de2-45f2...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
YOU are a fucking IDIOT !
dke...@hotmail.com
---snip---
> A lot of animals are afraid of snakes. Tests showed that a monkey
> never needs to see a snake to be afraid of it. Poisonous animals
> advertise their poison with bright colors. Such data is clearly
> preserved from generation upon generation.
>
Hi
Actually the only poisonous animals that have bright
colors to stand out are ones that use poison for defense.
Most snakes are colored to blend into their habitat.
That might be green in a rain forest or browns and greys
in leaf litter. I wouldn't say that a copper head stands
out unless placed outside of their normal habitat.
Dwight
BradGuth
Why is 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups so deathly afraid of off-world life,
no matters how simple or complex?
~ BG
BradGuth
Correct, as apparently Earth is it (period). Once the Zionist/Nazis
have spoken, there's nothing more to say.
~ BG
gabydewilde
A snake adapts his color to the environment.
How does he do it? Does he look around and decide "ok, I need a darker
shade of brown with less green in it";
How does the monkey know the snake is bad news?
Clearly not evolution.
Monkey 1 dies from a snake bite, monkey 2 learns from it.
Creature 1 eats the glow in the dark toad and dies.
Creature 2 learns not to eat those toads.
Take humans who are afraid of spiders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOmtFbz8JwE
Where does the spider keep his construction drawings for his mega
structures?
How does a bird know to build a nest?
Or what about sex? Is sex not obvious enough? Did any species have to
learn it?
We are all hooked into the same database.
Plants don't see insects then decide to spawn flowers.
It's a preposterous suggestion to pretend organisms would need to
learn things.
Mammals get born and they head straight for the milk. They don't go to
a milk drinking university. There is no diploma and they don't need a
milk drinking licence.
See this documentary, it may surprise you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4753736638977368381
And remember to suspend believes for they are not your own.
It is very important because currently we are killing everything and
everyone as fast as we can. It wasn't your idea but we are not making
enough effort towards trying to stop it.
Chris.B
>
> Where does the spider keep his construction drawings for his mega
> structures?
>
> How does a bird know to build a nest?
>
> Or what about sex? Is sex not obvious enough? Did any species have to
> learn it?
>
> We are all hooked into the same database.
>
> learn things.
>
> Mammals get born and they head straight for the milk. They don't go to
> a milk drinking university. There is no diploma and they don't need a
> milk drinking licence.
You are trying much too hard: A biological computer's hard-wired
operating system is available on first boot up. The drivers provided
with the operating system recognise and match the keyboard (hands) the
webcam (eyes) the speakers and mic (voice and voice recognition) the
mouse (breast) without the need for any extra software. Learning
simply improves skills with the in-built, peripheral and manipulatory
functions. The baby does not build a nest, paint masterpieces, perform
gymnastics, sing operas, fly planes or build skyscrapers. These skills
come after constant upgrades to the operating system. As the
biological computer endlessly matches patterns in the sensor readings
of countless and increasingly complex behavioural experiments in
survival. Then records them for later use in decision making
situations. The paradox of choice between pain, fear of failure,
boredom and pleasure. Now or later. ;-)
gabydewilde
Nope, it's the other way around I'm afraid, you are not trying hard
enough.
> As the
> biological computer endlessly matches patterns in the sensor readings
> of countless and increasingly complex behavioural experiments in
> survival.
This contradicts the absolutes you imagined. But lets entertain the
thought. I did provide a link to a film. This proves you are not
capable of clicking a link and that I notice this. On the other hand
it is a long film, but turning it off doesn't debunk any of it.
> Then records them for later use in decision making
> situations.
You did not acquire the data I provided you with. I would love to give
you more but it's pointless because you would ignore everything. Do
see this documentary, it may surprise you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4753736638977368381
I already know you have zero evidence for your may it be popular
hypothesis. I have lots of evidence that disproves it. Focusing on
ignoring the evidence makes it evident why you didn't figure this out
before.
When you are done viewing the film I have more things to show. But I'm
not going to allow you to cherry pick evidence out of context because
it fits your preconceived arguments. Sorry.
Lets look at this as just another science topic and look over the
evidence before making a conclusion. I use to think the same thing as
you do right now. It changed as a result of looking at the evidence I
had ignored it just like you are doing right now. So please don't
think I don't understand.
I know I'm repeating the same thing but...
What can I do beyond explaining and sharing a link? I could tell you
the conclusion in advance but that would spoil the joy of looking at
it. It would reduce it to something I said. People say this film
changed their whole life. I think I'm one of them but I was very
skeptical even after seeing it. Like I said, there is more.
Have fun,
Chris.B
>
> I know I'm repeating the same thing but...
>
> What can I do beyond explaining and sharing a link? I could tell you
> the conclusion in advance but that would spoil the joy of looking at
> it. It would reduce it to something I said. People say this film
> changed their whole life. I think I'm one of them but I was very
> skeptical even after seeing it. Like I said, there is more.
>
> Have fun,
You really are preaching to the converted. I managed 30 minutes of
"Paradox of Choice". Fascinating and deliciously intelligent. And yes,
I have been sharing much the same philosophy for at least a decade.
Your (linked) videos are simply too long for a busy person to enjoy in
comfort. Do you have the précis version without the padding for those
in full time employment but lacking nocturnal tendencies. ;-)
Benj
> > For anyone that still has a brain: UFOs are REAL. Adamski was/is a
> > FRAUD, a purposeful disinformation fraud.
>
> Adamski was a kook.
Nope. Too easy. A close look shows intelligence community ties.
> As regards "is", he died in 1965.
"is" relates to his writings which still (more or less) exist.
Which raises the question why someone is still trying to get mileage
out of that nonsense?
