Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Isolder74

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Fail Quotes
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:13:16 PM »
And +Lucas Howes flat out lying about my posts.  /sigh
So he bitches about me and others arguing about an ice cream video...while he participates.  And he trolled me.  Blah. This is what happens when you post late at night without sleep. But yeah, for the bigoted comments "HUR DUR YOU AUTIST!" etc he gets blocked and reported.  Bigoted douche.

When these people are consistent and actually start calling out the organic food, the cage free/'cruelty free', non-GMO and other scams and examples of what I call Gourmet Bling (much love to Cracked.com for that phrase), I them more seriously. Until then, I'll take them about as seriously as a morbidly obese man selling a diet book.  Of course it's always the generic, cheapo brands/foods they go after (as Dallen mentioned :) ).  Never the fancy hoity toity crap like Spanish Souffle (1/4+ a stick of butter in every serving).
Folks, if you're gonna play the "WAH THAT'S DISGUSTING AND BAD AND SHOULDN'T BE EATEN!" moral outrage card, go all the way, or go home.  This selective (fake) indignation crap is complete bogosity.

A lot of the time the only way that Organic food is in any way an improvement in quality based on the price is if you can buy it VERY locally, meaning that the transport time is short enough that produce picked ripe can actually make it to the market in a sellable state.  Most produce organic or otherwise is usually picked green in order to ensure as long of a transport chain as possible.  In fact the longer it has to travel the lower in taste it will have.  There are fruits that have to picked without being ripe first(such as pears and avocados) but those are limited.  Even some that can be fine green, like apples, are better picked ripe off the tree. 

When it comes to "cage free" or any other marketing buzz because the regulations are only strict when it comes to organic those can mean nothing more then a building where the animals are kept just standing around.  Free range can just mean they open the door once a day.  Pasture raised they at least have to let them out of the building once a day. 

Natural food isn't necessarily any better then other food.  It is true that the more something is processed the less it contains of the original nutrition.  However this does not mean that the food is devoid of anything other then starch.  The only thing that makes brown rice different then white rice is the bran coat is still on the grain so it takes longer for the grain to cook and soften.  It still has just the same amount of starch in it. 

I wouldn't recommend trying to live on just rammen noodles(or any other single food type) either.

2
Episode 3: Lunar Lunacy / Re: Shadows and photography.
« on: May 07, 2014, 02:27:37 PM »
I still love how they constantly claim flat terrain but they obviously know it isn't.  Shadows do not work the ways they claim and they know it!

3
Episode 3: Lunar Lunacy / Re: Shadows and photography.
« on: May 07, 2014, 12:47:59 PM »
In the case of CGI one of the reasons that the lighting is so difficult is because we are so used to seeing shadows that when we see the perfectly crisp shadows that a digital system tends to produce it feels wrong.  We are so used to lighting that is created from a disk shaped light source millions of miles away that crisp perfect shadows just feels wrong.  Umbra and penumbra. 

Then we have the moon hoaxers try to tell us that the lack of crisp shadows is evidence of an artificial light when it's the other way around.

4
Episode 3: Lunar Lunacy / Shadows and photography.
« on: May 07, 2014, 10:59:25 AM »
I know that the Mythbusters soundly trounced this one using a tiny model however because they didn't do every one of their supposed examples they still say they can still make the claim. 

I have a friend, and used his excellent camera, who is a professional photographer and he sighs when he hears this stuff.  It is not hard to get the effects they claim can only be done in a studio with extra lighting with natural sunlight.  While I don't have examples to put up, I can assure you that in a shadow in bright sunlight you can get the effects such as the lit astronaut on the ladder or with the man on the moon image.  This is especially easy to do with a bright surface like white sand but that tends to be so bright that is sometimes requires lowering the shutter speed to the point that the shadow is so black that is almost doesn't allow you to even see the ground(especially if I frame the image to only show the subject an not the source of the shadow).  The surface of the moon is not as reflective as desert sand yet they claim that only explanation is fill lighting, however no matter what they claim you can't use a fill light without it's shadow appearing on film.  You can use more lights opposite each other to try and minimize the shadow but all that does in add more shadows to the situation.  You can not add extra lights without adding extra shadows there is no way to get around this.  It can not be avoided, and you can see this all over in movies in general.  Their claim just doesn't work!

Yet they want us to believe that NASA has a magic no shadow fill light in its closet! 

5
They already do that. They give kids fruit now I think.

Fruit laced with more sugar then some of those 'evil' desserts might I add.

6
These are the same people who think that Pizza counts as a vegetable! 

I don't understand how removing chocolate milk, a convenient trick to get kids to drink calcium rich milk, is a good thing.  What's next, no doughnuts, brownies or cakes in the dessert section of the lunch line?  Only serving Real whole wheat bread I can get behind, not the overly processed white wheat, but that is a different issue.  It is obvious that this is trying to cure the problem of fat kids by taking away choices which is never a good thing.  No it isn't serving highly fattening but cheap to produce and reheat foods they want to focus on but the chocolate milk.

Silly as ever when it comes to government interventions.

7
Well I always find it hilarious that throwing out figures that I immediately recognize as being in the ball park of a AA battery for Van Allen Belt energy levels trying to be all scary.  It makes for a perfect case of massive confirmation bias. 

Then there is the constant use of quote from astrophysicists about the dangers and engineering issues associated with a 18 to 24 month trip to Mars as somehow confirming that the trip to the Moon was automatically lethal.  What's more if the energy of the particles in the belt was as dangerous as they claim then no one living in the area where the Auroras are visible would be safe.  They all should be weird mutants.  It's those high energy particles that cause those light shows after all.  True the air does mitigate the exposure but so did the hull of the Apollo spacecraft.  Moreover when ever they quote shielding levels for the ship it is always the minimal shielding as if the astronauts were taped to those parts of the ship the entire trip unable to move! 

You can see their reasoning, always report the max of any potential exposure but only ever use the smallest value to refer to any protection.  This leading to imply that NASA's own raw data proves them right because the NASA doctors reported much lower figures then their assumptions imply. 

Yes I do love that they think you can't fly over a magnetically defined doughnut. 

8
I realize that I am bringing back an old topic but I could not manage to be able to start a new topic and the information I want to go over fits in this very topic, being Jarrah White total lack of math and physics comprehension skills. 

This has to do with his Radiation Anomaly series of videos.  As an Electronic Engineer, I could not fail to notice his constant use of terms, figures and ranges that always either select for the highest possible values form any given range or use of units that he obviously think sound impressive but in the way he uses them it is obvious he has no clue what they mean. 

The best example is his constant use of XXX Million electron Volts making it seem like some massively huge number implying massive energy levels in the Van Allen Belts.  It is very obvious that he goes out of his way to select units and values that only appear to support his position while at the same time misdirecting the actual values of those very units.  Considering that the unit of and electronVolt is, depending on the usage it can also refer to the mass, is a measure of the electric potential energy of one electron.  In actual energy amounts it is so tiny that it takes thousands of them to even be registered on measuring equipment.  Of course that is only the start of his massive overuse and exploitation of scientific figures.  He also always assumes that worst case scenarios are always the norm and no matter what the readings or trends are that there is never low energy periods in the belts or weaker area that can be used to bypass those danger zones. 

I also love to note that Moon Hoaxers in general always only ever show Apollo flights path from above the Earth as if they hope that everyone they are talking to forgets that up and down exist.  Even though the Apollo flight paths went either above or below the heavy zones of the belts they alway imply that they powered right through the middle and so they get to use every max value all of the time every time. 

It illustrates not only their belief that their contempt for the intelligence of their audience but also their complete lack of understanding any scientific principles. 

Pages: [1]