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 - Action80

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 69  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: Today at 11:06:44 AM »
Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.
Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.
Now, why do you think a provided correction somehow renders the article incorrect?

If you cared to read the article you would realize that the entire piece is predicated on the difference between:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

When in reality, as you so deftly pointed out, it's actually:

Unvaxed = 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.007%

Now apply your math wizardry to the difference between 0.0008% & 0.005% as well as 0.0008% & 0.007%. Let us know what you come up with.
I don't need to.

You need to show why an article that provides correct figures is incorrect.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: Today at 05:00:49 AM »
Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.
Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.
Now, why do you think a provided correction somehow renders the article incorrect?

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 03, 2023, 07:08:26 PM »
Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.
Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 03, 2023, 05:46:41 PM »
What's really interesting is that the article says:

"So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population."

Unvaxed = 186 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

(Pay attention to the 186 number)

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

The article uses that data to then go about their extrapolations.

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

So now that 186 number in the article is actually 1097.

Doing the calculations again with the corrected number:

Unvaxed = 186 1097 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = .0008% 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.006%

Now, it's 0.005% versus 0.006% which renders the entire article incorrect and moot.
Wrong.

It is .005% vs .007%

1097/22000000 * 100 = .00498 or .005

4020/61000000 * 100 = .00659 or .007

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 30, 2023, 12:26:16 PM »
My first comment, Pete, but I've been following with mild interest since the start.  I gotta say SA10's original question has merit but, from a FE perspective, I don't think it needs much answering; obviously the billions going into NASA, AI, CGI, blah, blah, and its not much of a leap to write it down to "the conspiracy". 

My interest was piqued further by the light-saber sub-thread, and your apparent dismissal of the explanations as a too-convenient retcon.  Well excuse me, but of course its convenient; its true.  I remembered reading about the pre-positioning of the sample tubes before Christmas, but it took me till last night for me to be bothered to track down the BBC's report. 

So, whad'ya think?  Pre-emptive press-release from NASA in case anyone accidentally leaves any light-sabers around the film set?
Lemme guess...

You are under the impression the MORE ANGLES from which photos are taken miraculously adds MORE legitimacy to the sample tube claim, rather than presenting perhaps a photo that is dated differently than that already presented?

You love to sacrifice everything you have to the liars controlling the world governments.

At least you share that with pete. Try to keep remaining on common ground with him, instead of perpetuating the ruse.

Neither will remain in place for long, anyway.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 29, 2023, 04:22:40 PM »
A fine, upstanding example of a pharmaceutical executive in action.




7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: January 27, 2023, 02:29:34 PM »
You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?
Why wouldn't it if the earth is flat?
Water finds its level is the common FE mantra. Obviously there will be waves and so on, but why wouldn't it be roughly level on a FE?
Waves, swells, and numerous other things, which you mention.

Just like the ground is wavy, dippy, and other imperfections.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: January 27, 2023, 01:25:45 PM »
But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.
Frequent flyers and airline pilots that make that claim must have been into the free booze.  Maybe the odd test pilot of hypersonic, experimental ultra high-altitude aircraft might get a glimpse of a curve.

So, the OP's question was to flat earthers.  Flat earthers claim that since they do not see a curvature, the earth must be flat.  On the other side of the fence people say that, since the earth is ginormous and we are tiny, we should not be able to see a curvature.  In essence we are okay and unshaken by that same observation.

Let's say you were out on the middle of the pacific ocean, bobbing up and down in an inner tube, and, for the sake of argument, the world was as science say's it is.  What would you (as a flat earther) need to see that would confirm to you the earth was indeed a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter?
If you are in the middle of the Pacific, it will mean no difference.

You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?

9
And for some reason a lot of Western pundits keep cowering in fear of Russia as if the last 9 months didn't happen.

It's like their minds are trapped in 1945.

