Archive Listing
October 27, 2011 - October 20, 2011
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wayback
John Titor. Time-traveling soldier from a post-apocalyptic future with a functioning internet. He was wrong about civil war breaking out in 2005, sure, but that computer thing he "guessed" right was pretty dope.
John Titor. Time-traveling soldier from a post-apocalyptic future with a functioning internet. He was wrong about civil war breaking out in 2005, sure, but that computer thing he "guessed" right was pretty dope.
TO YESTERDAY! Observations and questions about the time-travel video from someone who doesn't need it to be true or false.
1. Where's the phone? I see the hand held up to the head, I see the "woman" (totally does look like a man) clearly talking, but I'm not seeing any supposed "thin black device." What I do see is a shadow exactly where a shadow ought to be given the sunlight. Now, it's possible that the phone is totally subsumed by his hand, but, as I'll elaborate in 2 and 3, that's not exactly a compelling argument.
2. Billy O is right: No cell towers in 1928. It could be that the man is using some kind of more advanced cell phone that doesn't need massive networks of towers like ours do. But then it seems counterintuitive (but it isn't necessarily impossible) that a phone so advanced would be something you'd have to hold up to your ear-- at a certain point in that technology's progressive miniaturization, it makes more sense to simply have it attach to the ear, rather than having to unfold it with your fingertips like that gag in "Zoolander."
That's all speculation on my part, granted. BUT, conceivably, practically (if common sense can be made to apply to a question like time-travel), what kind of cell phone could work in 1928 that you'd have to hold?
3 (2a). To me, it looks like his fingers flutter. So he's not using his fingers to hold this phone. So it does seem like he'd have to be palming a super tiny Zoolander phone.
There's other questions, and the footage doesn't give us enough grist for the answer mill. Who's doing the time-traveling? The military? You'd think a time-traveling soldier would be trained to avoid a giant 1928 camera set up in broad daylight across the street. So if not the military, who? A private citizen who wanted to see an obscure Chaplin flick on opening day? Not... as inconceivable, come to think of it.
But again, no visible phone. For my money, this is the convincing time-traveler caught on film:
Scruffy hipster, sixty years early. As the article explains, everything the guy's wearing is period appropriate... except they're wrong about the "embroidered sweater." That shirt underneath does not look embroidered, nor does it look sweateresque. It looks like screen-printed T-shirt replete with modern faux distress. And does the camera he's holding look anything like that "turn of the century Kodak Folding Camera"? I can't see it in detail (although, unlike Chuck Chaplin's Droid, I can see it), but it looks a lot like an higher-end Canon or Nykon to these eyes.
And who would choose to dress like this in 1940? In public? Here's what this is. This dude is what he looks like: a time-traveling hipster, who brought his hipster fashion sense into a 1940 Woolworths and got off, in his smug, ironic hipster way, on putting together an outfit that was technically period correct but still reflected his "individuality."
And he's in Canada. Which makes him, because why would anyone else travel to Canada's past, a Canadian. Which is, like, triple hipster. This is not the ambassador I want representing my era-- though he's probably the ambassador my era deserves.
One more thing. I appreciate DJMoore's clarification that he doesn't surrender his judgment part and parcel to scientific orthodoxy. But his definition of mainstream physics as "stuff that's passed repeated experimental verification" is suspiciously reductive. There is such a thing as theoretical physics, and it too has a mainstream. And his anecdotal evidence for the prudence of skeptical restraint-- face on Mars, Iapetus' dark side-- suggest his knoweldge of real scientific mysteries is limited. In honor of the great Zecharia Sitchin's recent passing, here's a quick anecdote of a time prudent skepticism came up snake eyes.
How... INDEEEEEEED?
MAD AS HELL. Election season is the best of times and the worst of times. You get oceans of the hackneyed stuff that seems like it could have been written months ago, but you also get some of the best thinking by some of the smartest people, as well as the occasional bit of behind the scenes news. So I'm going kind of InstaPundit today, only without the smarmy bottom-lining. You can do that for yourself. Read this stuff. Seems like a short list but it encompasses the current subversions of free speech, the constitution, the judiciary, and the American way of life.
Victor Davis Hanson.
