Gullibility Test

This topic contains 43 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  t8 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #834041
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    T8:  Then maybe he didn’t type it out one letter at a time. Pay attention. The line could have been part of a list of common answers that he could select from.

    You pay attention.  How many “common answers” are on his list?  How long would he have had to wait for the automatic cursor to hover over that particular common answer so that he could select it by twitching his cheek?  And why would that particular answer be on a list of pre-written common answers, when the gist of the answer is that it takes him a long time to type an answer?  If he didn’t actually type that answer right then and there, the answer itself is a deception, right?  Because the answer itself only works if we believe he typed it right there on the spot, right?

    So the only choices are that Hawking spontaneously typed that answer in one second, or we were deceived into believing he did.  So which is it?

    T8:  …maybe he typed out 3 letters and that whole sentence appeared and he hit enter.

    I addressed this in my last post.  How long would it take him to type out even three letters when he has to wait for the automatic cursor to hover over the letter he wants before he can twitch his cheek to accept it?  More than a second?

    T8:  Mike wakeup. The man had a disability and some smart people created a way for him to communicate fast. If you think this is impossible, then it is only so in your own mind…

    Of course he wasn’t communicating spontaneously, T8.  That’s the point of this thread.  I’m curious to see who will accept facts when they are shown to them, and who will immediately start making up completely absurd excuses when facing evidence that belies their indoctrination.  Guess which group you’re in so far.  🙂

     

    T8:  Weta Digital is not far from where I work. Man you should see the special effects these guys pull off. They did LOTR, Avatar, Planet of the Apes, Maze Runner, etc.

    Maybe they’re the ones who do the ISS special effects too.  😀  Ask them the next time you’re there.  At the very least, they’ll be able to show you how each piece of fakery was done.

    T8:  And here is you thinking it is impossible for Hawking when he was alive to give an answer in 1 second and for a rocket to land back on its platform.

    That’s right… here is I knowing for a fact Hawking couldn’t have been communicating in real time on any answer other than “Yes” and “No”; and that Space X has never landed a rocket backwards onto a barge floating on a wavy sea.

    T8:  Mike, you seem more at home in the Middle Ages when superstition was rife.

    Nothing I’ve pointed out to you has anything to do with superstition.

    T8:  …the weird thing is you were able to see through the lie of the Trinity and now you seem like a paranoid conspiracy guy who cannot reason well.

    Now think hard on that for a while.  Billions believe in a Trinity Godhead for no other reason than that is what they were taught.  Of course it doesn’t take too much of your own research into the Bible to figure out that the Trinity isn’t scriptural, right?  But the reason that the majority of Christians still are Trinitarians is that they stubbornly hold on to the man-made traditions they were originally taught – even when clear and obvious evidence is place right before their eyes.  Do you see a parallel here?  Because I sure do.

    T8:  What happened to the Mike who use to be here 8 years ago? He could reason. Did you start smoking Pot? What exactly happened? Old age perhaps?

    I’ve been reasoning the crap out of you on this one, T8 – just like we both used to reason the crap out of the Trinitarians.  What’s happened is that while I continue to follow observational truth no matter where it leads or how unpopular it makes me, and you don’t.  Heck, maybe you never really did.  I mean, maybe the Trinity was your one and only swan song… the only time you allowed the actual evidence to override the tradition, and took the road less traveled.

    You certainly remember my old thread about cave men – because you brought it up recently.  But while you still believe in this big bang/deep time/evolution crap, I spent a few years doing my own research, and found out that there’s absolutely zero real science behind these fanciful stories.  There is no real science that points to a big bang, or an expanding universe, or billions of suns coming into existence before trillions of planets, or cave men, or a 4.6 billion year old earth.  These are just stories you’ve been told, but you hold so strongly to the man-made traditions that you’re even willing to correct God Himself about how many days it took Him to create the heavens and earth, and about which day He created the sun. Don’t you see a problem here?  Doesn’t it sound a little like this…

    Thessalonians 2:9-12

    The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lieand so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

    My years of researching into the evolution/creation debate taught me that I can trust the Bible over the deep time evolutionists.  My months of researching into flat earth have taught me that I can also trust the Bible over the sun-worshipping heliocentrists.  In fact, I will never doubt the Bible on any subject again.  Ever.

     

     

    #834042
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    How about this scenario…

    Hawking and interviewer start the interview.

    The interviewer asks his first question while cameras are rolling. Then the cameras pause. Hawking types his answer. The cameras begin rolling again and Hawking clicks on his answer, the machine reads it, then the interviewer responds and proceeds to ask his next question. The cameras pause once again while Hawking types his answer then the cameras begin rolling again. Hawking selects his answer, the machine reads it, the interviewer responds and asks the next question. Repeat.

    Seems reasonable and genuine for the situation, right?

    #834068
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    So then like a movie set, Kathi?  I suppose we can allow for multiple takes to get it just right, too?  Sure it could most definitely be done like that… but is that what we were sold as a viewing public?  Or were we led to believe that – as T8 put it – “The man had a disability and some smart people created a way for him to communicate fast” ?

    That’s the point, Kathi.  Not that it couldn’t have been done with action cuts and retakes and everything else they employ on a Hollywood movie set – but that we were clearly led to believe we were seeing ingenious technology that allowed a disabled man to communicate spontaneously during on the spot news interviews.

    T8 says that if I think it is impossible, then it’s only so in my mind.  What do you say now?  Was it possible for Hawking to carry on lengthy spontaneous communication during interviews and even live appearances?

    #834069
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    Okay, next up…

    Who among us believes a hollow aluminum container can cut through a huge steel-girded concrete structure like a knife through warm butter, and come out the other side with it’s aluminum nose cone still intact?

    Oh, and that the nose cone can be sliced off afterwards by thin air?

     

     

    #834078
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Mike,

    Do you know of a “live” appearance where the speed in which Hawking answers is immediate as it seems in this interview?

    The interview did not say it was a live interview, btw. It is not discussing the communication device, also, btw. I don’t know why you feel like the show is trying to make you think that the machine is somehow speaking basically at the speed of thought. They never mention it or discuss the device.

    I think one has to be gullible to think that the producer of the show is trying to fool the audience into believing that the communication is as quick as a thought as it appears to be in the video.

    Anyway, I thought this picture would make a good screen saver for you:

    Picture

    #834079
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Mike,

    Your aluminum can video isn’t playing correctly.

    #834085
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    Interesting.  It’s just a regular GIF, and plays fine on my computer and my phone.  But here’s the same footage on YouTube.  I have it queued to the right spot…

    Also, stop the video at the 1:10 mark, and look at the nose of the plane going behind a separate CGI layer.

    #834088
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    Kathi:  Do you know of a “live” appearance where the speed in which Hawking answers is immediate as it seems in this interview?

    In this live lecture, a question ends at 1:11, and Hawking begins a minute and 20 second answer at 1:21.  So we have an initial 10 second pause before he speaks his first sentence.  Then this sentence is followed by 6 more long sentences with only a second or two pause between each.  After that initial 10 second pause, Hawking rambles off 7 long sentences for a minute and 20 seconds with a total of 10 seconds of pauses in between sentences.  That’s a lot of cheek typing in 10 seconds.

    Here is how Hawking describes his own speech process…

    “ACAT includes a word prediction algorithm provided by SwiftKey, trained on my books and lectures, so I usually only have to type the first couple of characters before I can select the whole word. When I have built up a sentence, I can send it to my speech synthesiser.”

    How long would it take YOU to type the first couple of characters using a cursor that randomly hovers over various letters until you twitch your cheek to select one?  Maybe 3-4 seconds before it happens upon the first letter you want?  Then maybe another 2-3 seconds before it hovers over the second letter you want?  Then another couple of seconds before it hovers over the word you want?  Now you have one single word, Kathi.  And so you have to continue the above process for the second word.  And the third.  And the fourth.  And so on until you have one single sentence you can send to the speech synthesizer.  Remember that’s how Hawking himself described the process.

