Who's Behind Nat Geo....
- Thread starter BrainSellz
- Start date
Blueshark, I'm being unfair again. Nat Geo is no Hearst newspaper when it comes to disseminating propaganda. In fact I have no beef with NG other than who owns them. And since I don't have anything to cite as reference, I should prolly stfu. 
Thanks for the heads up, I'll check it out.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll check it out.yea i know but in europe the natgeo schedule is completly diferent
hopefully someone upload it to youtube 
M
milehimedi
Nat Geo is without a doubt onboard with mainstream media agenda. They are constantly shitting out shows about carbon footprint this, climate change that, etc..... They are far from objective.... turn off the tube if you want truth! I did not see this special in particular.
they have still showed sick people with cancer talking about how cannabis has helped them. i didn't see anything like that on TV years ago. do they show various opinions within the documentary some not always true? yes -- but they've also had sick people dying of cancer talking about how cannabis benefits them. they've had local Humboldt growers on there talking about how they make a living from this and support there families and live other wise "normal' lives, and how cannabis is tightly wound into the local economies. these type of things were not being aired on TV prior to nat. geo. at at least not as often.
no one is denying that there is misinformation within the documentary, but as a whole its getting better.
no one is denying that there is misinformation within the documentary, but as a whole its getting better.
good to hear
Did they say that later in the program? At the beginning they actually say... (and I'm paraphrasing here) Holding in the smoke jacks up the amount of "tar" inhaled to 4X the amount of a unfiltered cigarette... Possible. Of course they don't mention that if they used a bong it would be less & and if they vaped it there would be no tar.
Did they make that leap later in the documentary (saying it was 4X as Toxic) I can't remember and they don't have the whole video posted on the site. Did they use the word toxic later in the show?
Matanuskan Flo
Member
forget News Corp, lets talk Bilderberg Group. Murdoch is a long time member. it has long been speculated that if Murdoch & some male newscaster/reporter who is still currently working is also a member, why is there never any reports or broadcasts or articles about what actually is discussed or done @ these clandestine mtgs which are military guarded, heavily. so, the media always does question why there is never any coverage or details about what Carlos Slim (richest man in world, telecom monopoly) & those executive board members of News Corp, IBM, Royal Dutch Shell & others mentioned in the article converse about. but, if you click on 'List of Participants' you will see people such as bill clinton, colin powell, & other prominent figures around the entire world. the richest & best of the best in their industry all meet 1x a year in a different location. the 1st, happened to be at the Bilderberg Hotel somewhere i cannot recall. switzerland i think, not sure. but, that is how it got its name & the Bilderberg Group or society is the real deal. i saw it on tv briefly, did more research on google that i briefly recall. but, the times they met, it was revealed that they reach a consensus on whatever topic it could be, & sooon thereafter, it was implemented, initiated or done. i wish i could remember the specific example thats on the tip of my tongue. shoot, u all google it. Bilderberg makes The Skulls look like boyscouts, &, I know the magnitude of that statement. Out of Many, One. it says it on the damn currency itself. out of the total US, let alone global population, very few control everything. i mean, do we really think our local congressman does a damn thing to help the economy?? hopefully, some do, but it would be localized anyhow. if every congressman, senator & president had the ability to do what they want, they would have by now. its sad to say, but naive not to think that these bilderberg people & the powerful likes of them control the many & report to a few if anyone at all. its a chain affect. the highest powered individual exhibits his position to person a, chairman of the committee on renewable energy funding, that person a will lobby for the big boss' wishes. who goes against the chairman of the board? not someone who wants to stay on the board, thats for sure. so, person b, will follow, like a sheep. rarely will u find a wolf who has the conviction to not back down. if he doesn't have a sudden accident (lol), he will be ostracized in some way or fashion, guaranteed. so, this is why the head of a media corp like murdoch & reporters/tv broadcasters do not make a fricken peep or sound or wave in any form about any of the BilderBerg mtgs besides location & date/time really. b/c they are told not to by someone more powerful or a group thats more powerful than Murdoch & reporter. date & time i am not even sure of, they may know of it afterward or whilst it is happening. anyhow, im blazed & cant stop typing. so i am going now. peace y'all.
