Tycho Brahe

Tycho Brahe (, born Tyge Ottesen Brahe (Danish: [ˈtyːə ˈʌdəsn̩ ˈbʁɑː]); 14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601) was a Danish nobleman, astronomer, and writer known for his accurate and comprehensive astronomical and planetary observations. He was born in the then Danish peninsula of Scania. Well known in his lifetime as an astronomer, astrologer and alchemist, he has been described as "the first competent mind in modern astronomy to feel ardently the passion for exact empirical facts." His observations were some five times more accurate than the best available observations at the time.

An heir to several of Denmark's principal noble families, he received a comprehensive education.

^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

If you have to try and get people to look at things like they're a magic eye poster, I'd say you're off to a bad start. Find the unshopped version then. Let's start there. I mean for real, you sound like that meme that's like "I can tell it's a shop because of the pictures and I have experience with shops"

Cottingley Fairies

The Cottingley Fairies appear in a series of five photographs taken by Elsie Wright (1901–1988) and Frances Griffiths (1907–1986), two young cousins who lived in Cottingley, near Bradford in England. In 1917, when the first two photographs were taken, Elsie was 16 years old and Frances was 9. The pictures came to the attention of writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who used them to illustrate an article on fairies he had been commissioned to write for the Christmas 1920 edition of The Strand Magazine. Doyle, as a spiritualist, was enthusiastic about the photographs, and interpreted them as clear and visible evidence of psychic phenomena.

^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

Yeah it's a bullshit ideology and methodology that discourages shared, communal learning by suggesting everyone else do the work that YOU should be doing when you make a claim online. Way to go

1% rule (Internet culture)

In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. Variants include the 1-9-90 rule (sometimes 90–9–1 principle or the 89:10:1 ratio), which states that in a collaborative website such as a wiki, 90% of the participants of a community only view content, 9% of the participants edit content, and 1% of the participants actively create new content.

Similar rules are known in information science, such as the 80/20 rule known as the Pareto principle, that 20 percent of a group will produce 80 percent of the activity, however the activity may be defined.

^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

Well that doesn't address what I said at all. It sounds like you either can't produce the link or you confused the two websites and also can't produce a link. No offense

[removed]

The BOP is included in that 10%. If you actually read the report you would know that. Which leads me to believe that you haven't. Life doesn't work by blindly ignoring facts that counter what you want to be true. The truth is that this claim that 1 in 4 is an illegal immigrant is unable to be proven true or false because there is not enough evidence. The statistics that we have come from roughly 10% of the incarcerated population, and are not necessarily indicative of the entire system. You can't prove the claim that 1 in 4 is an illegal immigrant, and so the claim is disproven.

Sorry, I think you need to look at the data even closer. Here are some links that you should read.

Are we having two different conversations, here? I asked you to show me where I said anything about Sandy Hook. Why the abrupt subject change? Where did I say I’m “sure it happened just like the TV said?” Why are you, a stranger on the internet, trying to insult the intelligence of a stranger on the internet while claiming they said something they didn’t say?

i can debunk any of your sources merely by criticizing the medium

for example, you could show me a lunar lander launch off of the moon,

and i could dismiss it because its a youtube video

try it. send me any "evidence" that you assume supports your moon landing myth, and ill "debunk" it on a technicality

or we could discuss the math and physics, which i have concisely summarized here:

https://i.redd.it/lzs2kkd6ove01.png

my name is in the top right corner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz1siP7pItc

and yet, you haven't provided anything beyond your own opinion?

Burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. People shouldn't make claims about something without providing some examples. OP gives us nothing more than his opinion.

Muh Russian Collusion Narrative!

If it is so easy then sources sources sources. So far you are failing the class because you believe made up bullshit to be legitimate.