    So while it’s ludicrous to think he came up with the first sentence in the above video in only 10 seconds, it’s absurd in the highest possible degree to think he was able to produce the six long sentences that followed with only a second or two pause in between each one.

    I asked you in the third post of this thread if you thought Hawking was carrying on impromptu discussions with the people who interviewed him throughout the years via his speech synthesizer.  Instead of answering “Yes” or “No’, you’ve turned this into a diversion about whether or not rational people should have known all along that there were camera cuts, rehearsals, and pre-written scripts.

    To that I say no, because it was never presented to us as such.  Instead, it has always been presented to us as,  The man had a disability and some smart people created a way for him to communicate fast.  If you think this is impossible, then it is only so in your own mind…”

    Do you understand the difference?  T8’s words above are exactly how it was always presented to us.  It was never presented to us as a Hollywood movie with scripts, rehearsals, and camera cuts.  So while I understand that you’re saying T8 and I were gullible fools for believing what they actually told us, and not being as enlightened as you about the Hollywood movie set process that went into Hawking’s interviews, my question to you from the third post is still lacking a direct answer…

    Do you believe that Hawking was able to carry on impromptu interviews where he was answering in real time without rehearsals, camera cuts, and pre-written scripts?  Yes or No?

     

    #834100
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Mike you asked:

    I asked you in the third post of this thread if you thought Hawking was carrying on impromptu discussions with the people who interviewed him throughout the years via his speech synthesizer.

    Yes, it could have been impromptu but with pauses in the filming while he wrote his answers. It is also likely that he was given most or all of the questions ahead of time so he could prepare his answers. I don’t believe that the interview only took as long as the final video presentation. Furthermore, I don’t feel like I have been tricked by the producer.

    #834101
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Mike,

    About your plane video, I believe both towers were hit by planes and it was a terrorist attack. Whether every aspect of the video is authentic or not, I cannot say.

    Images can be edited. People can imagine they are seeing things a certain way but it isn’t that way when the “smoke” clears. I will be visiting the actual site where this happened in a few weeks and will be going to the museum about it. That should be interesting and really sad too.

    Take care, LU

    #834143
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282
    Kathi: Yes, it could have been impromptu but with pauses in the filming while he wrote his answers. It is also likely that he was given most or all of the questions ahead of time so he could prepare his answers.
    im·promp·tu
    adjective & adverb
      “an impromptu press conference”

     

    synonyms: unrehearsedunpreparedunscriptedextempore, extemporized, extemporaneousimprovisedspontaneousunplanned

    The definition of impromptu negates every one of the qualifications you’ve added above.  So I think you mean to say he couldn’t have done it impromptu.

    Plus, in the live lecture I linked, there were no camera pauses.  And if he couldn’t have done it impromptu (without pauses, camera cuts, organization such as getting the questions ahead of time, and rehearsal), then there only remains one follow up question:

    Were we intentionally led to believe that he could?

    #834145
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    Kathi:  I believe both towers were hit by planes and it was a terrorist attack. Whether every aspect of the video is authentic or not, I cannot say.

    It is the exact video showed by every network live.  One anchorman even said, “It looks like it came out the other side” on live TV.

    So the question is:  Can a hollow aluminum container cut through a huge steel-girded concrete structure like a knife through warm butter, and come out the other side with it’s aluminum nose cone still intact?  And can the nose cone can be sliced off afterwards by thin air?

    What is your honest answer?

    #835259
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    Kathi?

    #835272
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    Mike. My view with many or most scheduled interviews are the questions are given in advance. If not, there would to too much delay and answers like “I don’t know” would be all to common and their would be more delay than you see. Hawking aside, the answers come so quickly and are crafted to perfection for the wider audience that it makes you think the questions are already known. And who cares if this is the case. It’s still the answer you would hear, but designed to be better considering the large audience scrutinising the answers. It gives the interviewee the best possible preparation.

    In the case of Hawking, there would be even more case for knowing the questions in advance and in what order too. Then he just clicks question 1s prepared answer and the text to speech start speaking his answer.