Thomas Sowell.
Andrew McCarthy.
And Stanley Kurtz interviewed by the Pope.
Celebrate the coming victory, but not too much. Every one of us has to vote. And none of us can forget for even a moment how hard the job of rescuing our country is going to be. The liberal disease is deep and deadly. November 2 will be only the beginning of the necessary counter-offensive against our nation's enemies.
Report back with your own thoughts as you see fit.
P.S. And from the governor you want but can't have as president...
I like the thought. BE impatient.
STAY MAD, BUT.... The news today is completely nuts. Time to take a break and remember that life is inherently mysterious. You can go here, here, and here to see big-time mysteries, which are fun even though some of them -- e.g., Dahlia, Zodiac -- may actually have been solved (which is good news). Like this one:
This one's gotten a lot of attention in recent years. The Egyptologists
are really upset about the fact that anyone would question their dating
based on something as dumb as geology. Because they know better than
geology. The good news? The mystery may be solved. Not by Egyptologists
or geologists. But by common
sense that makes Egyptologists and geologists both look dumb. Kewl.
Funny thing about experts. They're always so damn sure they miss the
obvious things all the time.
The Sphinx isn't a lion. It's a dog. (The pharaoh head was always too small. Obviously.) Why the Egyptologists can find no historical mention of it in hieroglyphics. The monument of the canine god of death Anubis, however, is mentioned repeatedly. Duh.
Next up is something that's apparently only a mystery to me, but it's a galling one. I thought I knew something about cursing. Here's a post by Rich Lowry today at the National Review Corner blog:
And there's this from the comments section:
Our final mystery is the one represented by the YouTube video up top. Here's the story:
I have to admit it gives me pause. What do you think?
THE SCARF OFF YOUR CLOTHESLINE. We're going to take back the House of Representatives. That much is certain. Nothing else is. It will be a holding action for two years. Obama will be able to veto what offends him, and he will. He's no Clinton. He's a true believer, one who hates America and more importantly Americans. The media will remain on his side, because they also hate Americans.
So I'm thinking of this song. I know Tom Waits is probably another lefty wingnut, but it doesn't matter. He's a poet. Ordinary rules don't apply to poets. I'm thinking of this song for half a dozen reasons, only a few which I'll share with you.
First, my wife is a Jersey girl. She's not buying all the Obama crap. Sha la la la la la la la.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is the first man to stand up against the corrupt, overweening ambitions of big government at the state level. He's married to his own Jersey girl. Sha la la la la la la la.
And Tom Waits has always loved the people Katie Couric and Barack Obama deride as dirty clingers to such small things as religion and personal liberty.
We once recommended that Obama take the time to learn something about his country, our great country. He didn't bother. Life and love aren't things they teach you at the Harvard Law School. Sadly, the President of the United States is a dry stick convinced of his own superiority to all of us.
His last chance is coming up after next Tuesday. He can choose to learn about the people who have midnight breakfasts at diners and go back to work on the graveyard shift, or he can join Jimmy Carter in the ashbin of American presidential history. All it requires is seeing human beauty where all you saw before was units in a social engineering project. Sha la la la la la la la.
Sometimes you have to lose before you can win. Another lesson from Tom Waits:
If I have to explain, you'll never understand.
P.S. An afterthought. Why would anyone ever try to cover Tom Waits? It just exposes them as slick, glossy fakers.
Springsteen is a mega-millionaire mogul. Why he shills for the John Kerrys of the world. He has lost any right he ever had to sing this song. And his version sucks.
And whatever convinced Rod Stewart that it was a good idea to cover this darkly lovely ballad?
Yeah. I bear a grudge. I saw Waits at the Philadelphia Academy of Music. Maybe the best concert I ever saw. He plays the piano like a slumming Chopin. He sings like he'll be dead by midnight.
1. Where's the phone? I see the hand held up to the head, I see the "woman" (totally does look like a man) clearly talking, but I'm not seeing any supposed "thin black device." What I do see is a shadow exactly where a shadow ought to be given the sunlight. Now, it's possible that the phone is totally subsumed by his hand, but, as I'll elaborate in 2 and 3, that's not exactly a compelling argument.
2. Billy O is right: No cell towers in 1928. It could be that the man is using some kind of more advanced cell phone that doesn't need massive networks of towers like ours do. But then it seems counterintuitive (but it isn't necessarily impossible) that a phone so advanced would be something you'd have to hold up to your ear-- at a certain point in that technology's progressive miniaturization, it makes more sense to simply have it attach to the ear, rather than having to unfold it with your fingertips like that gag in "Zoolander."
That's all speculation on my part, granted. BUT, conceivably, practically (if common sense can be made to apply to a question like time-travel), what kind of cell phone could work in 1928 that you'd have to hold?
3 (2a). To me, it looks like his fingers flutter. So he's not using his fingers to hold this phone. So it does seem like he'd have to be palming a super tiny Zoolander phone.
There's other questions, and the footage doesn't give us enough grist for the answer mill. Who's doing the time-traveling? The military? You'd think a time-traveling soldier would be trained to avoid a giant 1928 camera set up in broad daylight across the street. So if not the military, who? A private citizen who wanted to see an obscure Chaplin flick on opening day? Not... as inconceivable, come to think of it.
But again, no visible phone. For my money, this is the convincing time-traveler caught on film:
Scruffy hipster, sixty years early. As the article explains, everything the guy's wearing is period appropriate... except they're wrong about the "embroidered sweater." That shirt underneath does not look embroidered, nor does it look sweateresque. It looks like screen-printed T-shirt replete with modern faux distress. And does the camera he's holding look anything like that "turn of the century Kodak Folding Camera"? I can't see it in detail (although, unlike Chuck Chaplin's Droid, I can see it), but it looks a lot like an higher-end Canon or Nykon to these eyes.
And who would choose to dress like this in 1940? In public? Here's what this is. This dude is what he looks like: a time-traveling hipster, who brought his hipster fashion sense into a 1940 Woolworths and got off, in his smug, ironic hipster way, on putting together an outfit that was technically period correct but still reflected his "individuality."
And he's in Canada. Which makes him, because why would anyone else travel to Canada's past, a Canadian. Which is, like, triple hipster. This is not the ambassador I want representing my era-- though he's probably the ambassador my era deserves.
One more thing. I appreciate DJMoore's clarification that he doesn't surrender his judgment part and parcel to scientific orthodoxy. But his definition of mainstream physics as "stuff that's passed repeated experimental verification" is suspiciously reductive. There is such a thing as theoretical physics, and it too has a mainstream. And his anecdotal evidence for the prudence of skeptical restraint-- face on Mars, Iapetus' dark side-- suggest his knoweldge of real scientific mysteries is limited. In honor of the great Zecharia Sitchin's recent passing, here's a quick anecdote of a time prudent skepticism came up snake eyes.
The Sumerians also counted planets from the perspective of the space-faring gods on Nibiru, from the outside in, calling earth the seventh, rather than the third rock from the sun. And, with a stunning flash of insight, they wrote that when viewed from “on high” in the heavens, Uranus and Neptune looked like “blue-green watery twins.” Most astronomers assumed anything past Saturn was likely to be a cold dead rock, so it came as quite a surprise to see photographs from Voyager 2 in 1986, and again in 1989, proving the Sumerians were right. Uranus and Neptune were made of blue-green slush.
How could the Sumerians know such things? How could they know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were even there, much less how they looked if viewed up close in space? We didn’t learn about the existence of those three planets until 1781, 1846, and 1930, respectively. How could the Sumerians know about any of it, much less all of it?
How could the Sumerians know such things? How could they know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were even there, much less how they looked if viewed up close in space? We didn’t learn about the existence of those three planets until 1781, 1846, and 1930, respectively. How could the Sumerians know about any of it, much less all of it?
How... INDEEEEEEED?
posted at
12:39 pm
by
Brizoni
More
Fuel for
the Fire
"Is
it enough?" More than enough, Mr. President.
MAD AS HELL. Election season is the best of times and the worst of times. You get oceans of the hackneyed stuff that seems like it could have been written months ago, but you also get some of the best thinking by some of the smartest people, as well as the occasional bit of behind the scenes news. So I'm going kind of InstaPundit today, only without the smarmy bottom-lining. You can do that for yourself. Read this stuff. Seems like a short list but it encompasses the current subversions of free speech, the constitution, the judiciary, and the American way of life.
