Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
Someone Blow My Mind Vol. Illuminati, 2012, Aliens, Life
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by johnnyredstorm,
- Start date
- Status
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
- May 20, 2006
- 5,984
- 9,871
Thank you sir, you always have great contributions. I will check this out tonight. I'm sure I can find the stream ut you can PM it to me if you have time.
- May 20, 2006
- 5,984
- 9,871
- May 15, 2008
- 6,531
- 6,258
Dope. Will definitely be checking brotha.
- Nov 3, 2014
- 770
- 581
Thank you sir, you always have great contributions. I will check this out tonight. I'm sure I can find the stream ut you can PM it to me if you have time.
Sorry for the late reply
frankmatthews
I haven't checked the thread in a couple days brother..
Repped, I Pm'd both of you make sure you let me know what you guys think, I thought it was a cool concept and a nice little undiscovered gem 
a change of pace from the usual Hollywood cash grabs and re hash's, taken 3.. fast and furious 10.5 for example 
Last edited:
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
- Jul 18, 2012
- 8,837
- 4,739
New Report Debunks 'Myth' That GMOs are Key to Feeding the World
Study upholds value of traditional methods 'shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production'
The biotechnology industry "myth" that feeding billions of people necessitates genetically engineered agriculture has been debunked by a new report out Tuesday by the nonprofit health organization Environmental Working Group.
The report, Feeding the World Without GMOs (pdf), argues that investment in genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has failed to expand global food security. It advocates more traditional methods "shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production."
Over the past 20 years, the report notes, global crop yields have only grown by 20 percent—despite the massive investment in biotechnology.
On the other hand, it continues, in recent decades "the dominant source of yield improvements has been traditional crossbreeding, and that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future."
As the report states, "seed companies' investment in improving yields in already high-yielding areas does little to improve food security; it mainly helps line the pockets of seed and chemical companies, large-scale growers and producers of corn ethanol."
After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:
Further, the report points out, "the narrative that GE crops will help feed the world ignores the fact that hunger is mostly the result of poverty."
About 70 percent of the world's poor are farmers, report author Emily Cassidy writes, and to raise them out of poverty requires access to basic resources such as fertilizer, water, and the infrastructure to properly store or transport crops to market—not expensive, resource-intensive GMO seeds.
In a blog post on Wednesday, Cassidy writes: "Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/01/new-report-debunks-myth-gmos-are-key-feeding-world
Study upholds value of traditional methods 'shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production'
The biotechnology industry "myth" that feeding billions of people necessitates genetically engineered agriculture has been debunked by a new report out Tuesday by the nonprofit health organization Environmental Working Group.
The report, Feeding the World Without GMOs (pdf), argues that investment in genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has failed to expand global food security. It advocates more traditional methods "shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production."
Over the past 20 years, the report notes, global crop yields have only grown by 20 percent—despite the massive investment in biotechnology.
On the other hand, it continues, in recent decades "the dominant source of yield improvements has been traditional crossbreeding, and that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future."
As the report states, "seed companies' investment in improving yields in already high-yielding areas does little to improve food security; it mainly helps line the pockets of seed and chemical companies, large-scale growers and producers of corn ethanol."
After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:
- Genetically modified crops—primarily corn and soybeans—have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.
- GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in western Europe.
- A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than genetically engineered varieties.
Further, the report points out, "the narrative that GE crops will help feed the world ignores the fact that hunger is mostly the result of poverty."
About 70 percent of the world's poor are farmers, report author Emily Cassidy writes, and to raise them out of poverty requires access to basic resources such as fertilizer, water, and the infrastructure to properly store or transport crops to market—not expensive, resource-intensive GMO seeds.
In a blog post on Wednesday, Cassidy writes: "Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/01/new-report-debunks-myth-gmos-are-key-feeding-world
Last edited:
- Jul 18, 2012
- 8,837
- 4,739
[h5]PlantLab: Urban Farms 40 Times More Productive than Open Fields[/h5]
A Dutch firm on the cutting edge of indoor agriculture estimates that producing food for the entire world could take place in a space far smaller than the area occupied by Holland, using just 10% of the water needed by traditional farms. The proposal is not without precedent – Japan already has one prototype urban farm that is 100 times more productive than farmers’ fields.
Noting that the vast majority of people will live in cities in the coming decades, PlantLab suggests a solution that involves using existing basements and purpose-built structures for our future food production. This means less energy, space, time and water than conventional methods.
Urban farming in controlled environments lets growers take full advantage of variables like custom lighting, using far-red LED lamps in this case that reduce moisture requirements for plants. Naturally, interior spaces are also free from the uncontrolled variables of weather and pests as well, increasingly reliability.
Automatic systems can optimize yields based on crop types, making indoor farms more effective than greenhouses and far more productive than fields. The ever-increasing efficiency and lowering costs of LEDs mean this method will only become more viable over time.
http://weburbanist.com/2015/04/02/plantlab-urban-farms-40-times-more-productive-than-open-fields/
and in Japan...