Benj
> Why is 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups so deathly afraid of off-world life,
> no matters how simple or complex?
How about you figure it out? Start with questions as to why the
Catholic church was so deathly afraid of Sun-centric systems? And then
expand that into a consideration of the effects of the reduction of
mankind from the center of known creation to a mere backwater swamp
inhabitant. Hint! The effects are political and those in power are
very sensitive to things that might upset their little dramas. And
finish up with the realization that a few loudmouth posters can easily
control and disrupt any civilized discussion of "forbidden" topics
with a few accusations of "tin foil hats", lack of education, and
unstable mental conditions. Few suspect there are political reasons
behind it all. Most simply get tired of being ridiculed and attacked
and simply buzz off.
Chris.B
I would suggest that corrupt church economics are far more important
than politics. The churches are desperately hanging on to their little
piece of the remaining pie. As education constantly undermines the
desperately simplistic fantasies on offer from the afterlife, pyramid
insurance salesmen. Many churchmen are secretly delighted with all the
fuss about Islam. Better any church than none at all. While the
comparisons of higher moral standards in Western churches on women's
rights and terrorism are simply far too easy to ignore. (while
cheerfully ignoring their own horror stories of torture/inquisition/
witch burning/monopoly church miller's rights over populous starvation/
paedophilia/banning of family planning/ debasing women's rights and
all the other "little" hurdles the power mad organised religious
structures have abused in their own interests but never for the
general good. All religions are at odds with progress, evolution,
genetics, natural human behaviour, education, well being, health,
comfortable living standards, etc etc. All thanks to the fantasies of
a few who were given an inch but took several miles. A cartoon in a
Danish newspaper produced rioting on a massive scale, death threats,
marches, burnt embassies, murders and bombings, etc.etc. Yet when Al
Kaida and the Taliban cause mayhem right across the globe in the name
of Islam there is not a solitary Muslim protesting on the streets.
When literally thousands of Roman Catholic pervert priests are caught
with children's pants around their ankles not one Catholic protested
outside the Cardinal's countless palaces or the cathedrals. How much
longer are people going to believe the words of these religious
charlatans?
gabydewilde
>
> You really are preaching to the converted. I managed 30 minutes of
> "Paradox of Choice". Fascinating and deliciously intelligent. And yes,
> I have been sharing much the same philosophy for at least a decade.
> Your (linked) videos are simply too long for a busy person to enjoy in
> comfort. Do you have the précis version without the padding for those
> in full time employment but lacking nocturnal tendencies. ;-)
This was an exelent suggestion actually. I got it down to 10 min for
you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE
Enjoy!
Chris.B
>
> This was an excellent suggestion actually. I got it down to 10 min for
> you.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE
>
> Enjoy!
Thankyou. Sadly I have already watched the "plants" video all the way
through. <yawn> This could easily have been condensed into just a few
relevant minutes. I remember it as "live" subject matter in the public
domain at the time. There was no cover up. It was in the popular
daily newspapers and Sunday supplements. "Lie detectors attached to
plants", "Plants have feelings." etc.. Do I vaguely remember some sort
of kit to attach to ones own house plants to make some sort of noise
when the pant was thirsty or unhappy? I may well have imagined it. :-)
gabydewilde
Yeah, I guess human organisms were more layed back back then.
But but... the implications border the unimaginable.
Cleave Baxter also took white blood cells from a mouthwash, put that
in a solution with electrodes and put a traveling video camera on the
person. Any time something happened to that person the solution
emotionally responded.
It didn't matter how far away the person was !^_^!
""The world may never be the same" Your plants know what you are
thinking!" That was the earthshaking discovery of Cleve Backster
nearly twenty years ago as documented in The Secret Life of Plants.
Today an even greater discovery brings us the the brink of unlimited
possibilities. The cells of your body, even removed and observed at a
distance, know what you are thinking... the world may never be the
same.""
http://www.insight-books.com/NWAG/Secret-Life-Of-Your-Cells/0914918966.html?PHPSESSID=27123482020eead51cc2c6935ae985af
Or this!
MORIVDOCID: 98321 - STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/remoteviewing/exec.pdf
"As a result of exploratory research on human perception carried out
in SRI's Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory, we observed the
emergence of a perceptual channel whereby certain individuals access
and describe, by means of mental imagery, randomly-chosen remote sices
located several miles or more away. In this final report, we document
the study at SRI of this human information-accessing capability which
we call "remote viewing, che characteristics of which appear to fall
outside the range of well-understood perceptuai/information-processing
abilities."
The history is hilarious, people are just faithfully disbelieving. It
is as pointless to explain as perpetual motion, anti gravity or
inertial propulsion.
The CIA would send their viewers to help the police find missing
children. One described a stubborn disbelieving chief of police who
put him into jail for finding the body and the weapon.
Forensics is good science, they don't lock people away for
nothing..... ehhh.... well actually they do but still.
You ever seen some one over-shout because he didn't want to hear what
they had to say? Do you feel Jew Geller is getting a fair chance to
put the information together here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIhSBMzPjrc
Or is Chris clearly and obviously overshouting him? He did get all of
the numbers right. He might have put them together in 5 min or so.
Geller has been drawing hidden pictures for years.
Magic Randi does a good fast shuffle and states: "mentalists have been
duplicating hidden drawings for years" he then raises his voice and
says "If Geller had chosen to use trickery he could have used any
number of tricks". Randi then pulls out a mirror and shows how you can
see what is behind you with it. hahahaha
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvogg68k3ms#t=4m40s
But earlier in the video he promised he would duplicate the effect
using trickery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvogg68k3ms#t=3m35s
Showing how a mirror works obviously doesn't count.
We want to see Randi do it on discovery channel, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eu0YSEHmTY
lol
__________
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress