It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There are no forests on earth

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

So what do you think about the idea that volcanos are compost heaps and Mt. Everest was a tree... how high?
60km if it´s the stomp?


I mean that is what was so interesting because I have never, ever viewed it as such. Now not saying I agree with his theory but it is none the less very intriguing. Very hard to imagine what you have stated. I just can't see it.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
In other words, bigger than ginormous trees made of silicon, which acted (supposedly) as a sort of wi-fi for Earth.


Some thoughts:

1) The majority of the earth's crust is silicon-dioxide

2) Silicon is the basis for artificial intelligence - perhaps in its natural form it could've been used as a natural intelligence enhancement by humans, especially if there were silicon trees as tall as described in the video.

3) Also, elements in the same column on the periodic table exhibit similar properties, but increase in capabilities as you progress down the periodic column, i.e. bronze, silver, gold. Silicon is beyond carbon in their periodic column, indicating that silicon-based life may have been a higher lifeform. Perhaps carbon-based lifeforms are a lesser form of sentience than silicon-based lifeforms.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

2) Silicon is the basis for artificial intelligence - perhaps in its natural form it could've been used as a natural intelligence enhancement by humans, especially if there were silicon trees as tall as described in the video.


Extremely pure monocrystalline silicon with very complex layers of dopants, glass and conductors on can create a structure that is useful in computational logic. Eating a spoonful of sand is not exactly the same. The silicon is there as a cheap, predictable semiconductor layer that accepts useful dopants. It's not AI in a bottle just because silicon.



3) Also, elements in the same column on the periodic table exhibit similar properties, but increase in capabilities as you progress down the periodic column, i.e. bronze, silver, gold


No, they increase in atomic number as you progress down the column. And bronze ain't on there - it's an alloy.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

So what do you think about the idea that volcanos are compost heaps and Mt. Everest was a tree... how high?
60km if it´s the stomp?


You'd think that mountains would show some evidence of having once been some sort of structured organism instead of much more obviously being the product of plate collision.

The guy's a loon.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

Extremely pure monocrystalline silicon with very complex layers of dopants, glass and conductors on can create a structure that is useful in computational logic. Eating a spoonful of sand is not exactly the same. The silicon is there as a cheap, predictable semiconductor layer that accepts useful dopants. It's not AI in a bottle just because silicon.


You are not seeing the bigger picture. If some intelligent force was behind the creation of these large silicon trees (also, did you even watch the documentary or are you here to poopoo everywhere?) then they would be much more capable than any human-made computers.




No, they increase in atomic number as you progress down the column. And bronze ain't on there - it's an alloy.


I meant Copper*, not bronze. Great find Bedlam! but erroneous to the point I was making. Another example of increasing magnitude down a periodic column is Francium's explosive reaction with water - as you go up the column, this happens to a lesser degree. Elements in the same column share similar properties Silicon is the next progression of Carbon down that particular periodic column.


originally posted by: Bedlam
You'd think that mountains would show some evidence of having once been some sort of structured organism instead of much more obviously being the product of plate collision.

The guy's a loon.


Dude, FFS... WATCH THE VIDEO. How/Why would you scrutinize an argument you haven't even heard?
edit on 10-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

You are not seeing the bigger picture. If some intelligent force was behind the creation of these large silicon trees (also, did you even watch the documentary or are you here to poopoo everywhere?) then they would be much more capable than any human-made computers.


Wow, a chain of unreasonable assumptions!

1) a God that makes silicon trees on a flat Earth
2) Trees that somehow become volcanoes and mountains, although neither show any evidence of ever having been a living structure. Although they DO seem to show evidence of being natural processes
3) Silicon Tree God makes the trees super intelligent computers. Although there is, again, no evidence whatever of this
4) STG goes away and all the trees die (of viruses, maybe?
) and become seemingly natural features
5) and the world, is it still flat? Or did it warp somehow?




Silicon is the next progression of Carbon down that particular periodic column.


Yet, you understand this is not "increasing capability", whatever that means. It's very understandable what the periodic table is and how it's organized, and that's not it.

So your point is basically a non sequitur sort of thing that leaves you asking "Nu?"



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Dude, FFS... WATCH THE VIDEO. How/Why would you scrutinize an argument you haven't even heard?


Nearly an hour and a half of garbage?

Tell ya what...you watch it again and give time indexes to the three or four most telling points, in your opinion. Otherwise, 'watch this long stupid video or you can't comment on it' becomes a Gish Gallop, and there will be endless 'rewatch it, you missed my point' comments.

YOU tell ME what you think the best points are, the ones that make sense to YOU, let's plant that goal post in an unshovable way, and I'll watch his presentation of your selections.

Or, you know, we can trade. I'll find an hour and a half of Feynman lectures, and you have to watch the whole thing, then provide an analytic recap of points I'LL pick, so we know you watched the whole thing several times.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Is this similar to what you are trying to explain? horizon-magazine.eu...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Corruptedstructure
a reply to: cooperton

Is this similar to what you are trying to explain? horizon-magazine.eu...


Yeah that'd be a part of it. If humans can make artificial intelligence out of silicon, then you'd think that higher forms of sentience could have made much more magnificent and useful structures out of silicon.


originally posted by: Bedlam

1) a God that makes silicon trees on a flat Earth


From your first comment it is obvious you haven't watched the video. Yet again - why are you responding? You haven't heard the argument in detail, you haven't seen the pictures or the logic behind it. Watch the video or leave



Or, you know, we can trade. I'll find an hour and a half of Feynman lectures, and you have to watch the whole thing, then provide an analytic recap of points I'LL pick, so we know you watched the whole thing several times.


You sound psychotic. Am I ignorantly posting on forums regarding Feynman lectures? Nope. Surely I would read the lecture/ watch the video before making a post on the topic. So I'm not sure why you're here scrutinizing an argument you haven't heard.
edit on 10-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I read in an older article before (10 years ago?) About trying to allow "self constructing" circuitry because it allowed better performance and less electrical interference with surrounding circuits. Made me think of the branching off of the hexagon in the in the ttrees and snowflakes



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Watch the video or leave


Actually, it sounds like you're a bit afraid to drive some stakes into the points you believe the most in. But, you know, you're right. I'm going to watch it and post a detailed recap of his points, and point out the errors.




You sound psychotic. Am I ignorantly posting on forums regarding Feynman lectures? Nope.


No, you're holding up an unsummarized 90 minute video as a shield. Sort of the way ATSers post link walls and require a refutation of every point on every link. For those posters, like I asked of you, instead of this 'tasks of Hercules' barrier, pick what you think epitomizes the guy's arguments and points, and let's discuss those instead of tossing a media wall up. But you won't. No matter, if you won't, I will feel free to recap the whole thing. Although I think it's going to be less of a fun conversation after. What do YOU think are the salient points, and a discussion about that, is a lot more interactive than 'this guy is a whackadoo and here is why'.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
this thread seems to be filled with people who never watched the video..but are experts on it.
they blather on and on but have no clue what it is about.
this is about a new idea, a new thought about our world which is very interesting.
it does require an imagination, and an ability to think outside the box, outside the matrix.
i have always been open to new ideas,go ahead, make me think, i dare you...well
this gentleman has done that. whether i believe everything he says or not is my burden,
but much of what is presented makes perfect sense. thanks to the OP



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

I believe he is commenting about the loss of "old growth" forest.

There is some truth to it, though not to the level he, the filmmaker, seems to be implying...

I'm an hour or so drive from very old "old growth" forest, that so far as I know, has never been harvested. I've certainly never seen any signs that it's been worked...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: autopat51
this thread seems to be filled with people who never watched the video..but are experts on it.
they blather on and on but have no clue what it is about.


I got about 35 minutes in and quite frankly, I can't take any more. It's a compendium of ignorance and garbage.



this is about a new idea, a new thought about our world which is very interesting.


And very wrong, and very ignorant, and full of logical fallacies.



it does require an imagination, and an ability to think outside the box, outside the matrix.


Imagination is fine, but he's off into delusion at the point I threw in the towel.



but much of what is presented makes perfect sense. thanks to the OP


Which part, exactly?



