Why, oh, why is it that the CTs have an apparent dislike of paragraphing?
No, they aren’t.
I just watched the video, and marked on the screen where the sun rises. It rises in the same place at the start and at the end of the video.
You may be confused by the moon rising, which is quite bright in this video and rises in a different place than the sun. If you make sure that the bright object you’re looking at is actually the sun, you’ll see that it’s rising in approximately the same place each day. There will be a little shift due to the tilt of the earth’s axis, of course.
Because most of them are uneducated?
Nah, it’s because paragraphs are part of the conspiracy!
Maybe his ENTER key was sucked in by the gravitational pull of Naboo, or whatever the fuck it’s called.
Yeah, I trust the BBC a little bit. The linked video above contains one frame of BBC footage. One. frame. Showing the sun shining through clouds, with a bright spot near it. Probably lens flare.
Actually, I’m going to revise that - I had a look at a full version of the footage (here). The bright spot looks like a partial sundog.
Yeah. Commonly known as the Sun.
What is the ultraviolet spectrum, pray tell? What is unnatural about ultraviolet light. And you are aware that astronomers take pictures in lots of frequencies, right?
I don’t even know what the Obama lie and the bailout lie are, but some of the others are so well covered up that they appear in my kids high school history textbooks. Beyond wondering why the government would bother to cover up something in a 3600 year orbit, how do they manage to cover it up from astronomers working in Australia?
And no one has noticed the gravitational perturbation that this thing causes in other planets?
I was on the Baltic in early June, and the sun shone at midnight and even later. Was I a part of the conspiracy?
Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo; so long ago when there was nothing but our love.
and the giant extra planet.
The Peace Moon?
That’s no moon…
The Peace Star!
“Love will keep the local systems in line. Love of this battle station.”
If it is only a few degrees south of the equator, then it would be easily visible in telescopes in the southern part of the northern hemisphere. Telescopes in Hawaii, California, Arizona, Texas…or France, Italy, Greece, Pakistan, India, and China, would all be able to see it now. And, as someone mentioned already, astronomers in Australia and New Zealand should have been seeing it for years now.
Spherical geometry is a little tricky, but it isn’t THAT hard to figure out. Play around for a few minutes with a globe!
Copy and paste from the Penn. University Language Log:
**The fact that roughly 4% of the population has the wrong idea about this phrase is a perfect example of the forces that lead to the formation of eggcorns. (Indeed, deep-seeded was mentioned here last fall as an example of this process.) The substitution sounds the same, and it means something plausible. Both similar sound and sensible meaning are essential – no one is likely to make the mistake of writing “seated rolls” in place of “seeded rolls”, or “deep-chaired ignorance” in place of “deep-seated ignorance”.
The OED defines deep-seated as “Having its seat far beneath the surface”. This would make sense for the meaning of seat given in the AHD as
6a. The place where something is located or based: The heart is the seat of the emotions.
but that sense of seat is essentially obsolete, except in fixed expressions like “deep-seated”.
The idea of seeds being buried is much commoner these days, both literally and metaphorically, than the idea of seats having a similar property, as these Google counts suggest:
“buried seed(s)” 10,400 “seed(s) buried” 6,400
“buried seat(s)” 13 “seat(s) buried” 232
And some of those few buried seats are not real:
When he got the pardon, he looked at it and went back to his seat, buried his face in his hands and cried.
So it’s odd to call the use of “deep-seeded” a mistake, since it combines ordinary words of English in a grammatically correct and semantically reasonable fashion. But a mistake it will usually be, at least in the view of most readers, because the existing phrase “deep-seated” gets in the way.
This is what John Dryden was getting at when he asked
Wouldst thou the seeds deep sown of mischief know,
And how the egg-corne doth emplanted grow?
OK, he didn’t ask any such thing. But if he had, you’d know the answer.
**
A matter of opinion is the bottom line. I’ll respect yours, you respect mine…
And I get to be an extraterrestrial. Admit it, Skammer, you’re jealous.
You seem to be a tad confused here. Let me help you:
[ol][li]Everyone has a right to an opinion.[/li][ul][li]Nobody has a right for a ridiculous opinion to be treated with respect.[/ul][/li][li]You have made assertions about science.[/li][ul][li]You have supported your assertions with opinion.[/ul][/li][li]Science is a rigorous process.[/li][ul][li]Your opinions show no foundation other than your, or someone else’s–thus making it second-hand–wishful thinking.[/ul][/ol][/li]
To quote one of the court-martial members in Casualties of War (since you like videos so much): “Does that about sum it up?”
Not only no, but hell no. This is not a matter of opinion. You are factually wrong. Your cite agrees with mine that the phrase is “deep seated.” Deep seeded, as the Penn journal points out, is an eggcorn. It’s an old phrase and we don’t often use the word “seated” that way anymore, but that doesn’t mean the phrase is actually something else. And when you’re wrong on the facts, you don’t get to say “Well, it’s just a matter of opinion.” If it wasn’t an opinion before, it doesn’t become one when you fail to make your argument. That’s just an excuse. I’d respect your opinion if it were either a matter of personal taste or a view supported by facts, but this is neither. You don’t get to play the “You have to respect my opinion!” card after you make a bunch of false and completely ridiculous claims. Incorrect or unsupported views are not worthy of respect.
I am going to drop this subject because it’s a hijack and obviously not the subject you wanted to discuss when you started this thread. I will point out that we arguably made more progress evaluating this two-word phrase than anyone did on your claims in the OP.
Anyway, back to the video of clouds. chappy, do you concede that the second bright object rising in that video is the moon? If not, please look again, and study the in-frame timestamp at the bottom left of the video (not the youtube time control, I’m talking about the rolling clock captured into the frames of the video itself)
<crickets chirping>
As far as stories go, this one isn’t too bad.
Is the brown dwarf that Nibiru circles the same thing as that Grateful Dead theme, “Dark Star”? Is the coming disaster an excuse to drop a lot of acid, since we’re all going to croak soon anyway? I realize now I should have payed more attention to that instead of going to college…
I do; I’ll let you know when I see one. Pointing out that you made up a fact about Jesus to add credence to your thesis does not make me a literalist.
Can’t I be both, like the late Earl Warren?