Closet_Grower
Member
David Sazuki showed effects of marijuana on MS patients like 10 years ago, and the Union doc shows it too... big woop. i dont want 1 or 2 facts clouded by fear and fiction.
the natgeo doc makes me upset because its JUST smart enough to make people on this forum talk about it. If it was pure crap we would all laugh it off... but this doc is full of misinformation and does not belong ANYWHERE.
And anyone without a clue will trust in natgeo cause of their brand.
I still think it boils down to pharmaceuticals and the US war on drugs IMHO. call me a conspiracy theorist or nutball but at least I got my eyes wide open.
this thread proves the complacency of our society.
Yes they did.
They said the part about tar like you mentioned, and then the narrator further in, or maybe before even, says that MJ smoke is 4 times more toxic then tobacco.
Funny then that this FAR LESS toxic tobacco smoke kills 400,000 people are year, but the deadly toxic MJ smoke hasn't killed anyone ever, not this year, not last year, not ever.
I'll try to watch it next time it airs, and pin down the moment they say it, but believe me, it was said, I was outraged when I heard it.
Which part Hoos?
The documented undisputed FACT that 400'000 people a year die as a DIRECT result of tobacco use?
Or the fact that not one single death can be linked to marijuana smoke?
If anyone had died as a direct result of smoking MJ, don't you think the propagandists would be all over it like stink on shit?
Y
yardgnome
Are you talking about the one on the History channel?
No, I liked that one, "Marijuana, a chronic history" I think that is the history channel one.
This one is on Natgeo's own channel.
Lol. Because he didn't get the information from a died-in-the-wool Newscorp fan.
Nice try, Baba Kuke. First you float Rupert's liberal agenda. Then you defend the worst pot lie on the books.
Let's see... if tobacco kills 400,000 per year... and if weed is 4 times as bad as tobacco... that means we should expect ~1.6 million pot smoker deaths... every year.
So lets review...
Do you have proof... of a single death... per year... from smoking weed?
HELL NO!!!
Everything we get from you comes from the mind of Minolta... nothing more.
Last edited:
Yeah, let's review...
See this only shows that you surely don't use your fucking bean
before you start your little nubs pecking.
First of all...do you think that there are the same number of pot smokers as there are cigarette smokers?
Should we expect such numbers, or perhaps ones who like to call little gay names and show their ignorance on a regular basis would be the ones to make such illogical assumptions?
And of course you fail to see the point I was trying to make.
Just how do we arrive at the 400k figure? Research and studies. These studies are funded...nobody works for free.
There is no need to fund a study to show the ills of pot, it is already illegal. So, without credible and comprehensive information, it is hard to make a blanket statement that pot smoke has never killed anyone.
I think anyone with a brain can realize that there is issues with the intake of tar. I don't care what the vehicle is.
But of course we all are going to be as honest about things as we want the media to be, yes?
"Who cares about smoke from pot, it never killed anyone...whereas cigarette smoke kills 400,000 per year"
See, anyone from the opposition reading such words knows that they are blowing unfounded rhetoric. If is true that the concentration of tar is much greater in pot as from tobacco, and if we know that tar contributes to COPD and other ailments, is it not safe to assume that pot smoke can also contribute to health problems and even early death?
If we know that not to be the case, then we better be prepared to backup our assertions with reference.
Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer Web MD
Pot is non-carcinogenic. Comparing to tobacco is silly. Cigarettes in their current form are very carcinogenic and deadly.
What the hell hoosier?
You working for the tobacco industry now?
Are you going to tell me you don't know someone who has died from complications directly related to cigarette smoking?
Most people have someone in there family who has died.
You probably know a lot of pot smokers too, so lets hear your story of health horrors related to their use of MJ alone.
I can't think of one, except my buddy who got sick from smoking a junebug we loaded in the bong for him that he thought was pot, and that doesn't really count.
Otherwise 25 plus years smoking with my friends and no ill effects to any in the bunch.
