Cultcow Brad Watson / Richard Bradshaw Watson / Brad Watson_Miami - Jesus & Albert Einstein reincarnated, discoverer of GOD=7_4 Theory

[RomanesEuntDomus]

@Batman VS Tony Danza aka Buttman vs Breastman,

I AM the Founder (Fod.) of PlanET Nestor. I've never stated anything diggerent. Does the Eqfish conguse you?

IN FOD WE TRUST​

Writing in this garbled nonsense makes you look like fool.

@RomanesEuntDomus goes to an author-signing of his new book and says. "You crazy son of a bitch. We've been saying the whole time that you've completely made all this up."

When the author claims it's a scientific book, however has absolutely no citation, no sources and no annotations that explains where he got his information from, I would question his conclusions. Especially when they are contradicted a lot like your walls of meaningless text are.
It really raises a question of the validity of said work, when there's no verifiable source material that it uses and is contradicted on a fundamental level, it's safe to say that it has no scientific merit.
Note that even the most shallow pop-science books explain where they get their info from, though they don't try to be as accurate and would never be viable as a source for scientific discourse.

But for the merit and value of a scientific book, there's not just how many (and what) sources it uses, there's also another aspect:
How often is this work cited in other works?
Where the number (and quality) of the source material of a book or study tells you how well researched that book or study is, the number of works that use it as source material tells you how big of an impact it has on its field(s) of science.
There's works that are over a hundred years old and are still considered the "gold standard" within their fields of science that act as the foundation for many scientists.

Going by these two measurements, we can have a look at your stuff:
Your methodology is flawed on a fundamental level, much like your criminal record shows, you have issues with citations (both misquoting stuff and using "sources" that I would consider below the most shallow popscience drivel), and the conclusions are harebrained and contradict what little sources you even use. You try to use "Synchronisms" as validation to your theses, however they are meaningless due to your confirmation bias (which has been apptly described, analysed and criticised already).

Additionally, you are the only person that talks about your works. You have a forum with a couple thousand views, but noone gives a damn, noone ever mentions them positively or uses them as a source.
That confirms our assessment that your works are entirely devoid of value or meaning - and that seems to be the global consensus.

"Leaders are like eagles. They fly high and shit on those below them." - variation on a Fortune Cookie fortune

Oh, I have absolutely no problem believing for a second that you fly very, very high from time to time.

Mind explaining what the Second Coming of Christ has to do with E=mc2? Do you even know what that equation means? Because the way you used it here I have my doubts that you do, Dude.

By the way, Dude, it's time for you to switch thumbs.

I assume he's just running his Gematria nonsense over it and gets a number he likes or he has a really, really shallow understanding of the basic idea but has absolutely no clue how this is used, why it's important (other than everybody saying so) and how it's actually used in science.

 

[Kartoffel]

@Kartoffel

Congratulations on a well thought out essay. Once Dude gets his lazy ass out of bed, I think you may have a judgment heading your way.

Thanks for the compliment Well, I'm not afraid of his judgement, either he comes with actual arguments which will be fun to counter (I enjoy this kind of discussion) or he'll delve into cheap tactics like insults diversions and the like - which we all know devalues his argumentation so far. If you can't stay objective don't pretend to be a scientist.

Writing in this garbled nonsense makes you look like fool.

When the author claims it's a scientific book, however has absolutely no citation, no sources and no annotations that explains where he got his information from, I would question his conclusions. Especially when they are contradicted a lot like your walls of meaningless text are.
It really raises a question of the validity of said work, when there's no verifiable source material that it uses and is contradicted on a fundamental level, it's safe to say that it has no scientific merit.
Note that even the most shallow pop-science books explain where they get their info from, though they don't try to be as accurate and would never be viable as a source for scientific discourse.

Yes, you got it exactly right, a very nice summarisation.

But for the merit and value of a scientific book, there's not just how many (and what) sources it uses, there's also another aspect:
How often is this work cited in other works?
Where the number (and quality) of the source material of a book or study tells you how well researched that book or study is, the number of works that use it as source material tells you how big of an impact it has on its field(s) of science.
There's works that are over a hundred years old and are still considered the "gold standard" within their fields of science that act as the foundation for many scientists.

Personally I put this topic off until he actually delivers some sources. There's not much fun in talking about the validity of a source until there are any in the first place. And before we talk about the worth of the citated material we have to consider if the citations themselves will suffice for scientific puposes. Because honestly I'd not be surprised that even if he presents us with sources they won't suffice on a bare methodical level.
It's funny that you don't even need to read his whole text to instantly know it's unscientific.
But by all accounts, please prove me wrong Mr. @Brad Watson_Miami . I'm sure you appreciate the hard work scientists everywhere put into their papers day after day, just to keep their citations right.

I assume he's just running his Gematria nonsense over it and gets a number he likes or he has a really, really shallow understanding of the basic idea but has absolutely no clue how this is used, why it's important (other than everybody saying so) and how it's actually used in science.

