Merged Things that Bubba finds interesting or newsworthy

Henri McPhee said:
At the risk of being suspended on this forum, which does not like controversy, there is more stuff on You Tube about pedophiles in Hollywood.

I suppose many people on this forum are too young to remember, but there used to be a famous comedian called Bob Hope. He used to have the knack of telling a joke, which is a bit unusual nowadays, and he was an MC/comedian at the Oscars for many years. The thing is since he died in about 2003 there have been many books and rumors which suggest he was similar to the famous DJ Jimmy Savile in the UK in his child sex activities. There are also allegations against Spielberg which I confess I know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Now I'm all sorts of willing to allow the possibility of people doing bad things, and all, but that last sentence just really hits me wrong. How much nonsense is going around the world every moment because people who know nothing can't just leave it unsaid?
 
bruto said:
Now I'm all sorts of willing to allow the possibility of people doing bad things, and all, but that last sentence just really hits me wrong. How much nonsense is going around the world every moment because people who know nothing can't just leave it unsaid?
Click to expand...

Nothing makes a conspiracy theorist happier than throwing an accusation at someone or something and following it up with "I confess I know nothing about" the veracity of the accusation they just made.

It's having their cake and eating it too - it's the long time MO of two posters in this thread
 
William Parcher said:
That is nature's work, not done by man. This is sandstone and was once an ancient riverbed. Most of the erosion here was done by the rushing water, with the most obvious being the near-perfect cylinder holes. Some erosion happened after it was no longer a riverbed and became exposed on the surface as we see now. This would be accomplished now by rain and wind.

It looks man-made with design but it isn't. Everything there is explained by natural erosion of an an ancient quartz sediment (sandstone) plateau.
Click to expand...


Most appropriate explanation. Thanks !
 
MikeG said:
I suggested limestone. Someone else said granite. You say sandstone. Is there any way of checking? Is there a publicly available geological survey map of the area?
Click to expand...


There's this, for starters.

Lithology

The Cypress Hills Formation is composed of loose quartzitic gravel and sand, occasionally conglomerate and marl. [1]
Distribution

The Cypress Hills Formation reaches a maximum thickness of 80 metres (260 ft) in the sub-surface in Saskatchewan, and is typically 40 metres (130 ft) thick.[1] It occurs in the elevated Cypress hills, as well as in several plateau remnants in south-eastern Saskatchewan, south of the Frenchman River.
Relationship to other units

The Cypress Hills Formation forms the present day erosional surface, or may be covered by Laurentian Drift and loess. It conformably overlays the Ravenscrag Formation.[1]
Click to expand...
 
There is an interesting bit of gossip about Hollywood on YouTube which I admit might be lacking in hard facts or legal evidence, but which is relevant to pedophile elites in Hollywood and politics. I was acquainted with an adopted boy who is now in a not exactly famous rock band, who used to provide stories about Edward Heath and cocaine in parliament because he was in touch with those kind of circles, which I agree also is not exactly legal evidence. Gossip, and what is said on the street, can be useful in any police investigation. It should not just be disregarded out of hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bVeznO1s8
 
Henri McPhee said:
There is an interesting bit of gossip about Hollywood on YouTube which I admit might be lacking in hard facts or legal evidence, but which is relevant to pedophile elites in Hollywood and politics. I was acquainted with an adopted boy who is now in a not exactly famous rock band, who used to provide stories about Edward Heath and cocaine in parliament because he was in touch with those kind of circles, which I agree also is not exactly legal evidence. Gossip, and what is said on the street, can be useful in any police investigation. It should not just be disregarded out of hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bVeznO1s8
Click to expand...
So your evidence is the Mail. And its creepy conspiracy story about pedophiles must be true, you tell us, because since then the Mail has unearthed three more creepy conspiracies, about other things. And if we don't accept that, you have a rock musician who was "in touch" with "circles" who supplied him with "gossip" about Heath and cocaine.
 
Craig B said:
So your evidence is the Mail. And its creepy conspiracy story about pedophiles must be true, you tell us, because since then the Mail has unearthed three more creepy conspiracies, about other things. And if we don't accept that, you have a rock musician who was "in touch" with "circles" who supplied him with "gossip" about Heath and cocaine.
Click to expand...

Yebbut if you have two independent sources who both heard the same gossip then surely that's... umm. Well, okay it lends credence to the notion that there is actual gossip and they didn't make that up. That's about it, though.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Yebbut if you have two independent sources who both heard the same gossip then surely that's... umm. Well, okay it lends credence to the notion that there is actual gossip and they didn't make that up. That's about it, though.
Click to expand...

