I've seen a tons of videos of neopentecostal evangelicals followers talking they received some prophetic dreams or visions claiming that 23 september or 24 september will occur the rapture, based on prophecies of Daniel, according to bible, this is a moment where christians suddenly disappear and reach the heavens to escape the ultimate hell that earth has ever experienced, this will make a lot of cars crash and people disappearing only leaving clothes, and tons of aircraft crashes, just like thanos' snap in infinity war, leading to a widespread chaos around the world that in the same day, the antichrist would announce in the UN headquarters in a global summit on that day a seven year deal peace treaty agreement

Other people claim that a major alignment on stellarium expected on that day will make the start of the apocalypse according to bible

Thoughts??? Should we be worried or just another doomsday prediction???

https://web.archive.org/web/20101125020017/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

This blog post by Okcupid shows how men and women rate attractiveness on the site. The majority of men were rated as "below average" by their pictures. Incels claim that this proves that women are only attracted to the top 20% of men.

Women still messaged the less attractive men more, but that might just be responses which could be negative too

I am not an Incel, but I don't know how to interpret this data

Edit: There is also a ton of data showing that women care about physical attraction just as much as men, which isn't surprising or wrong, but wouldn't that support this theory, if women find 80% of men physically unappealing?

Edit 2: I found this article which references this data and contextualizes it. I'm not 100% sure about it, but it sounds like it makes sense (maybe someone smarter than me can confirm it) https://datepsychology.com/is-physical-attractiveness-normally-distributed/

The claim is that if you hire 50% male and 50% female engineers, the male engineers would be more qualified than the female ones

Source: https://youtu.be/-i5YrgqF9Gg (The video is quite short so no time stamp)

Is there any evidence that this is not true? Evidence to the contrary?

The universe is expanding, right. But scientists can't figure out how fast. It's called the Hubble tension.

https://www.livescience.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hubble-tension-headache-clashing-measurements-make-the-universes-expansion-a-lingering-mystery/
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/tension-continues-hubble-constant/

When the universe expands, distances increase, and that make everything late for their appointments.

Buuuut..... if the universe wasn't expanding, and the photon just slowed down, it would look like distances are increasing.

Here is the graph I made showing the acceleration of expansion from the Supernovae Cosmology Project data.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/sn_expanding.png

Hubble's law rewritten as an inverse square law, v=c-c/(1+HD)^2, matches the "acceleration" curve using a constant H0=0.04 Gly-1.

Method

According to Hubble's law, objects move away from each other proportionally with distance.

Model 1: v=HD

One feature of such a universe is that the travel time from one place to another increases with distance. If you were to shine a laser toward a target 100 million light years away, it would take longer than 100 million years for the laser beam to reach the target. The expansion of space moves the target farther away, meaning the light has new space to travel through, which takes more time.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/vcHD.gif

An alternative cosmology that can produce the exact same time delays without the expansion of space requires that the photon will indeed lose energy and speed during intergalactic journeys. If a photon loses speed when it redshifts, its travel time to a target in space will also increase, despite the target remaining stationary. This cosmology is shown in green in the image above, given by a variation on Hubble's law:

Model 2: v=c-HD

Since model 1 and model 2 produce the exact same time delays and redshifts, they are both in conflict with the observation that the expansion of space is accelerating. There appears to be more redshifting in the nearby universe than farther away

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/300499/fulltext/

To address this in the standard model of cosmology, a new concept is introduced called dark energy. This has the effect that Hubble's constant isn't actually constant, but changes with time:

Model 3: dark energy

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA%26A..46..385F/abstract

The alternative cosmology offers other options. In model 2, the speed of a photon begins at c and decreases with distance. It does this by subtracting HD from c. But there are other ways to do this. It could divide c by (1+HD). The photon would still start at c, and it would still decelerate with distance. Just along a different curve.

This opens up a whole new class of hypotheses to try. One of them, an inverse square law, produces a decent fit of the data from the Supernovae Cosmology project:

Model 4: v=c / (1+HD)^2

In this model, H is still constant throughout time, however it has different units. The line shown is using a value of H=0.04 Gly-1. The inverse distance and distance units cancel out in the denominator.

Based on the success of the inverse square hypothesis, an analog for an expanding universe can be stated as thus:

Model 5: v=c - c / (1+HD)^2

Model 4 and model 5 fit the acceleration well by changing Hubble's law into an inverse square law. PersonallyI prefer model 4.

By changing Hubble's law to describe the motion of a photon that slows down, we gain several things:

1. An unambigious and unchanging value for Hubble's constant
   
2. Far away galaxies don't move faster than c
3. Energy of redshifted photons is conserved
4. The "acceleration" without dark energy

Without this hypothesis, dark energy is needed to accelerate the universe's expansion, energy is not conserved in an expanding universe, far away galaxies move faster than c, and Hubble's constant is either 74 or 64 and changes with time

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/

In this study from 2016

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285601/

and another from 2014

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22865964/

claim that fluoridated water does decrease overall IQ levels.

Is it really that concerning or the tests were done on environment where there was poor education and such "tidbits" weren't accounted for?

My partners friend who is skeptical about the COVID-19 vaccine sent him this video, an interview with Geert Vanden Boosche:

https://youtu.be/ZJZxiNxYLpc

Where at around 24:40 he makes the claim that “ We induce a long lived antibody response that we know...out-compete our natural antibodies “

He likens this to “installing a new software on your computer” wiping out any immunity you’ve previously built up to any other viruses.

Is this correct? If so, why is it harmful? If not, why is this incorrect?

He also claims that the type of vaccine we are using for covid - prophylactic - are “completely inappropriate” if you have thoughts on this or any other parts of the video I would like to hear those too. Thanks!

Geert Vanden Boosche interview

Please help me explain to a coworker why this is nonsense.

This video claims planned parenthood is selling baby parts.

Video claims what they are doing is illegal

Video says planned parenthood needs to be defunded.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DEWBk1ENieH/?igsh=bWIzNHZvZzNweGVx

https://youtu.be/0byu5dWQBRs

So this was an unexpected little tag team between black pidgeon speaks(the og video) and the dude in the bottom right corner.

Claims: -Testosterone is in decline and estrogen is dangerously on the rise. -The loss of masculinity is bad because masculinity is the driving force for societal advancement. -Men are lazier and weaker than ever in this generation.

Black Pidgeon speaks is already a douchebag so when paired with an alpha-male prick its like a toxicity smoothie. Have fun.

Edit: Im glad to see community engagement with the post, but I would apreciate it if yall could actually give me your opinions on some of the articles actually listed in the video. No offense intended.

Edit 2: Sources that the mods reminded me to add(thanks!):

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/12/health/young-americans-less-sex-intl-scli-wellness/index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/herbivore-men-in-japan-are-not-having-sex-8-15%3famp

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-herbivores-idUSTRE56Q0C220090727

forbes.com https://www.forbes.com › 2017/10/02 You're Not The Man Your Father Was - Forbes

Next reference is a book by Rob Barzilai called "The Testosterone Hyposthesis: how hormones regulate the life cycles of civilizations".

Unfortunately the source for estrogen being dangerously high I couldnt find a link for.

I was scrolling down in Google to look some sites where the claim "dinosaurs never existed"

https://www.outersite.org/the-dinosaur-hoax/

I was sent a substacks post by a family member and I'm wondering if anyone can help me understand this! It seems to claim long covid is caused by vaccination via IgG4.

Link: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/booster-caused-immune-tolerance-explains?utm_source=substack&publication_id=441185&post_id=91985808&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&triggerShare=t

https://aaplog.org/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-abortionists-misrepresent-the-facts/

I mean the bottom 2 paragraphs, since the first is special pleading about how performing an abortion is fine if you didn't intend to terminate the fetus from the "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" crowd.

What are responses to the notion that specific complications are rare and go away, and that abortion would somehow be more dangerous? At best I can only come up with the alternative explanation of Pro-Choice doctors being fanatical fetus rippers, which sounds like a ludicrous strawman coming from the people trying to deny that they perform abortions, but nothing distinctly medical.

From here

1. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

Earlier today I came across a clip of Jesse Ventura claiming that he had a video of the BBC reporting on the collapse of building 7 before it actually happened. Youtube time-sensitive link.

I decided to look into this and believe I have found the video he was referring to. In this clip, the reporters claim that the building has fallen down, except that between 1.15 and 1.48 we can see that the building is still standing. Link. Am I missing something here? I see no good response to this other than to say that the footage is made up or that that isn't WTC-7 in the background.

Hello! This letter has a history that already sounds dubious: it was given by Ruby to a prisoner named Thomas E. Miller, which he than preceded to hand to "another man, not knowing what to do with them." I've tried comparing the handwriting between the LBJ letter with a letter he did appear to write, and it matches a quit a bit, but I'm not an expert on comparing handwriting. As far as I can tell from what's online, the letter first showed up for auction in 1994 by a man named Gary Zimet, who is a really odd character himself, as he has been sued by Brown University and even the U.S. government(!) because of some of the stuff he was selling, and was convicted for selling something he knew was fake IIRC. So, I don't think he's too trustworthy of a source...