Incorrect.  Their minds are trapped in trying to own the Biden administration.
LOL!!! What a weak take...even Biden doesn't own the Biden administration.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 30, 2022, 12:43:45 PM »
"Died Suddenly," is just another way of reporting the natural results of the baby boomer population (1945-1965). People from this age group are beginning the next phase of the life cycle. The speed of media fuels the rest of the fear. Weak sites like this, a refuge for DARPA bots, simply pile on.

11
And in language, means one can be used in place of the other.  Same or nearly the same definition.

But an Acronym describes a type of Abbreviation (using only the first word), not an abbreviation as a whole.

So if I were to say "Dr. Is an acronym for Doctor" I would be wrong.  Thus they are not synonymous.

Please return to 2nd grade for re-education.
I a t d m i o t f f.
FTFY. Nnttm.

12
Last I checked, an acronym is synonymous with the word abbreviation.

Perhaps you should check again:
An abbreviation is a shortened version of a longer word (such as Dr. or Prof.), while an acronym forms a new word using the first letter of each word from a phrase (such as radar or ASAP). Writers often use the words abbreviations and acronyms interchangeably, yet the two are quite distinct.
I did check again. Why they let you anywhere near this forum is now obvious.

ac·ro·nym
/ˈakrəˌnim/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. ASCII, NASA ).

And its funny how you still show you can't read.

Do you know what synonymous is?
^again, another only demonstrating the purpose of the site.

F f t g t s o o e e h. I a n g f i.

L d i a r, r o t m i.

Yes, synonymous means sharing characteristics. Could be exactly the same or nearly the same.

N, g f w s e, y N l.

13
Last I checked, an acronym is synonymous with the word abbreviation.

Perhaps you should check again:
An abbreviation is a shortened version of a longer word (such as Dr. or Prof.), while an acronym forms a new word using the first letter of each word from a phrase (such as radar or ASAP). Writers often use the words abbreviations and acronyms interchangeably, yet the two are quite distinct.
I did check again. Why they let you anywhere near this forum is now obvious.

ac·ro·nym
/ˈakrəˌnim/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. ASCII, NASA ).

14
And it happens to be an acronym.
Sigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Etymology
What happened to your reading skills? "Nazi, the informal and originally derogatory term for a party member, abbreviates the party's name." Last I checked, an acronym is synonymous with the word abbreviation.

How can you be trusted to comment on anything of value when you have no grasp of these simple things?

F f t c t g t f o o e. I a n g f i.

15
A80, out of curiosity: do you know what a Nazi is? You act as if it was an acronym.
Yes, I know what a Nazi is.

And it happens to be an acronym.

16
ITT: FETS admins and mods: "THREE CHEERS FOR THE NAZI'S!!! HIP HIP!!! HOORAY!!! HIP HIP HOORAY!!! HIP HIP!!! HOORAY!!!"

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 15, 2022, 01:50:27 PM »
Nice strawman.

You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."

Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery.  Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...

It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.

After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
Witlf?

How, pray tell, does concocting a lie in order to cover the original lie, go against or negate his argument?

18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 14, 2022, 11:27:16 PM »
Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities? If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants are not designed to explode but just produce a lot of heat to make steam.  They can release a lot of radiation if things go wrong.  That's already happened a couple of times.  I live nearby 2 different nuclear plants and have actually been inside the control rooms of both of them.  it's quite impressive but the authorities won't let anyone near one unless you have a legitimate reason.

I guess an elementary school field trip is a "good reason."

19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 14, 2022, 09:12:04 PM »
But kangaroos do, as do nuclear weapons. So seeing one is perfectly credible in the right circumstances.
When I see a kangaroo, it acts as a kangaroo and is identifiable as a kangaroo in its unique physical characteristics.

Nothing Duncan described as what he claimed to be a nuclear bomb was unique. He described no particular personal acts he committed to verify the veracity of his claim.

In short, you continue to write nothing but a bunch of fluff in support of the original fluff.

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 13, 2022, 05:47:39 PM »
Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?
Of course not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 69  Next >