    If true, this would answer your question right? Or do you honestly think that no prep is ever done and why would you think that anyway. Media companies would surely have efficiencient strategies they employ  like any other sector or industry has. In Hawking’s case, all the more reasons for preparing the questions beforehand meaning 1 second answers are a breeze.

    #835273
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    So then you agree with me that they did NOT build Stephen Hawking a fancy machine that let him have in depth impromptu conversations – even though they told (and are still telling) us that they did?  Fantastic!

    Now, what about the 9-11 thing?   Can a hollow aluminum container cut through a huge steel-girded concrete structure like a knife through warm butter, and come out the other side with it’s aluminum nose cone still intact?  And can the nose cone then be sliced off afterwards by thin air?

     

    What is your honest answer?

    #835275
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    So then you agree with me that they did NOT build Stephen Hawking a fancy machine that let him have in depth impromptu conversations – even though they told (and are still telling) us that they did?  Fantastic!

    Not exactly. They likely did create a machine to do that. But not in 1 second if that is what you are saying they are saying.

    #835276
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    Now, what about the 9-11 thing?   Can a hollow aluminum container cut through a huge steel-girded concrete structure like a knife through warm butter, and come out the other side with it’s aluminum nose cone still intact?  And can the nose cone then be sliced off afterwards by thin air?

    A plane could enter a glass building and break up causing huge damage and fire from the jet fuel. Can it reenter the other side of the building with the nose still intact? Maybe if it went through glass pushed a few office chairs out of the way, broke through a couple of thin walls, and back out the windows on the other side. But in that case, other parts of the craft would encounter the building frame and likely wouldn’t fare so well.

    #835327
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    If the building was made of nothing but glass and office furniture, you’d still be wrong.  Here are a bunch of photos of planes (many of them passenger airliners) after they hit a bird…

    https://www.google.com/search?q=plane+hits+bird&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk3uyPlrneAhWIJXwKHYqoDMYQ_AUIEygB&biw=1536&bih=674

    But when you look at what the WTC buildings were actually made of, the idea that a plane could fly through it (let alone come out the other side unscathed) is beyond preposterous…

    Look at all those steel girders that covered the entire outside of the WTC towers.  Now keep in mind that every horizontal floor beam you see represents 4-6 inches of poured concrete that made up the floors themselves.  The planes allegedly went through 10 different floors of the buildings.  So not only did hollow aluminum slice through hundreds of industrial strength steel beams, but it also cut right through 10 layers of 4-6 inch concrete floors – from the side! 

    And don’t forget that after the nose cone came out the other side unscathed, it was sliced off clean by thin air according to the official newscast video I’ve posted above.

    Still sounding legit to you?

     

    #835337
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,282

    T8:  Not exactly. They likely did create a machine to do that. But not in 1 second if that is what you are saying they are saying.

    We have all been led to believe that Hawking was able to carry on IMPROMPTU conversations.  You and Kathi agree that he could not, and therefore you agree with me that we’ve been deceived by the media.  You won’t come out and say the words, but trying to make excuses about how it’s normal for interviews to be staged, prepared for, and rehearsed in advance shows that we are in agreement on this issue.  The underlying point of this thread is to demonstrate that most of us have never even thought about these things before.  We were told that Hawking could carry on impromptu discussions via his machine, and we blindly believed what the men in white lab coats said – without even thinking it out for ourselves.

    We’ve been doing that all our lives with all kinds of subjects.  As for me and my household, we will trust in Jehovah and think for ourselves from now on.  🙂

    #835364
     GeneBalthrop 
    Participant
    • Topics started 43
    • Total replies 16,704

    Nike……what this got to do with anything, about the flat earth, you espouse. No one cares if what Hawings machine was doing or not.  There are many thing people don’t know about clearly, unless they go and explore them in depht. Being gullible about such things dosen’t apply to those thing we don’t care about. It thing like ” chemtrails, flat earth therioies, some of us ‘might” care about, and you have proven to us how gullible  you really are about that brother.

    Peace and love to you and yours. …….gene

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2019 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account