A Dutch firm on the cutting edge of indoor agriculture estimates that producing food for the entire world could take place in a space far smaller than the area occupied by Holland, using just 10% of the water needed by traditional farms. The proposal is not without precedent – Japan already has one prototype urban farm that is 100 times more productive than farmers’ fields.
Noting that the vast majority of people will live in cities in the coming decades, PlantLab suggests a solution that involves using existing basements and purpose-built structures for our future food production. This means less energy, space, time and water than conventional methods.
Urban farming in controlled environments lets growers take full advantage of variables like custom lighting, using far-red LED lamps in this case that reduce moisture requirements for plants. Naturally, interior spaces are also free from the uncontrolled variables of weather and pests as well, increasingly reliability.
Automatic systems can optimize yields based on crop types, making indoor farms more effective than greenhouses and far more productive than fields. The ever-increasing efficiency and lowering costs of LEDs mean this method will only become more viable over time.
http://weburbanist.com/2015/04/02/plantlab-urban-farms-40-times-more-productive-than-open-fields/
and in Japan...
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
- Nov 3, 2014
- 770
- 581
Hey guys, I watched the film God bless America last night.. it's a few years old, the film had me laughing all the way through, the depiction of the mundane modern day life's endless grind, The mind numbing media we are force fed daily and the stupidity and ignorance of the general masses, all seen from the perspective of a hard working, mild tempered man that just can't seem to catch a break, ultimately driving him to lose his sanity and pushing him over the edge.
I can't say I have not been guilty of these thoughts before ha ha..
I highly reccommend it, for those that have not seen it, it's nothing serious, viewing this film was just a sobering look at what society has become in the modern western world we inhabit and what is wrong with it.
Film Title: God Bless America
Film Plot: Loveless, jobless, possibly terminally ill, Frank has had enough of the downward spiral of America. With nothing left to lose, Frank takes his gun and offs the stupidest, cruelest, and most repellent members of society. He finds an unusual accomplice: 16-year-old Roxy, who shares his sense of rage and disenfranchisement.
IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1912398/
Pm for the DVD stream
it's a few years old, the film had me laughing all the way through, the depiction of the mundane modern day life's endless grind, The mind numbing media we are force fed daily and the stupidity and ignorance of the general masses, all seen from the perspective of a hard working, mild tempered man that just can't seem to catch a break, ultimately driving him to lose his sanity and pushing him over the edge.I can't say I have not been guilty of these thoughts before ha ha..
I highly reccommend it, for those that have not seen it, it's nothing serious, viewing this film was just a sobering look at what society has become in the modern western world we inhabit and what is wrong with it.
Film Title: God Bless America
Film Plot: Loveless, jobless, possibly terminally ill, Frank has had enough of the downward spiral of America. With nothing left to lose, Frank takes his gun and offs the stupidest, cruelest, and most repellent members of society. He finds an unusual accomplice: 16-year-old Roxy, who shares his sense of rage and disenfranchisement.
IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1912398/
Pm for the DVD stream
Last edited:
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
ben roethlisberger
Banned
- Apr 19, 2009
- 2,676
- 1,334
Just came back from vacation in Kauai. Sorry for the late response.
This is why I rarely get into discussions about beliefs. People are attached to beliefs emotionally and once that attachment is established it becomes an extension of the person, resulting irrational debates and hurt feelings. I'm speaking of ET's, not YOU. Let's not bring emotions into this. Let's have an intelligent conversation.
Believing in something or someone you have never seen or experienced is the same exact thing as pretending.
be·lief/bəˈlēf/
noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
pre·tend/prəˈtend/
verb
speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.
lay claim to (a quality or title).
You were confused by what I said, but you actually proved my point. When you were a child, did you come up with your belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa all on your own? Or did your parents tell you they existed? Did the media tell you they existed? Did Hollywood tell you they existed?
Is Thor real? Posiedon? If you were alive only a couple thousand years ago, you'd think Zues and Thor were real, without any proof. Reliant upon hearsay, idealogy and theory, but no proof.
This is exactly the same thing. Different century. Same story. Reality is relative and we are products of our place in space and time. This is no exception.
My only point was that there is absolutely no conclusive proof or evidence of the existence of Extra Terrerestials. Absolutely none. Therefore, anyone who says ET's exist is reliant upon belief.
If this isn't true, please tell me where's the proof of these incremental visits or knowledge?
Remember, we're specifically talking about this physical realm. Not beings in other realms and planes of existence.
Also, I understand that the physical universe is infinite, in theory. I understand that it is very possible that their could be ET's roaming the Universe (multi-verse). But these are probabilities and possibilities. Same as theories. Where's the proof?
Seems like more traps to me.
Last edited:
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
- Sep 4, 2006
- 48,653
- 28,915
depiction of the great antarctosaurus
Last edited:
- Nov 3, 2014
- 770
- 581
The ichthyosaurs were marine predators that looked like modern dolphins, and could reach a massive size during the Triassic period over 200 million years ago.Shastasaurus, the largest marine reptile species ever found, was a variety of ichthyosaur that could grow to over 65 feet (20m), much longer than most other predators. But one of the largest creatures to ever swim the the sea wasn’t exactly a fearsome predator; Shastasaurus was a specialized suction feeder, eating mainly fish.
Dakosaurus was first discovered in Germany and, with its odd reptilian-yet-fishy body, was one of the top predators in the sea during the Jurassic period.Fossil remains have been found across a very widespread distribution, turning up everywhere from England to Russia to Argentina. Though it is commonly compared to modern crocs, Dakosaurus could reach a length of 16 feet (5m). Its unique teeth have led scientists to consider it an apex predator during its reign of terror.
Thalassomedon was a species of Pliosaur whose name translates from Greek to “sea lord” – and for good reason. They were massive predators, reaching lengths of up to 40 feet (12m).Its flippers were nearly 7 feet (2m) long, allowing it to swim the depths with deadly efficiency. Its reign as a top predator lasted through the late Cretaceous period, finally coming to an end when the sea saw new and larger predators like the Mosasaur.
Nothosaurus, only about 13 feet (4m) long, were aggressive hunters. They were armed with a mouth full of sharp, outward-pointing teeth, suggesting a diet of squid and fish. Nothosaurus is thought to have mainly been an ambush predator, using its sleek reptilian figure to sneak up on prey and take it by surprise.It’s believed that Nothosaurs were related to pliosaurs, another variety of deep sea predators. Fossil evidence suggests that they lived during the Triassic period over 200 million years ago.
Tylosaurus was a species of Mosasaur. It was enormous, reaching more than 50 feet (15m) in length.The tylosaurus was a meat eater with a very diverse diet. Stomach remains show signs of fish, sharks, smaller mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, and even some flightless birds. They lived during the late Cretaceous in the seas that covered North America, where they sat firmly atop the marine food chain for several million years.
Only recently discovered, T. saurophagis was the size of a school bus, reaching nearly 30 feet (9m) long. It is an early species of ichthyosaur that lived during the Triassic period, 244 million years ago. Because they were alive shortly after the Permian extinction (Earth’s largest mass extinction, when 95% of marine life is thought to have been wiped out), its discovery is giving scientists new insights into the quick recovery of the ecosystem.
While Tanystropheus was not strictly marine, its diet was mainly fish and scientists think it spent most of its time in the water. Tanystropheus was a reptile that could reach 20 feet (6m) long, and it is thought to have been alive during the Triassic period nearly 215 million years ago.
Liopleurodon was a marine reptile measuring in at more than 20 (6m) feet in length. It mostly lived in the seas that covered Europe during the Jurassic period, and it was one of the top predators around. Its jaws alone are believed to have been over 10 feet long – roughly the distance from the floor to the ceiling.With teeth that big, it’s easy to see why Liopleurodon dominated the food chain.
If the Liopleurodon was huge, than Mosasaurus was colossal.Fossil evidence suggests that Mosasaurus could reach as much as 50 feet (15m) in length, making it one of the largest marine predators of the Cretaceous period. Mosasaurus’s head was like that of a crocodile, lined with hundreds of razor sharp teeth which could kill even the most well-armored enemies.
One of the largest predators in marine history and one of the largest sharks ever recorded, Megalodons were as terrifying as they came.Megalodons prowled the depths during the Cenozoic Era, 28 – 1.5 million years ago, and were a much bigger version of the great white shark, an apex predator of today’s oceans. But while our great whites only reach a maximum length of 20 feet (6m), Megolodons could grow to 65 feet in length (20m) – longer than a school bus!
Last edited:
green rhino123
Bend_The_Knee
Some cryptozoological talk with Les Stroud and Joe Rogan
Starts around 15 minutes in
Last edited:
- May 2, 2012
- 27,111
- 14,584
- Jun 23, 2008
- 2,784
- 610
p4l my new favorite thread after I smoke
- May 20, 2006
- 5,984
- 9,871
I dont necessarily agree or disagree but to say pretend and believe are synonymous is a little disingenuous. The key distinction between the definitions you posted is one is inherently false and the other is not. You go on to compare ET to santa and the Easter bunny. You are displaying the same bias and emotional preconceptions you talk about. You already believe they don't exist therefore equating them to figures whose existence violates the laws of physics is not a large leap for you. I don't mean to come down on you at all cause I love your posts but this is not sound reasoning.
the scientific method, or verifiable proof is hindered and it's utility limited by the ability to gather evidence and perform experiments. But for a scientist its always "true" or "false" and never "not smart enough".
- Sep 4, 2006
- 48,653
- 28,915
note the doll at the very end with one eye open & one eye shut
Last edited:
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- Apr 11, 2008
- 61,807
- 23,555
ben roethlisberger
Banned
- Apr 19, 2009
- 2,676
- 1,334
The comparison was just between things that in one time or another people believed to be real without any evidence or proof; reality is relative. We know Santa or the Easter Bunny don't exist now, but at one point we did believe in them. We know Thor doesn't exist now, but at one point humans in a particular part of the world in a certain time period believed in them. My only point is that reality is relative. I have no bias.
- Status