Victor Davis Hanson.
Thomas Sowell.
Andrew McCarthy.
And Stanley Kurtz interviewed by the Pope.
Celebrate the coming victory, but not too much. Every one of us has to vote. And none of us can forget for even a moment how hard the job of rescuing our country is going to be. The liberal disease is deep and deadly. November 2 will be only the beginning of the necessary counter-offensive against our nation's enemies.
Report back with your own thoughts as you see fit.
P.S. And from the governor you want but can't have as president...
I like the thought. BE impatient.
posted at
1:50 pm
by
InstaPunk
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Mysteries Large
and Small:
1 Solved(?), 1 Solvable, and 1 Impossible
1 Solved(?), 1 Solvable, and 1 Impossible
It's
a mys-ter-ee...
STAY MAD, BUT.... The news today is completely nuts. Time to take a break and remember that life is inherently mysterious. You can go here, here, and here to see big-time mysteries, which are fun even though some of them -- e.g., Dahlia, Zodiac -- may actually have been solved (which is good news). Like this one:
Mystery
of the Sphinx
The iconic symbol of the Pharaohs might actually out date them by a good few thousand years. What? How is this possible you say? Evidence related to the positioning of the Sphinx and the type of erosion on the tail versus the head (water erosion from rain versus wind erosion from a dessert climate) are strong indicators.
The iconic symbol of the Pharaohs might actually out date them by a good few thousand years. What? How is this possible you say? Evidence related to the positioning of the Sphinx and the type of erosion on the tail versus the head (water erosion from rain versus wind erosion from a dessert climate) are strong indicators.
Robert Temple reveals that the Sphinx
was originally a monumental Anubis, the Egyptian jackal god, and that
its face is that of a Middle Kingdom Pharaoh, Amenemhet II, which was a
later re-carving. In addition, he provides photographic evidence of
ancient sluice gate traces to demonstrate that, during the Old Kingdom,
the Sphinx as Anubis sat surrounded by a moat filled with water--called
Jackal Lake in the ancient Pyramid Texts--where religious ceremonies
were held. He also provides evidence that the exact size and position
of the Sphinx were geometrically determined in relation to the pyramids
of Cheops and Chephren and that it was part of a pharaonic resurrection
cult.
The Sphinx isn't a lion. It's a dog. (The pharaoh head was always too small. Obviously.) Why the Egyptologists can find no historical mention of it in hieroglyphics. The monument of the canine god of death Anubis, however, is mentioned repeatedly. Duh.
Next up is something that's apparently only a mystery to me, but it's a galling one. I thought I knew something about cursing. Here's a post by Rich Lowry today at the National Review Corner blog:
It Must Be Election Season!
October 27, 2010 11:59 A.M. By Rich Lowry
From my fan mail this morning (no, it’s not from Al Franken’s e-mail account, in case you were wondering):
**** *** and your kind you misinforming, obfuscating, partisan, loudmouth *** ****** *******. I just saw you on Faux Noise spreading your baseless, Obama-hating opinions across America like butter on toast. This is nothing short of treasonous you ************* ********. Talk straight or **** *** **** ** - otherwise, **** *** and die you confused *** ** ****.
October 27, 2010 11:59 A.M. By Rich Lowry
From my fan mail this morning (no, it’s not from Al Franken’s e-mail account, in case you were wondering):
**** *** and your kind you misinforming, obfuscating, partisan, loudmouth *** ****** *******. I just saw you on Faux Noise spreading your baseless, Obama-hating opinions across America like butter on toast. This is nothing short of treasonous you ************* ********. Talk straight or **** *** **** ** - otherwise, **** *** and die you confused *** ** ****.
And there's this from the comments section:
It's what comes after "loudmouth" and
"treasonous you" that intrigues me. The rest of them (****) are kind of
obvious after a simple count.
uh, not to me. I'm getting maybe half of the asterisk text. Help me
out, kids. It's embarrassing but my curiosity is stronger than my
humiliation.Our final mystery is the one represented by the YouTube video up top. Here's the story:
'Time Traveler' Spied in 1928 Chaplin Film
Has someone already gone back from the
future?
This week, the makers of Back To The Future kicked off celebrations marking the 25th anniversary of the release of the original movie starring Michael J. Fox. In the same week, an Irish independent filmmaker has gone public with what he says is footage of a time traveller caught walking through a scene on a recent DVD release of Charlie Chaplin's 1928 film, The Circus.
"I believe I'm the first person to find something quite unusual from a bit of film footage from 1928," Clarke said. The scene can be found in the extras menu in Documents, under The Hollywood Premiere.
It's not in the movie -- it's real footage and it features real members of the public in 1928. Or does it, asked Clarke, who spotted a mysteriously dressed stranger walking past the camera talking into what he says can only be a mobile phone.
"The only conclusion I can come to -- which sounds absolutely ridiculous I'm sure, to some people -- is it's a time traveller," he said. "When you're looking at a bit of 1928 footage with an old woman ... on a mobile phone, it's kind of strange. You can't explain it."
This week, the makers of Back To The Future kicked off celebrations marking the 25th anniversary of the release of the original movie starring Michael J. Fox. In the same week, an Irish independent filmmaker has gone public with what he says is footage of a time traveller caught walking through a scene on a recent DVD release of Charlie Chaplin's 1928 film, The Circus.
"I believe I'm the first person to find something quite unusual from a bit of film footage from 1928," Clarke said. The scene can be found in the extras menu in Documents, under The Hollywood Premiere.
It's not in the movie -- it's real footage and it features real members of the public in 1928. Or does it, asked Clarke, who spotted a mysteriously dressed stranger walking past the camera talking into what he says can only be a mobile phone.
"The only conclusion I can come to -- which sounds absolutely ridiculous I'm sure, to some people -- is it's a time traveller," he said. "When you're looking at a bit of 1928 footage with an old woman ... on a mobile phone, it's kind of strange. You can't explain it."
I have to admit it gives me pause. What do you think?
posted at
1:33 pm
by
InstaPunk
We, the Unwashed
THE SCARF OFF YOUR CLOTHESLINE. We're going to take back the House of Representatives. That much is certain. Nothing else is. It will be a holding action for two years. Obama will be able to veto what offends him, and he will. He's no Clinton. He's a true believer, one who hates America and more importantly Americans. The media will remain on his side, because they also hate Americans.
So I'm thinking of this song. I know Tom Waits is probably another lefty wingnut, but it doesn't matter. He's a poet. Ordinary rules don't apply to poets. I'm thinking of this song for half a dozen reasons, only a few which I'll share with you.
First, my wife is a Jersey girl. She's not buying all the Obama crap. Sha la la la la la la la.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is the first man to stand up against the corrupt, overweening ambitions of big government at the state level. He's married to his own Jersey girl. Sha la la la la la la la.
And Tom Waits has always loved the people Katie Couric and Barack Obama deride as dirty clingers to such small things as religion and personal liberty.
We once recommended that Obama take the time to learn something about his country, our great country. He didn't bother. Life and love aren't things they teach you at the Harvard Law School. Sadly, the President of the United States is a dry stick convinced of his own superiority to all of us.
His last chance is coming up after next Tuesday. He can choose to learn about the people who have midnight breakfasts at diners and go back to work on the graveyard shift, or he can join Jimmy Carter in the ashbin of American presidential history. All it requires is seeing human beauty where all you saw before was units in a social engineering project. Sha la la la la la la la.
Sometimes you have to lose before you can win. Another lesson from Tom Waits:
If I have to explain, you'll never understand.
P.S. An afterthought. Why would anyone ever try to cover Tom Waits? It just exposes them as slick, glossy fakers.
Springsteen is a mega-millionaire mogul. Why he shills for the John Kerrys of the world. He has lost any right he ever had to sing this song. And his version sucks.
And whatever convinced Rod Stewart that it was a good idea to cover this darkly lovely ballad?
Yeah. I bear a grudge. I saw Waits at the Philadelphia Academy of Music. Maybe the best concert I ever saw. He plays the piano like a slumming Chopin. He sings like he'll be dead by midnight.