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: jjkenobi

I believe he is commenting about the loss of "old growth" forest.


No, no, he starts off there. But then it gets stupid.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: jjkenobi

I believe he is commenting about the loss of "old growth" forest.


No, no, he starts off there. But then it gets stupid.


Have you read the title of the second video? The OP conveniently left out a vital part.

Between "on" and "earth" there's a word missing. That word is "flat".
edit on 1082016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Oh, I noticed...

My viewing got interrupted.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
This is as far as I could go...

0:05 The introduction

"this is message to all people. and for Flat Earthers in general"

Ah, jeez. He's a Flat Earther. Really, no need to look further, but let's go.

45 seconds of music and rain sounds

4 minutes of intro, more or less.

4:42 "There is unnatural amount of water at the Earth's poles, and an unnatural amount of carbon dioxide in the world's oceans. These abnormal concentrations tell us exactly about world wide fire of the past. Using simple math, those scientists came to conclusion that those fire carried away 99% of Earth's biosphere."

That's a new one on me. Unattributed by the narrator. I'd LOVE to see even a soundly based conjecture that the polar ice is made up of the water of combustion of 99% of the organisms on Earth, and/or that there is an unnatural amount of CO2 in the ocean.

"We all know that living cells are consist of hydrogen and carbon. So those ice on the poles are made for the most, from wood"

Ok. Let's stop and think about that one. He's stating, rather baldly, that some scientists, unidentified, believe that all carbon dioxide and polar ice comes from burned wood. Bull#.

Here's a big 'citation needed'. It doesn't make sense that polar ice and no other water comes from burned wood. The same with CO2. He's pulling this one out of his butt.

5:40 "and now, think about this number. 99%. It means that everything that now grows, flies, swims and runs on the Earth is 20,000 times less in volume that it was before this catastrophe"

So, he's stating (incorrectly), that because 99% of the volume of polar ice is made from the water of combustion of burned wood from a world wide fire (unattributed, and a major leap), that everything alive is now 1/20000 of the volume it was before the 'fire'.

Well, first, there wasn't a fire. And second, how would you draw to this conclusion, based on that 'fact', other than just popping it out of your ass?


6:59 Some odd comparisons between his putative old biosphere and new, some of it I can't interpret, followed by "Snow and ice are there. It's not going anywhere. Fact is fact. It must be placed on the land" It's tough to follow some of his wording, though, I'm not sure if he's claiming that snow and ice have to be on dry land (not the case for the north polar ice pack) or saying that the old biosphere had to fit in the same land mass.

7:20 A statement that biologists don't understand that the biosphere could have been higher vertically and resolve his dilemma about both polar ice packs being made of burned wood.

8:03 Observation that old sequoias were very tall and large. Implication that other trees were therefore also that large. An incorrect one.

9:43 "For those who think trees were killed just for wood materials, I want to dispel your claims"

Ah, here we go.

"Trees are energy generators"

Bzzt! Nope. They use sunlight. They do not generate energy. They consume sunlight and turn it into tree.

"...they have root network and are programmed to exchange data"

Trees are not programmed. They're an organism. They can exchange chemical cues about beetles and the like, but it's not like they're a computer system.

"Our ancestry had assumed that trees are programmed to keep data about everything on the planet, and saving it in their information portal in the carbon fiber"

Oh, bull#. Seriously? Ok - which ancestry thought that, because I don't know of ANY. Another total fabrication.

10:38 typical blanket denial that anyone knows what really happened in the past except the narrator

10:53 "lesson is so simple. If you take myths and legends of all nations, you can find lots of stories about people and animals and plants morphing into stone." Some rattling on about how the museums are full of fossils of clovers and dinosaurs. Asks question 'so, where are silicon trees?'

11:57 'where are silicon trees, if those giants of carbon are not related to the silicon era?'

At this point, the narrator jumps from finding fossilized plants and animals to silicon trees being from some silicon era. Does he think the fossils of animals and plants he just commented on were silicon ab initio? Apparently he does.

12:42 Narrator claims Grand Canyon is a quarry left by Aryans. Seriously.

13:02 And the Arizona Meteor Crater. An Aryan city 50,000 years ago. Conveniently obliterated by a meteor.

14:30 He's talking about the 'silicon era' again. I didn't hear it wrong.

15:03 "how is it possible for a frog to morph into stone, instead of rot, as all organic bodies do?"

16:00 an observation that if it requires burying plants or animals in mud to cause them to petrify, why don't we go dig up dead pets which will have turned to stone since they were also buried.

16:45 a claim that nothing can fossilize, as it will either have to dry up or rot. Therefore, any fossil was silicon to begin with.

18:00 another that any tree that would have been petrified would have been burned up by the volcano (he thinks a volcano is required), and what didn't burn would have rotted, thus there can be no petrification of trees

18:41 the trees in the Petrified Forest in Arizona are "staged theater" and were cut and transported there by someone

19:11 not only that, they were chosen because they aren't actually trees, they're branches of huge mega-silicon trees so large that sequoias beside them look like 'leetle stick'

20:09 aaaand...Devil's Tower Butte is a tree stump of a mega silicon tree. A beautiful argument from incredulity ensues. "because I don't see how it can form like this otherwise, it must be a tree stump" He tries to claim it couldn't have solidified from a lava fountain. Probably not - and that's not how it was formed, either. So it's a sort of paper tiger incredulity combo.

22:20 he's fixated on the individual columns being hexagonal. Basalt often fractures this way when cooling, into hexagonal columns. But he doesn't address that.

24:06 Because bees and some plants form hexagonal structures, therefore basalt must have been alive because it fractures hexagonally into columns

27:29 "Devil's tower is a giant stump of a giant silicon tree" - because it's a columnar basalt flow, and hexagonal as basalt often is in this case, it's a tree stump

29:00 Giant's Causeway is another giant stump of a giant silicon tree, too, apparently. Yet another argument from incredulity. Tries to compare open lava flow with basaltic columns, finds no visual similarity, therefore all science is wrong and basaltic hex columns are living beings.

32:39 "Official Science realized seriously that they should find how to hide this trees from people who asks too much and invented genius name for silicon stumps - basalt cliffs" He then has yet another argument from incredulity, once more arguing that falling lava couldn't form into columns. Of course, that's not what happened, but it's inconvenient for his argument.

35:31 tries to claim that salt flats that form into hexagonal polygons are also silicon life forms, claims that he searched everywhere for an explanation but there wasn't one (took me a good 30 seconds - it's got to do with convection in the lake that formed the flat). "hexagonal shape belong exclusively to living organism", then immediately brings up snowflakes as an example (?), claims that salt flats are silicon forms of life that were scraped out by adepts of technocrats by their machines. So salt flats were apparently murdered by someone with giant graders.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Bedlam

Oh, I noticed...

My viewing got interrupted.


I was hoping it would turn out to be about cutting old growth being bad. But it went downhill from there. Fast.

It's a bit like reading Time Cube, it takes a certain sort of masochist to keep going. I had to yell calfrope somewhere after the murder of the salt flats.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Found this in the Bible.


Ezekiel 31 (NIV) In the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes: “‘Who can be compared with you in majesty? 3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon, with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest; it towered on high, its top above the thick foliage. 4 The waters nourished it, deep springs made it grow tall; their streams flowed all around its base and sent their channels to all the trees of the field. 5 So it towered higher than all the trees of the field; its boughs increased and its branches grew long, spreading because of abundant waters. 6 All the birds of the sky nested in its boughs, all the animals of the wild gave birth under its branches; all the great nations lived in its shade. 7 It was majestic in beauty, with its spreading boughs, for its roots went down to abundant waters. 8 The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the junipers equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches— no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. 9 I made it beautiful with abundant branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden in the garden of God. 10 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because the great cedar towered over the thick foliage, and because it was proud of its height, 11 I gave it into the hands of the ruler of the nations, for him to deal with according to its wickedness. I cast it aside, 12 and the most ruthless of foreign nations cut it down and left it. Its boughs fell on the mountains and in all the valleys; its branches lay broken in all the ravines of the land. All the nations of the earth came out from under its shade and left it.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join