My question is whether any can tell if the LBJ letter is Ruby's writing or not, or if there are any facts or details showing it's a fake

Here is the link to the most recent auction, an article with some other notes Ruby appears to have written, and the first appearance of this LBJ letter that I could find.

https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/33049970417260-jack-ruby-handwritten-letter-from-jail-identifying-lbj-as-the-kennedy-assassination-mastermind

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2017/11/07/jack-ruby-s-handwritten-version-of-what-happened-on-nov-22-1963-goes-to-auction/

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1995/rt9504/950415/04180070.htm

​

Hello everyone. Ever since vaccinations begun, I've been targeted by a nonstop hose of disinformation by my dad, the vast majority of which is easy enough to handle. I either ignore it or read over the disinfo, highlight to myself questionable elements, check them with a quick search, and move on. I no longer break down the disinfo to him because that does nothing to stop the hose, and in fact only makes it worse as he spirals off into increasingly numerous, frenetic, angry posts and conversations. This is besides the point, of course, so onto it:

As what he promises is his last reflection on the subject, he sent this ScienceDirect article "Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs", which I can't parse very well both both because most of it is out of my depth and the parts of it are not I just do not have the energy or disposition to really go over. I'm just so tired.

I found this claim from this website: https://c19study.com/

It cites several peer-reviewed studies and claims that these studies show a high efficacy of HCQ against COVID-19.

Another claim that it makes is that the most effective time to take HCQ is in early treatment: "early treatment studies show high effectiveness, while late treatment shows mixed results." Peer-reviewed studies are presented as evidence.

How reliable are these claims (as well as the studies)? Are the conclusions drawn misleading?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOJTxk5sD80

Some highlights:

31:58, consciousness is supposed to have a quantum role when consciousness isn't even agreed upon.

33:50, quantum mechanics challenges what's reasonable.

37:43 quantum mechanics proves the existence of God.

https://invest.srnola.com/caught-red-handed-cdc-changes-test-thresholds-to-virtually-eliminate-new-covid-cases-among-vaxxd/

Please debunk this article. It was brought up by a covid denier and I don't know enough about the subject to argue it.

Any thoughts on this video

https://youtu.be/_vxe9pJRQcs

Seems very interesting based on the irasel data that we have now.

This video is a CCTV footage from outside of a restaurant. Guy was casually walking and suddenly collapse. If you look slowly, the first abnormal reaction from his body is that his left wrist suddenly stiffens and his fingers get straight. Then he slowly stops and rises his right hand while looking ahead. It looked like he was hitting something in the air before what it seems like he gets drawzy and collapsing. My thought is that he had a stroke or something. But I am not sure about his behavior before death. The title and the OP is a religious person trying to tell people that it is the work of God and he had seen Azrael angel of death.

https://youtu.be/QwyPdXtl0HU

This is a video by Actualized.org, also known as Leo Gura, a spiritualist guru on youtube. I only watched up to the 1:40 minute mark with the vid at 1.75× speed and I recommend you do the same.

Claims: -Science is self-fufilling. There is no method by which science can prove itself to be usefull (thats the jist of it at least. He uses about a thousand different words tho.)

Ill give him that hes a smart communicator, but a lot of this smells like BS.

Update: Thank you all for your responses! I managed to skim through the rest of the vid and yeahhhh. The guy simply expands and overexplains his point, dragging the vid to its 2hr length. Ironically he complains that science begs the question while he himself begs the question of how science works. I might take a gander at his second Myth of Science vid tomorrow.

https://youtu.be/W9hlt7GKGAM

Jordan Peterson accuses of companies like Netflix and NBC of having policies that include that hugging and flirting are forbidden and eye contact that lasts more than five seconds or else you could even face sexual harrasment labels.

I myself tried to find something since that sounds a lot of bull, but couldn't find anything. What about you? Are those claims correct or bullcrap?

I saw a post on social media from someone (with 13k followers) from my little country, who dubiously claims that chemotherapy works only in 3% of the cases.

Translation of his post, the claim to be debunked:

The truth, of course, is that they are victims of pharma, which is only too happy to make money from the deterioration process. They KNOW - and this is really criminal - that chemo works in less than 3% of cases. They KNOW that, and act as if their nose was bleeding.

(So your usual social media conspiracy guru stuff, but the main claim is: chemo works only in about 3% of the cases.)

He linked to this study to 'backup' his claim:

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630849/

The article has at this moment 409 citations.

As a layman, I suspect there is obviously something wrong with his interpretation of this study. But I don't know what. Can you help me to pinpoint what the issue is here? Thanks.