Author Topic: Stephen/Jenna - California  (Read 23561 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2012, 02:33:13 am »
You can get that level of detail, but you have to use a microscope to do it and it takes a very long time to do it. I used to model things and tried this once using a scope on my spare time at work, it is very slow and to model this drone at that level of detail would take the better part of a year, if not two.

I'm thinking that he did not understand the question of it's size or he has a very poor understanding of reality. But there are those out there who really don't grasp reality.

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2012, 04:50:38 am »
Sure, detail can be added, but if we are to trust the "Inventory" photo, much larger scale is revealed.

Making a model of this magnitude would provide much work, as majicbar describes, and not the most likely thing to
expect in a case like this.

Severe work on this would show, that the gain should have some response, rather different that the obvious one, to attract
some interest in the ongoing event...to me this is not the wanted outcome..

Please forgive me, as nerdy as I might become, this case shows much more detail, look to the "language" that also have had some work
built..we are dealing with a very complex lie, if we trust it to be so..please think, and share your brilliant minds output..

Thinking is a way of learning, so please share your thoughts!!

EVS

PS: This line of thinking might just be the way to solve this entire case, if not only by excluding any theories, then by the possible outcome of genuine logical thinking..have you ever thought of this possibility? Maybe the truth is very near, only dependant on the right way of deciphering the input? Just a thought provoking issue to take on...
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 05:10:26 am by EVS »

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2012, 05:50:58 am »
If we establish it's all a lie, we would have 100 % coverage, if we presume 80 % is a lie, it gives us 20 % to find the truth...that sounds like a well known equation...sure we can't be totally sure, but if all information shows that there is a small percentage that this story is true, we have to work with that margin. Somehow we can from that calculate that "some" is true...and "some" is a lie...if we see it mathemathically, the percentage of all this is quite small, but it sure only takes 1 percentage to make it all real..

It's much like when a beaker runs over, one drop might be the one that shows the entire content of the cup..much like the DNA is a verifiable part of a being...once we match it up..

So, the logical assumption to this case would be 80/20*100/x in first mention, which again shows that this case has a percentage of at least 20 to a hundred to be true...if we calculate the false interventions...so this case might have flaws, but logically it also have a smaller percentage of lie...if you catch my drift?

Conclusionally, and this is where everything is in play, please correct me, some 80 percentage is flaw, and the remaning 20 is true, if we calculate right. So, if some part of the story is true, we rely on that. That gives us the span of appr. 2,5 % being real, if we adjust for flaws..so we see it, as partially real. (80/20*2.5½*80=801/8=100,125)

So if we wan't to see it optimistically, this entire saga might be true, even if the logical amounts are small.

Something tells me, that this is what was intended here, to reveal a very small part that is actually real, embedded into a story that would make most people think it's not true...to reveal evidence that is so much hidden by the story confirmed by someone like "Isaac".

Sure, this is my view, please come forward if you have a different observation..and sure I can't be entirely right, as this is just another assumption..or theory, if you want it to be called that!  :D

EVS
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 07:48:44 am by EVS »

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2012, 05:56:34 am »
Disclosure by revealing only a quick glimpse behind the curtain, and what is shown is so contradictory and unique that even those who are open minded are unsure and nearly alone in their quest for the truth.

Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +37/-26
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2012, 01:21:52 pm »
This is a link to something to consider:

http://confident1.com/socrates-on-self-confidence

â??Just because youâ??ve believed something for a long time doesnâ??t mean its right. It just means youâ??ve believed it for a long time!â?   Craig Harper

So I totally agree with Socrates that challenging our beliefs is a very important thing to be able to do. But I also recognise it can be difficult. The Socratic method boils down to:-

1) Write out a belief as an emphatic  statement

for example â?? If I am well paid I will enjoy my job

2) Find an exception to the statement you have created

Some people are miserable and well paid

3) If you have an exception, then that statement is unsound or imprecise.

4) Change the original statement to take the exception into account.

Being well paid is no guarantee I will enjoy my job, but there is a possibility my enjoyment may increase.

5) Keep looking for exceptions until find a statement that you are unable to disprove.

Now you can find exceptions to most statements and two people can come to â??watertightâ? statements that are polar opposite by following this logical sequence. But thatâ??s not the point.  What is more important you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction why you believe something.

If you work out for yourself why you believe (or not) something â?? whether its in God, your ability to cook a meal or whether a person likes you â?? then it gives you confidence to stand up for that belief. If your belief is simply based on following everyone else (or the opinions and beliefs of parents, peers, teachers or others) then its not so trustworthy.

Here is a link to a video about it:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/philosophy-a-guide-to-happiness/4od#2921726
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 01:25:24 pm by tomi »

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: +51/-0
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2012, 03:53:00 pm »
If you work out for yourself why you believe (or not) something â?? whether its in God, your ability to cook a meal or whether a person likes you â?? then it gives you confidence to stand up for that belief. If your belief is simply based on following everyone else (or the opinions and beliefs of parents, peers, teachers or others) then its not so trustworthy

Point well made, challenge accepted.


It's much like when a beaker runs over, one drop might be the one that shows the entire content of the cup..much like the DNA is a verifiable part of a being...once we match it up..

That also sounds like the "baby in the bathwater" analogy.

Statistics is an appropriate tool for analyzing something from afar when not all the details seen, but the most accurate analysis is observed at the quantum/discrete level.

No matter what this case looks like from afar, there are many discrete facets (in my opinion) which point to a VERY possible reality.

Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +37/-26
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2012, 04:41:59 pm »
I'm not the author of what I wrote in my post, I copied it from the article !  :)
Is questioning one's belief in something like a "Grand Tinkerer" or anything else very personal always necessary?  Or good?  I don't know.

But when it comes to discovery or science or (personal or otherwise) progress it probably is.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 05:04:49 pm by tomi »

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2012, 07:22:58 pm »
Something tells me, that this is what was intended here, to reveal a very small part that is actually real, embedded into a story that would make most people think it's not true...to reveal evidence that is so much hidden by the story confirmed by someone like "Isaac".

Sure, this is my view, please come forward if you have a different observation..and sure I can't be entirely right, as this is just another assumption..or theory, if you want it to be called that!  :D
I don't see it this way.  I look at most of it as purely accidental, at least the parts that can generally be trusted.  Some parts were added and those definitely do have intent.  All in all, I believe the core parts of the saga were as Isaac put it, "inadvertently triggered".

It's not hard to imagine that in all the years of secrecy that one day a mistake would be made.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 07:25:22 pm by 10538 »

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2012, 05:18:16 pm »
Something tells me, that this is what was intended here, to reveal a very small part that is actually real, embedded into a story that would make most people think it's not true...to reveal evidence that is so much hidden by the story confirmed by someone like "Isaac".

Sure, this is my view, please come forward if you have a different observation..and sure I can't be entirely right, as this is just another assumption..or theory, if you want it to be called that!  :D
I don't see it this way.  I look at most of it as purely accidental, at least the parts that can generally be trusted.  Some parts were added and those definitely do have intent.  All in all, I believe the core parts of the saga were as Isaac put it, "inadvertently triggered".

It's not hard to imagine that in all the years of secrecy that one day a mistake would be made.

You certainly might be very right, but how can we prove it?

Cheers, and thanks,
EVS

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Stephen/Jenna - California
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2012, 05:52:47 pm »
This is a link to something to consider:

http://confident1.com/socrates-on-self-confidence

â??Just because youâ??ve believed something for a long time doesnâ??t mean its right. It just means youâ??ve believed it for a long time!â?   Craig Harper

So I totally agree with Socrates that challenging our beliefs is a very important thing to be able to do. But I also recognise it can be difficult. The Socratic method boils down to:-

1) Write out a belief as an emphatic  statement

for example â?? If I am well paid I will enjoy my job

2) Find an exception to the statement you have created

Some people are miserable and well paid

3) If you have an exception, then that statement is unsound or imprecise.

4) Change the original statement to take the exception into account.

Being well paid is no guarantee I will enjoy my job, but there is a possibility my enjoyment may increase.

5) Keep looking for exceptions until find a statement that you are unable to disprove.

Now you can find exceptions to most statements and two people can come to â??watertightâ? statements that are polar opposite by following this logical sequence. But thatâ??s not the point.  What is more important you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction why you believe something.

If you work out for yourself why you believe (or not) something â?? whether its in God, your ability to cook a meal or whether a person likes you â?? then it gives you confidence to stand up for that belief. If your belief is simply based on following everyone else (or the opinions and beliefs of parents, peers, teachers or others) then its not so trustworthy.

Here is a link to a video about it:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/philosophy-a-guide-to-happiness/4od#2921726

Hi tomi, very good post, I'll have to investigate this a bit further, then I'll return hopefully with more information.. ;)

Cheers,
EVS