What I found more baffling is that his claims are based on so many coincidences that relay on current expression of a certain culture instead of you know universal things like natural units.
Also he does it the wrong way:
1. Make a hypothesis
2. Collect data by example by searching other scientists findings or generating your own by experiment
3. Validate or falsify your hypothesis with help of your data (Which in most cases either means the application of statistics or the use of rigorous formal methods. There is a reason aspiring students of philosophy have to learn formal logic (and that's everything but an easy subject).

They way he presents his information, our "scientist" here came up with his theory this way:
1. Find interresting data and see a correlation in certain areas.
2. Form a hypothesis so that it fits your evidence.
3. Validate your hypothesis by pointing our the correlation.

But nope, that's not how scientific methodology works, you have to form a hypothesis and then check it, the other way round does not work, which could be easily proven by applying some formal logic. But it would be a hassle to write it down her so I don't care for now.

 

[bacterium]

Firstly I find it funny that you choose a program for your example relating me, makes me wonder if it's a coincidence or if you read my past posts...

Bu let's get to the meat of it: No I wouldn't, because of several things:
1) A program is not a hypothesis; so I don't need to proof the program (an argument that counts for most of the things you mentioned)
2) Even if you now construct hastely a hypothesis, what exactly should it be? That the programm runs as intended? That's what testing is for. That it's a valid program? That's what the compiler checks, it wouldn't even run as an app if it didn't take this hurdle.
All in all let me repeat: A program is not a hypothesis. You can only verify or falsify these, everything else can be used as a base to make one or as material to generate your data for this.
3) No programmer has a problem to show me the sources of his application if really needed, because there is something called source code.
4) And seriously: Writing a complex program from the scratch up without using a library nor looking things up in a documentation takes same serious dedication and skill. Someone doing a program like this and generating something that actually works is someone that deserves respect.
Writing a programm is different then doing something scientific you can't verify a program per se, only arguments you make about its properties (that it's bugfree, that it does certain stuff, that it's GUI enables users to do something faster than another kind of GUI; stuff like that).
You might consider reading one or two papers before you say nonsensical things about something you seem to not have any deeper understanding of. But that's okay, todays world has already accumulated so much information, that it's impossible to be versed in everything. To claim having found a way to explain all there is can't be taken serious by default because no one will ever be able to incorporate everything.
5) I'll may be a little bit drastic here from time to time in my choice of words, but that is mearely to fit better in. I'd never say something like that to someone from face to face. That's rude and does nothing to validate my arguments. Because you know, resorting to insults is like a confession that you ran out of real arguments.

And regarding you I don't even a new argument, because you still didn't give sources. If you haven't noticed: I did not discredit your theory at all (neither did I the opposite); I just basically said without sources (or detailed description how you got your data) it's not scientific at all. I just critised your methodology as invalid. That your theory is invalid by a transitive relationship is just one little side effect by sticking too scientific standards. As a scientist you should not have that much of a problem to come up with proper citations. Because that's one of the most important things a scientist has to care about nowadays, if he doesn't want to loose his credibilty and possible more.
And by the way, don't forget to mention which citation style you used, that makes it easier to check if you properly citated. Because not every source is like the other. Oh and no Wikipedia. Everyone can write there, so it's frowned upon as a source, like every academic will attest you. A source without a clear author is not worth much.

He won't read beyond the first sentence if he gets that far. Depends on last night's coke quality. And then he will say 'There are NO coincidences'

 

[Kartoffel]

He won't read beyond the first sentence if he gets that far. Depends on last night's coke quality. And then he will say 'There are NO coincidences'

Basing their arguments entirely on abitrary formulations is also a tactic people use when out of arguments. The only way he can get an ounce of credibility and not end up as object of laughter will be to provide us with sources, so that we can engage in an academic way.

 

[YankeeTrader]

Basing their arguments entirely on abitrary formulations is also a tactic people use when out of arguments. The only way he can get an ounce of credibility and not end up as object of laughter will be to provide us with sources, so that we can engage in an academic way.

The problem is, he can only cite his own sources tagged with 'What specifically do you not agree with/understand?' at the end. No Bradley, we want real sources from people who can back up their claims with I don't know... facts?

 

[voiceguy]

Bear in mind also that when the facts don't fit his hypothesis that he changes the facts, not the hypothesis.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

The problem is, he can only cite his own sources tagged with 'What specifically do you not agree with/understand?' at the end. No Bradley, we want real sources from people who can back up their claims with I don't know... facts?

And when we tell him what we don't agree with, he ignores it. Like I said yesterday, he's literally not smart enough to process a conflicting opinion, which is unfortunate givem how weak his theory is.

Also, note how he was able to imdb a description of the movie Pi, which he has totally absolutely and for sure seen, but clammed the fuck up when asked what his personal opinion of the film was. Again, the sign of someone who has no concept of how others process information.

Also a sign of someone who hasn't actually seen the movie, despite claiming to own it.

 

[YankeeTrader]

And when we tell him what we don't agree with, he ignores it. Like I said yesterday, he's literally not smart enough to process a conflicting opinion, which is unfortunate givem how weak his theory is.

Also, note how he was able to imdb a description of the movie Pi, which he has totally absolutely and for sure seen, but clammed the fuck up when asked what his personal opinion of the film was. Again, the sign of someone who has no concept of how others process information.

Also a sign of someone who hasn't actually seen the movie, despite claiming to own it.

Half the time, he just pastes the same wall of text starting with something like 'We all agree that'

No, we don't. That's why this thread is over 700 pages.

 

[BlueArmedDevil]

to have the Nestlings turn off their cloaking device.

So what does a un cloaked Nestling look like again? 7 fingers & 4 toes?

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

Firstly I find it funny that you choose a program for your example relating me, makes me wonder if it's a coincidence or if you read my past posts...

There Are No Coincidences​

 

[YankeeTrader]

There Are No Coincidences​

@bacterium Step up and collect your prize!

 

[Kartoffel]

He won't read beyond the first sentence if he gets that far. Depends on last night's coke quality. And then he will say 'There are NO coincidences'

There Are No Coincidences​

@bacterium Step up and collect your prize!

Wow that is actually awesome! Do you have any farther theories @bacterium? You already are so much more believeable than...

@Brad Watson_Miami Okay, as you stated that there are no coincidences enlighten me, did you choice that example specific for me, or was it an mystic alignment of space forces that pushed you to that combination?

Also, if there are no coincidences you should skip that part of my reply and read and answer the rest, which contains the relevant informations. You want us to read your texts, too, so it's only polite.
(Unless there is no such thing as politeness... )

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

The Real Ben Franklin can thrown down with the best of them. He's a regular 18th century badass!

You mean, "The Real Ben Franklin could throw down with the best of them. He was a regular 18th century badass!"* Past-tense. Dr. Franklin is dead; he died on 4/17/1799 which is 'coincidentally' Jesus' Birthday.

@YankeeTrader : You do recognize that Franklin believed in reincarnation, right?


*Synchronism: 10:50 "I don't think it was a coincidence..." - Julia Ioffe - Politico Magazine on CNN

You're so professional and scientific.

Thanks for saying that; you're a sweetheart. But at this point74, I AM an amateur scientist.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

@Brad Watson_Miami

Are you a citizen of the United States?

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

The Messiah returned folks!

Finally, you've recognized it. Let some family and friends know that the Christ has returned and he's fulfilled the prophecy of Revelation 5:1 by having produced the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals"/'beyond Einstein theories'; see http://7seals.blogspot.com .

@ChurchOfGodBear,

Did you fall again and hit your head again this morning?! Of course I AM a citizen of the United States of America. I was born in Miami on the Day of the Revolution in Cuba: July 26, 1959.

"For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction."​

@Brad Watson_Miami Okay, as you stated that there are no coincidences enlighten me, did you (A) choose that example specific for me, or was it (B) a mystic alignment of space forces that pushed you to that combination?

(C) Both.

 

[Kartoffel]

(C) Both.

When it was both, then please elaborate your reasoning for this specific choice. You can leave the space-vodoo out, I'm much more interested in your personal thoughts.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

Guess I'll go back and finish alternating sticking my thumbs up my ass and then sticking them in my mouth.

Well, I guess that would make it hard for you to type.

 

[YankeeTrader]

You mean, "The Real Ben Franklin could throw down with the best of them. He was a regular 18th century badass!"* Past-tense. Dr. Franklin is dead; he died on 4/17/1799 which is 'coincidentally' Jesus' Birthday.

@YankeeTrader : You do recognize that Franklin believed in reincarnation, right?


*Synchronism: 10:50 "I don't think it was a coincidence..." - Julia Ioffe - Politico Magazine on CNN

So what if he was? You just picked someone that has the same believe as you and said you're his reincarnation. That's make believe territory.

When it was both, then please elaborate your reasoning for this specific choice. You can leave the space-vodoo out, I'm much more interested in your personal thoughts.

Since you're a relative new visitor to the insanity that is Brad, this might be helpful.

[GALLERY=media, 2613]Bradchart by YankeeTrader posted Oct 19, 2016 at 10:55 AM[/GALLERY]

 

[Graffiti canvas]

Thanks for saying that; you're a sweetheart. But at this point74, I AM an amateur scientist.

And you'll be that way until you get paid for being the exceptional individual you are <3

 

[YankeeTrader]

Thanks for saying that; you're a sweetheart. But at this point74, I AM an amateur scientist.

But what about all those schools you claimed to go to. Didn't do enough to become a professional?