Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 14, 2020 11:52:07 GMT -8
I found this explanation to be somewhat confusing but it's something:
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Feb 14, 2020 12:14:33 GMT -8
I wonder how many of us could walk upright in that tunnel. Granted, they don't show a scale, but I just get the impression somehow that it isn't very high. Making those pyramids was FAR more complex than just laying blocks on blocks.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 14, 2020 14:50:53 GMT -8
There’s a moderately interesting documentary on camouflage. Love the dazzle ships. But this doesn’t go very deeply in to it.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 14, 2020 15:30:49 GMT -8
One can almost be forgiven thinking that space aliens had a hand in building them. That is a lot of rock to carve, move, and set in place…and with a fair amount of precision.
And although there were prior pyramids whose failures and flaws they could learn from, there was no real track record to go by, and certainly no computer modeling for testing concepts. But they must have tested things (one presumes) in some way before they went to the finished product. It’s a real shame almost nothing exists that shows how they were constructed.
They obviously had some very solid theory because they were successful. But when there has not been a long string of engineering evolution before you to learn from, it’s like building the Brooklyn Bridge having only ever managed a goat path across a creek before that.
The Democrats can't count vote in a small-state election. But these Egyptians more or less built the space shuttle first try and it worked.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 12, 2020 20:48:18 GMT -8
Mr. Kung, you might be interested in a documentary I watched today on CuriosityStream: Andrew Marr on Churchill: Blood, Sweat and Oil PaintYou don’t have to be an artist geek or love art to appreciate this. Marr gives a sensitive, honest, and respectful review of Churchill’s life in regards to his painting. I didn’t find him heavy-handed or a know-it-all. I think he explains very well in a way I’d never heard before of how central painting was to his life. This would be a good excuse to do a free trial of CuriosityStream on your Roku. In either case, KBO.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Mar 12, 2020 20:53:38 GMT -8
I will have to look into that. Many years ago, I read or saw someone, I believe a major contemporary artist, say that had Churchill devoted his life to art instead of politics that he would likely have become one of the great painters of the twentieth century, or words to that effect.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 12, 2020 21:05:55 GMT -8
One of the interesting factoids is that, at the time of the making of this (2015), it is Brad Pitt who owns the painting that Churchill made for Roosevelt and gifted to him while FDR was visiting him in North Africa. I guess that raises my opinion of Brad Pitt a bit. I just hope he bought it more for Churchill than for FDR.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 31, 2021 8:46:32 GMT -8
There was an interesting documentary on Curiosity Stream (a documentary subscription channel) titled Hitler’s Gold. The perspective of the documentary is “Who financed Hitler?” My one criticism is that you’re never going to find a series titled “Who Financed Stalin?” or “Who Financed Mao?” on these channels. So it’s basically taking all the hate at “fascists” and throwing it at Hitler and his regime. And they are, of course, deserving of that and more. But I’m just saying that I’m sure these same libtard commentators who despise Hitler have little criticism for Mao or Stalin. That said, the documentary is fairly detailed and mostly delivers on its promise of cataloging the financial aspects of The Third Reich. Clearly they understand that Nazism is an ideological movement. But they also recognize that at least part of the whole “Lebensraum” project is that they simply needed the plunder to keep financing their very expensive military machine. And as much as we should scorn IBM, Ford, and other America companies for collaborating with the Nazis, will these same documentarians make a film about how the Western press, in particular, were in love with Stalin and willingly mislead by his propaganda? Most of you already realize this and have this awareness as a backdrop. What I found particularly interesting (assuming the documentary provides a truthful account) is how most Nazis got off Scot free despite the show trials at Nuremberg. If it were me, I would have, day one, put all those who had served in the SS up against the wall and dispatched them. But most Nazis got no or light sentences. And the documentary was either incomplete or just plain dishonest regarding why. I think the big “why” is that the Allies needed to get Germany up and running, if only as a hedge against Stalin. And this isn’t about “Hitler’s Gold,” per se. As one supposed expert said, if you’re looking for Hitler’s gold, it’s most likely underneath the streets of Switzerland (meaning, in the vaults of a Swiss bank). The one disappointing aspect in this series, despite all the talk of bankers and where the funds came from, is that there is almost no perspective on the amounts in relation to the whole. How much was the Nazi Party funded by its members and how much by bankers? How much did The Third Reich actually depending upon looting from other countries, including what they stole from the Jews that they murdered? There is no perspective. Perhaps they just don’t have these numbers. Even so, no attempt is made to give an overall picture, even if to say that they don't know. The documentary supposes there is still a lot of loot out there (particularly art) in the hands of private collectors. And they go out of their way to suggest that most stories of Nazi gold caches are just myth. But it’s interesting that I ran across a current story: Hunt for 48 crates of Hitler’s gold worth $900 million hidden in Polish palace. Myth or legend, the hunt goes on.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 3, 2021 10:17:53 GMT -8
So I’m watching this documentary on dinosaurs from about 2008 or so. One of the topics is the various (5) large mass extinctions that have apparently occurred. One “scientist” says that because of global warming and deforestation, by 2020 over 75% of earth’s species would be gone.
Check your calendar. Maybe he was using an old Mayan Calendar or something where “2020” is really tens of thousands of years ahead of us.
Bottom line is that The Church of Global Warming (sometimes known as “Environmental Wackoism”) has corrupted science completely. This other jackass I read (elsewhere) said that well, of course, “climate change” is real and very harmful because some places have had especially hot summers or bad rainy seasons.
And certainly if you heated the earth up several degrees (although “climate change” seems agnostic about whether temperatures are going up or down), you might notice some changes. But this idiot “scientist” has never stopped to consider that each and every year — probably for the past bazillion years — somewhere on earth there are extremes of hot or cold, rain or drought, hurricanes or lack of same, etc. These “scientists” are fomenting what is basically rank superstition.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jun 4, 2022 9:29:54 GMT -8
Well, I canceled the Curiosity Stream channel...again. It was coming up for annual renewal (only $20.00) June 6. But I rarely watch it anymore. I browsed through it this morning and tried to watch a couple things. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
But the problem is, almost all of these documentaries are fairly shallow. Yes, there are a couple with David Attenborough that I would mark up as real, traditional documentaries. But most of the rest are just posing as documentaries. A narrator says bland nothings while (and I do admit) the screen is filled with some of the most wonderful cinematography. But the informational content remains shallow.
And even the ones on "science" tend to b3 centered not on science, per se, but sort of on the scientific equivalent of "wokeness." Every question can be explained by "evolution" or some other label without actually explaining anything. The real "why" or "how" question remain often untouched. There are a lot of documentary presenters who do the equivalent of trying to bamboozle with bullshit. Not all of the presenters are as flagrantly scientifically religious as Neil deGrasse Tyson. But I believe most of them are trying to imitate this scientific-materialist zealot in some way, shape, or form.
|
|