It’s evidence a rumour has existed since the sixties, but we can not take it as any kind of evidence the rumour was true.

We should be careful to emphasise the point you are making.
If I were to be told, on two different occasions, of other tall tales, that a ghost haunts Bluebell Hill, that there is a jaguar that lives in the Underground, or that Migrants kidnap puppies for food, it would only be evidence that those people believed a story, and not that the story was based, in any way, on truth.

Rumours and gossip are only useful to an investigation if they suggest an avenue of enquiry to investigate. To take a historical example, in the time of Jack The Ripper, it was useful to note that local residents in Whitechapel were warning each other of a violent Eastern European prone to bursts of violent rage towards women. It might not prove he was anything to do with the affair, but it is an enquiry that has to be made. Rumours in polite society that the artist Sickert, Lewis Carol, or whomever, is a rum chap with a morbid interest in the case? Less so. It is just gossip.

As it happens the rumours about Heath were investigated, thoroughly for two years, and it did not lead to any actual evidence.
 
Argumemnon said:
That can't be right. What's your source?
Click to expand...

I don't think a definitive study has been done, but this seems to be the source of the 1-5% that comes up in searches:

One person who has attempted an estimate is Dr Michael Seto, a clinical and forensic psychologist at the Royal Ottawa Healthcare group.

In 2008 he wrote a book in which he put the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population at 5%.

The figure was based on surveys conducted in Germany, Norway and Finland in which men were asked whether they had ever had sexual thoughts or fantasies about children or engaged in sexual activity with children.

But Seto stresses that 5% was an upper estimate, and that the studies were limited in what they revealed.

"What those surveys don't include are questions on the intensity of those thoughts and fantasies, whether they were repeated or not. Someone might say 'Yes' because they once had a fantasy but our understanding of paedophilia would be that that person recurringly had sexual thoughts and fantasies about children."

Now, with more data and better methodology, he has revised his figure down to about 1% of the population, though he makes clear this is still only an educated guess.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106
 
Henri McPhee said:
There is an interesting bit of gossip about Hollywood on YouTube which I admit might be lacking in hard facts or legal evidence, but which is relevant to pedophile elites in Hollywood and politics. I was acquainted with an adopted boy who is now in a not exactly famous rock band, who used to provide stories about Edward Heath and cocaine in parliament because he was in touch with those kind of circles, which I agree also is not exactly legal evidence. Gossip, and what is said on the street, can be useful in any police investigation. It should not just be disregarded out of hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bVeznO1s8
Click to expand...

Wow, that is some smoking gun. A z-list musician spews some self-aggrandizing yellow gossip to acquaintances, film at 11!

What does cocaine have to do with child rape, again?
 
Henri McPhee said:
There is an interesting bit of gossip about Hollywood on YouTube which I admit might be lacking in hard facts or legal evidence, but which is relevant to pedophile elites in Hollywood and politics. I was acquainted with an adopted boy who is now in a not exactly famous rock band, who used to provide stories about Edward Heath and cocaine in parliament because he was in touch with those kind of circles, which I agree also is not exactly legal evidence. Gossip, and what is said on the street, can be useful in any police investigation. It should not just be disregarded out of hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bVeznO1s8
Click to expand...

I was just standing there minding my own business and I overheard these three guys talking about how some poster on the intrawebz obsessed with celebrity crime stories and pedophile rings is really a pedophile and uses fake outrage to cover their tracks.

See how easy it is? Should I get on the horn to Interpol and the F.B.I.?
 
Tomtomkent said:
The Mail also called the investigation a waste of time.
The Mail also has a long history of objectifying young women, in the sidebar of shame.
The Mail also had Richard Littlejohn, as a columnist, who complained for many years about Winterval, Health and Saftey Gone Mad, and scare stories about moving border controls, without ever troubling his column with facts.
The Mail also tried to divide every known object into those that cause, or prevent, cancer, with many objects in both groups.
The Mail also sad “Huzzah for the Blackshirts”.

None of this is relevant to the article you posted, or it’s accuracy, or more importantly your interpretation.

There was a two year investigation. It found no evidence. Everything you want to believe has been well covered by many papers, and I think there is a fair chance that s Me posters here probably read Private Eye, and may have been following the story for decades.
Click to expand...
OK, the DM does indeed objectify women. One need only peek at the related articles about celebs in bikinis on their holidays. Most of whom are deeply unattractive and uninteresting and shallow.

But it is worse. Have a list of things alphabetically listed that the DM claims are carcinogens.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabl...things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom