put not your trust in propheteers, listen to the experts—
- ex = a has been
- spurt = a drip under pressure
—and now thoroughly confused, ask yourself “cui bono”? And whilst we’re here, that great illustrative query from English literature—
is there honey still for tea?
Or failing all else, pop along to this webbie:
AND say to yourself those magic words—
—and don’t forget that nice people in suits never lie to you, nor do they ever ever ever tell you porkies. (Trust me, I’m a dog.)
MARRIAGE OF TRUE MINDS ADMIT IMPEDIMENTS
etc etc etc yada yada yada and so forth ad infinitem. Now impedimate your mind with this snippet—
“… Of course, considering its accuracy, age, and the fact that its artistic style was not consistent with what was known from the era it supposedly belongs to, it was thought that what has come to be known as the Nebra Sky Disk was nothing more than a hoax or forgery, and prehistory professor at the University of Bristol, Richard Harrison, would say of it:
When I first heard about the Nebra Disc I thought it was a joke, indeed I thought it was a forgery. Because it’s such an extraordinary piece that it wouldn’t surprise any of us that a clever forger had cooked this up in a backroom and sold it for a lot of money …”
—referring to this beast
—which I just snup from CLICK HERE (being a link supplied by one of my very most favourite cranks, a guy called Graham Hancock (who does tend to get around a bit, look, see for himself and burble about what he’s seen as if his conclusions actually make any sense).
Which they do …
I KNEW IT!
I’m different. Boom boom!
At last, classified … pigeon holed …
But my sister (she’s a psychic medium—she must be spot on, them spirits don’t lie) told me so a few years ago, and would I believe her? Noooooo~!
NOW here we are:
And although I make no claims on ADHD (wotever that is) (it sounds medical, and therefore unpleasant) that circle on the left is MOI to the nth degree. I tick all the boxes. (Although I’m not too sure about the eyes …)
AND NOW TO GO GOOGLE
It sounds like one of them modern fad things (but we Leos are gullible that way so I’m excused). Here’s an image, make of it wot the author intends …
Definitely not too sure about the eyes—what do you think?
If I really can be bothered on a day like this …
* Failing that, I could be simply bonkers …
(trolling? I heard that … c’mon, ‘fess up, who said it?)(Don’t make me come over there)—
—blitzing the web, namely u-toobes, cheerily galloping into no-minds-land I happened across a form of masochism I’d never heard of before.
First, here’s your link—
—and I may now be added to anyone’s list of gob-smackees.
SURE, I HAVE
tried a few way-out and wacky processes/techniques in my time, some of which really do seem effective—but some ring my WTF bell loud and clear, as does the earnest wee lassie in the above vid.
She/it left me with a conclusion: namely that I’d only ever try it myself at the very witching time of night when churchyards yawn … which salubrious surroundings, I think, would be of more beneficence to the human organism than wot the young lady above is so earnestly gushing to sell us.
—but I dare say that she is part of yet another
fad movement which will (in years to come) flood the hospitals (and make some long-sighted investors a few bucks selling white sticks and cute little labrador puppies).
let us not lose sight (~!) of the fact that ol’ Sol is still a very beneficial organism waaaay up there in space who has had a bad press lately. So get thy butt outside and cop thee a skinful of his generosity (without looking upon his face) but don’t overdo it—sunlight is like a good red, a little does you good but overindulgence can leave you with red regrets.
Be warned …
doth not a winter make …
But a snowflake can make the easily led dip into their bag of wotiffs—
TRY THIS ON
—if you like Ozzies it may ring your bell, especially if you’ve read the famous UK nut Gavin Menzies and held some of his ludicrous claims in mind whilst watching a Plummtree video set in New Zealand—now here’s the point: tie ’em both together.
Ye gods, it gets complicated being an old dog of eclectic interests. And don’t be offended if you’ve figured out that the above image is a bare butt—
(quite rightly so, it is)
—it’s Buddha’s very own personal butt. So it’s holy, and thus inoffensive. “Holy things,” we are told darkly, “cannot be offensive; and in fact must always be treated with the greatest respect~!”
… … moving on: If you want to go to the source of the image and the tales that go with it
to be enthralled.
Or not be enthralled.
I rarely hold anyone in thrall these days but the Plummtree video does—possibly unwittingly, it ties in. I’ll leave it to you to do the sums.
—And the video ties NZ to Menzies anyway, so what does that have to do with a bare-bummed wee Buddha? Ha! I’m just an old mutt with nothing better to do …
MY FAVOURITE CRANK
one of ’em. (I have lots ‘cos I blitz lots.)
Have thee a wee read of this snippet— your comprehension test question will follow:
“here is an intriguing and strange place, which we really know very, very little about: we don’t really know what language was spoken there; we don’t know what religious ideas were practised there; we don’t really know what the people looked like who lived there. It just comes down to us out of the blue without its past properly written.”
(actually the only question, so stand or fall on your sole answer—and be aware that there are no grades, no pass marks, and absolutely no reason for going through with it anyway.)
Oops, your question—
Q.1 Why did ol’ Argus highlight that clause in red?
And to give you a further clue it refers to an interview between a successful author and the Horizon (BBC TV) team.
Any successful attempts will be rewarded in the ‘Comments’ section of this post.
Actually, any attempts at all will be surprising …
… now give it your best shot!
The cranks at whose feet I sit with rapt attention often quote much the same unbelievable stuff. But then again, the Establishment does (and always did) likewise. So it all boils down to judgement on the part of the beholder: Who presents the more convincing case, hmm?
WE ARE PRESENTED
by history itself with a whole bunch of enigmatic enigmas. Enigmae. Puzzles … for which there are absolutely no shortage of expert explanations—ranging from the almost possible to the totally absurd; acceptance or rejection often boils down to prestige versus the WTF reflex.
we are told that the trinket in the below photo dates back to the time when the ancient Egyptians had no better stone-working tools than copper chisels, wet string, sand, balls made of very hard rock (diorite) and probably a few bronze saws. (The balls were used to make statues and things, and a damn’ fine job they made of it too)(we are told).
BUT, BUT, BUT …
how likely, really, even given the wealth and total power of the Living God that was Pharaoh … is it that a herd of mallet-men wielding their balls and rubbing with sand could come up with (say) … this:
It’s quite big, too. I understand that what we are looking at there was rejected by QA but I could be wrong. Without looking it up I do believe it was made from a quite hard stone—but even if it were made of wet clay and allowed to dry it would still be a bit impressive.
copper and/or bronze saws and stuff have a ‘major’ working with hard stone—could YOU create something like it using a diorite ball, fist sized or just a little bigger?
Oh … really? Hold me tight … I damned well couldn’t.
But wait—it gets better. Tomorrow I hope to post some real ‘things to think about’ but right now I need some sleep. I’ll close with an image of the archaeologist’s standard explanation for how that ancients made such things—
—and leave it to you to decide if you’ll run with their ball. (Or break out—think for yourself.)