Posts from Forum

But I wasn't even talking about that; I was talking about the fact that we accept 99% of information on faith (without question).

I understand, but the example with the atom was completely incorrect.

leading to the conclusion that there exists some particle – which they called an atom! And we accepted this on faith! Without question! Proofs undoubtedly exist, but no one told us anything about them,

we didn't check them ourselves, we didn't delve into the essence and details of these experiments; we simply believed it!

You're speaking for yourself ;)

And on what basis do you judge the plausibility?

Based on the fact that the photos are photoshopped, which is obvious to the naked eye. And based on the fact that I can more or less trust only ENGLISH VERSIONS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, and not photos from some obscure sources, as I have said many times.
All other quotes are not mine; I am not so harsh in my statements. I only spoke about the atom and plausibility.

Ariputra, all these pictures are not proof. I can look at pictures of Australia, but how do I know they are real?

I understand, but the example with the atom was completely incorrect.

Speak for yourself ;)

Based on the fact that the photographs are photoshopped, which is visible to the naked eye. And based on the fact that I can more or less trust only ENGLISH VERSIONS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, NOT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SOME OBSCURE RESOURCES, as I have said many times.
All other quotes are not mine; I am not so blunt in my statements. I only spoke about the atom and plausibility.

For example, I don't see that they are photoshopped? Based on what signs did you come to this conclusion?

I tell you once again, there are photographs dated from a time when Photoshop didn't even exist in the slightest!

Well then read "The Unknown History of Humanity" in English—it is a full-fledged scientific work, according to the scientific community. There is plenty of evidence there. But even those will prove nothing to a person who does not want to believe it.

Fine, you don't believe the photographs because they contradict your ideas (and not because they are from unknown resources). If something had been posted on exactly the same resources—but corresponded to your understanding of reality, to your ideas—then you wouldn't have demanded any proof and would have simply accepted it. The resource has nothing to do with it.

And what should be done about the huge number of eyewitness accounts from all over the world who, without conspiring, report the same thing?

ariputra, all these photos are not evidence; I can look at photographs of Australia, but how do I know they are real?

But that doesn't stop you from believing that Australia actually exists.

It's not even about the photographs; it's about our established ideas of reality, which we fearlessly defend with enviable zeal and persistence.

If I had provided photographs depicting something you have no doubt about—there would be no question at all about their authenticity.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

I must admit I do not possess such a breadth of knowledge as ariputra, who is ready to fight for anything from elephants in orbit to AIDS denialism. But at the very least regarding vaccination, it is foolish enough to deny that vaccines against pertussis and scarlet fever removed these diseases from the ranks of deadly threats. I remember there was even a poem back in Soviet times about the death of a pioneer girl from scarlet fever. Furthermore, comparing child mortality in the 20th century with what came before is somewhat absurd; the difference is manifold.

I am ready to fight for flexibility of thought, logic, and common sense.

Pertussis and scarlet fever—like smallpox—declined not thanks to vaccination, but in spite of it.
In many areas where vaccinations against pertussis, scarlet fever, smallpox, and other diseases were carried out, the epidemics declined exactly at the same time as they—these epidemics—declined in those areas where no vaccination was performed!
From this, one can conclude that the link between vaccination and the decline of epidemics is doubtful.

http://www.mtmvua.com/mify-pravda-vakcinacii - "Myths and Truths about Vaccination"

An introduction to the contradictions between medical science and immunization policy
Alan Phillips,
Chairman of "Citizens for Health Freedom"

Introduction

When my son began his scheduled vaccinations at 2 months of age, I did not know that immunization was associated with any risk. But a leaflet in the clinic contained a contradiction: the chances of my child having a serious complication from the DPT vaccine were 1 in 1750, while the chances of dying from pertussis within a year were 1 in several million. When I pointed this out to the doctor, he angrily expressed disagreement and rushed out of the room, muttering: "I think I'll have to read this [leaflet]..." Shortly thereafter, I learned about a child who was permanently disabled after a vaccination and decided to investigate for myself. What I discovered alarmed me so much that I feel the need to share it. This is my report.

Health officials attribute the decline in disease to vaccinations and assure us of their safety and effectiveness. However, these assumptions directly contradict government statistics, published medical research, reports from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and data from recognized research scientists from different countries around the world. In fact, the incidence of infectious diseases had been steadily decreasing for decades before mass vaccination; American doctors report thousands of serious reactions to vaccines annually, including hundreds of deaths and disabilities; epidemics break out in fully vaccinated populations, and researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and neurological diseases, which have increased sharply in recent decades, to the results of mass immunization programs.
.....

Vaccination Myth #1: Vaccines are completely safe

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established by Congress under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986. This system receives about 11000 reports annually of serious complications from vaccinations, which include between one hundred and two hundred deaths, and several times more cases of lifelong disability [1]. VAERS officials report that 15% of complication cases are "serious" (ambulance transport, hospitalization, life-threatening cases, lifelong disability, death). Independent analysis of reports received by VAERS showed that up to 50% of the known cases of complications from the hepatitis B vaccine are "serious" [2]. While this figure is alarming in itself, it is only the "tip of the iceberg." According to FDA estimates, reports are made for only 1% of serious vaccination complications [3] [4], and the CDC admits that only about 10% of such cases are reported [5]. In fact, Congress heard testimony that medical students are advised not to report suspected complication cases [6].
.....

Vaccination Myth #2: Vaccines are very effective...

Medical literature contains an unexpected number of studies documenting the failure of vaccines. Outbreaks of measles, mumps, smallpox, polio, and hemophilic infection occurred in vaccinated groups [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. In 1989, the CDC reported: "Among school-age children, outbreaks [of measles] occurred in schools with vaccination levels over 98 percent" [24]. "They occurred in all regions of the country, including territories where measles had not been recorded for years" [25]. The CDC even reports a measles outbreak in a group that was documented as one hundred percent vaccinated [26]. A study of this phenomenon concludes: "the obvious paradox is that when the level of immunization against measles in a group reaches a high level, measles becomes a disease of the vaccinated" [27]. A more recent study found that measles vaccination "causes immune suppression, contributing to increased susceptibility to other infections" [28]. These studies suggest that the goal of full "immunization" is actually counterproductive, and this opinion is emphasized by cases where epidemics followed the full immunization of entire countries. Japan experienced annual increases in smallpox incidence following the introduction of compulsory vaccinations in 1872. By 1892 there were 29979 deaths, all of whom were vaccinated [29]. In the early 1900s, the Philippines suffered its most terrible smallpox epidemic after 8 million people received 24.5 million doses of the vaccine (a level of 95% was reached); as a result, mortality quadrupled [30]. Before the first English compulsory vaccination law passed in 1853, the highest mortality rate over two years was about 2000; in 1870-1871 England and Wales had more than 23000 deaths from smallpox [31]. In 1989, the state of Oman experienced a large-scale polio outbreak 6 months after achieving full vaccination [32]. In the US in 1986, 90% of 1300 people who contracted pertussis in Kansas were "properly vaccinated" [33]. 72% of those who contracted pertussis during its outbreak in Chicago in 1993 were vaccinated absolutely on time [34].

Vaccination Myth #3: Vaccinations are the main reason for the low incidence rate in the US today...

According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased by 90% between 1850 and 1940, corresponding to improved sanitation and hygiene, long before compulsory vaccination programs. According to a recent report from "Medical Sentinel," "from 1911 to 1935, the main causes of child deaths from infectious diseases in the US were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945, the overall mortality rate from them had decreased by 95% before the introduction of mass immunization programs" [35].

This article can be read not as proof of my correctness, but simply to broaden your horizons, for greater awareness in this field.

Of course, the worldview presented by mainstream media is "a lie, %$#*ing lies, and provocation" (as they say). It's hard to argue with this obvious fact, and almost no one does.

Here, we're talking about something else: the worldview presented by ariputra is an even more twisted "lie, %$#*ing lies, and provocation." All these plans, protocols, and other "vaccinations"... in essence, it's the same mainstream media, but accessed through a back door, an alternative mental chewing gum from the same source.

Moreover, the quality of these alternatives is usually worse than the official version, simply because fewer resources are invested in them. And there's no need for elaborate development; its main advantage is its difference from the official version, so you can run several alternatives in parallel, without much hesitation, generate new ones, and discard old ones (like any media product, they quickly become outdated).

It couldn't be any other way: a person of average intelligence is not capable of grasping the true nature of reality; they will inevitably seek some simplified projection in accordance with their level of development and personal tastes.

I'm amazed. Not that Ariputra is spouting nonsense, but that someone is still reading this and trying to argue with him. :)

I agree with the previous speaker.

Of course, the worldview according to the "zombie box" is "lies, %$#* lies, and provocation" (c). It's hard to argue with this self-evident fact, and almost no one argues.

But the point here is that the worldview according to ariputra is an even more "stoned" "lie, %$#* lie, and provocation."

What is this lie?

At least a few specific examples? With evidence as to why it is a lie.

What is the provocation, and what do you think I want to provoke people into?

And what reality, in your opinion, corresponds to reality? What is the real state of affairs - your version of reality?

By using the word "stoned," you are essentially calling what I write nonsense. It's very easy to dismiss as nonsense everything that doesn't fit into my understanding of reality. But trying to figure it out is much more difficult. But I can understand why you can't do that.

All these plans, protocols, and other "vaccinations"... are essentially the same "zombie box," only from a back door, an alternative brainwash from the same source.

Have you read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/AE/protokoly.txt_with-big-pictures.html
Shultan Aruh?
http://www.virtus-et-gloria.com/Menu.aspx?book=texts/Shultan%20Aruh.htm
If not, how can you possibly judge them?

If you have read them, have you tried to compare them with reality? To apply them to what is happening in Russia now?

Everything that is described there is being implemented point by point exactly as it is described. The people are being drugged and divided, culture is being corrupted and destroyed.

Isn't that obvious?
Vik, you are either completely blind and don't want to see the obvious, or you know everything perfectly well and are singing your Jewish song - that nothing exists. This technology of complete denial is described in the protocols.

Moreover, the alternative versions are usually of lower quality than the official version, simply because less resources are invested in them. And there is no need for special development, because its main advantage is its difference from the official version, so you can run several alternative versions in parallel, without much hesitation, generate new ones, and discard old ones (like any media product, they quickly become outdated).

Otherwise, it cannot be - a person of average intelligence is not able to comprehend the true structure of the world; he will inevitably seek some simplified projection in accordance with his level of development and personal tastes.

You should offer your version of reality, at least with some evidence other than your own speculative conclusions!

And on what basis do you judge one or another statement?
On the basis of your own empirical ideas?

An ordinary person is perfectly capable of understanding the true structure of the world; all he has to do is abandon his empirical ideas about this structure of the world and turn to an authoritative source of knowledge - the Bible, the Quran, Vedic literature, Buddhist sutras, etc. - to the instructions of the chief designer.

But you are artificially complicating things. Everyone thinks of others as they think of themselves; if I cannot understand how everything is arranged in this world, then I will think that others are not capable of doing so, and therefore it is impossible.

But everything is very simple; this world has a Chief Designer - God, isn't it logical to study His creation and turn to His instructions? And not invent your own.

Of course, the worldview presented by television is "lies, %$#* lies, and provocation" (as they say). It's hard to argue with this obvious fact, and almost no one does.
The point here is that the worldview presented by ariputra is an even more far-fetched "lies, %$#* lies, and provocation." All these plans, protocols, and other "vaccinations"... in essence, it's the same television, but accessed through a back door, an alternative mental chewing gum from the same source.
Moreover, the quality of these alternatives is usually worse than the official version, simply because fewer resources are invested in them. And there's no need for elaborate development; its main advantage is its difference from the official version, so you can run several alternatives in parallel, without much hesitation, generate new ones, and discard old ones (like any media product, they quickly become outdated).
It couldn't be otherwise – a person of average intelligence is not capable of grasping the true structure of the world; they will inevitably seek some simplified projection in accordance with their level of development and personal tastes.

I agree 100%.

2ariputra, you owe me a new mouse. The scroll wheel on mine broke while I was scrolling through your posts :D

I am amazed. Not that ariputra is talking nonsense, but that someone is still reading this and trying to argue with it. :)

What, in your understanding, is "nonsense"?

Is everything that doesn't fit into my understanding of reality, everything that goes beyond my ideas, "nonsense"?

Wouldn't you allow for the possibility, even for a second, that my understanding might be wrong?

If you call something "nonsense" (delirium, stupidity), then at least provide some evidence.

It's very easy and convenient to call everything that goes beyond my understanding "delirium"!

_____
When there are no more arguments, you can resort to personal attacks!
A very convenient principle of behavior :)

2ariputra, you owe me a new mouse. The scroll wheel broke while I was scrolling through your posts.

Full address?
Postal code, address (city, street, house and apartment number), full name.

I will send you a new one!

hmm, is ariputra=bajan?

ariputra, your post #3363 is 194 centimeters long :D. And this

exceeds my understanding

.

Added 1 minute ago
21+23.5+23.5+23+23.5+23+23.5+22.5+10.5

Added 1 minute ago
I had to measure it in parts:smile52:

I'm amazed. Not that Ariputra is talking nonsense, but that someone is still reading this and trying to argue with him. :)

That's the kind of "PC repairmen" we have now.

Ariputra, here’s the link to the exposé on giants, as promised, by the way, in our favorite “sci-pop” style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cn1FpzwPEM. Regarding your 2-meter-tall post – it mentions the downright repulsive Mendel and Einstein; thanks to the former, we have GMOs – isn’t that an analogue to the vaccine situation?;) The latter was an agent of ZOG, urgently mobilized to “close” the concept of “ether,” from which, apparently, Nikola Tesla learned to extract practically free energy!:cool: What do you have to say about that? By the way, Christ didn’t live 2000 years ago, naturally, but in the 12th century; I can dig up some evidence (in your style)...;)

Are you guys seriously taking Pascal seriously?)) It's just satire about Christianity.

I also perceived it that way, but then it turned out that Pascal was a religious man.

Added 1 minute ago

I'm amazed. Not that Ariputra is spouting nonsense, but that someone is still reading this and trying to argue with it. :)

Yes, yes, I wrote the same thing here 3 days ago, but it had no effect =) They still read and argue.