richard_smith237

Articulate & well spoken with incredible powerful and effective arguments. This man should run for UK PM... With views seen as quite extreme by the left, there is no doubt that Douglas Murray sees things as they are and does not hold back. I for one think his commentary on many issues is outstanding.

The vast majority of people when drunk are well behaved and just enjoying themselves. Its a minority who are unable to control themselves and misbehave when under the influence, or who drink drive and think the laws don't apply to them.

This drunk driving ayhole needs to be facing the same penalties as the Thai's who did the same thing over this songrkan... (or any any time of year).... Of course, they all need to be facing the most severe of penalties - every drunk driver needs to be facing severe penalties - this is the only way to stop these needless incidents. https://aseannow.com/topic/1357769-pickup-truck-ploughs-through-songkran-revellers-injuring-nearly-20-driver-beaten-by-mob/page/2/ https://aseannow.com/topic/1357740-drunken-driver-tries-to-run-over-songkran-children-and-crashes-into-two-homes-in-udon-thani/

It's in the main 'sub-headline'...

Power of Attorney (PoA) is required (if both parents listed on Birth Certificate). Out of Province / Country - Power of Attorney is required. Other parent dead - Death Certificate of deceased parent. Divorced - Both Parents still required to be present, or PoA, OR, Sole Custody documentation must be presented.

I think the 'Lab Leak Theory'... Is one of those which holds a lot of water.... I've always believed the Lab Leak is more plausible than the 'natural spillover' explanation authorities initially ran with. Below is evidence supporting the 'Lab Leak Theory' and against 'Natural Spillover Theory'... Evidence Supporting the Lab Leak Theory of SARS-CoV-2 1. Outbreak Originated Near a Top Coronavirus Lab (Wuhan Institute of Virology) The first known cluster of COVID-19 cases emerged in Wuhan, which houses the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — a world-renowned centre for coronavirus research. 2. Dr. Shi Zhengli – “Bat Woman” Dr. Shi Zhengli, a senior scientist at WIV, is one of the world’s top experts on bat coronaviruses. Her team: - Collected bat virus samples from caves across China. - Conducted genetic manipulation on coronaviruses to assess their ability to infect human cells. - Had published work on making chimeric coronaviruses with spike proteins designed to test infectivity. Some of the bat viruses she studied were strikingly similar to SARS-CoV-2 — including RaTG13, which shares ~96% genome similarity. 3. No Confirmed Intermediate Animal Host Unlike SARS (civets) and MERS (camels), no animal has been definitively identified as the bridge between bats and humans in COVID-19. 4. Coronavirus Engineering and Gain-of-Function Research The WIV had been conducting gain-of-function research, enhancing viral features to better understand potential pandemic risks — a controversial technique. Critics argue this kind of research may have inadvertently produced or amplified a virus capable of infecting humans efficiently. 5. Lack of Transparency and Missing Data Important WIV databases were taken offline in late 2019. Raw virus samples, lab notebooks, and experiment logs from the WIV have not been shared with international investigators. 6. Reports of Illness Among WIV Staff A U.S. intelligence report revealed three WIV researchers fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, prior to the official start of the pandemic. 7. Suspicious Genetic Features The furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein is uncommon among related coronaviruses and may enhance infectivity in humans. Some scientists suggest this could be a lab-inserted feature, although others argue it could arise naturally. 8. Poor Lab Safety Protocols A 2018 U.S. diplomatic cable raised concerns about insufficient biosafety practices at the WIV. WIV handled some coronaviruses at BSL-2 or BSL-3 levels, which are lower biosafety levels than what many experts believe are appropriate for such research. 9. Early Suppression of Information Chinese authorities silenced early warnings, censored media, and punished doctors who spoke out — like Dr. Li Wenliang, who later died of COVID-19. Evidence Against Natural Spillover 1. No Identified Intermediate Host Despite extensive global searching, no animal species has been found carrying a virus close enough to SARS-CoV-2 to be the missing link — not pangolins, not civets, not raccoon dogs. By contrast, SARS and MERS both had their intermediate hosts (civets and camels) identified within months of those outbreaks. 2. No Infected Animal Found at Huanan Market While environmental samples from the market tested positive for the virus (on surfaces, cages, etc.), no infected animals were recovered or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. If it was a true zoonotic spillover hotspot, at least one infected animal should’ve been found, but none was — and live animals were quickly removed or destroyed before full testing could be done. 3. Outbreak Emerged Far from Closest Known Bat Populations The virus likely originated in bats, but the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., RaTG13) were found in southern China (Yunnan) — over 1,000 km away from Wuhan, with no clear natural path of transmission to the city. Why would a bat-borne virus first appear in an urban centre far from the bats, unless it was brought there — say, via human activities… or a lab? 4. Two Early Lineages at Once? Unlikely in Natural Spread Genetic analysis shows that two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating early in the outbreak (Lineage A and B), rather than a single strain radiating outward. This suggests multiple introductions into humans or a rapidly evolving population in a single location — which is odd for a slow-moving zoonotic jump. 5. No Precursor Virus Identified in the Wild Even after extensive animal surveillance across Asia and beyond, no viral precursor (e.g., 98–99% similarity) has been found in any wild or farmed animal. SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged “ready-made” for humans — highly transmissible from the start — which is unusual for viruses crossing species barriers. 6. Rapid Human Adaptation from the Outset SARS-CoV-2 had a high affinity for human ACE2 receptors right from the beginning, without the usual "adaptation curve" seen in most zoonoses. Viruses usually take time (and mutations) to adapt for efficient human-to-human transmission, but SARS-CoV-2 seemed unusually well-adapted immediately. 7. Chinese Authorities Suppressed Key Data Wildlife market animals were destroyed before full testing. Raw data was removed or withheld. Journalists and scientists faced censorship or retraction of papers related to early cases and virus origins. If the natural origin was clear-cut, why all the secrecy? 8. WHO Investigation Was Incomplete and Politically Limited The 2021 WHO-China joint mission to investigate the origins of COVID-19 was tightly controlled by Chinese authorities. It did not include full lab access and relied on second-hand data. Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus later admitted the lab leak hypothesis was prematurely dismissed. 9. Lack of Serological Evidence in Animals or Farmers No consistent antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in animal handlers, farmers, or wildlife trade workers prior to the outbreak, which would suggest prior animal-to-human spillover activity. ------------------------ The above serves as a compelling example of what might be considered a valid conspiracy—specifically, the alleged efforts to suppress or discredit the lab-leak theory. This underscores the importance of not lumping all so-called “conspiracy theories” into the same category. There exists a wide spectrum of plausibility, and to equate something like the lab-leak debate with absurdities such as flat Earth theory is both misleading and intellectually lazy. The latter, in my view, doesn’t even merit the label of a conspiracy.

Of course they could - but then they couldn't 'double charge'... Grab / Bolt works very well in Hua Hun - because the drivers are honest and add an element of confidence, also there is no confusion regarding the destination etc.... Taxi drivers in Thailand have a reputation for attempting scams (of course not all are)... Those drivers who are honest have already joined in with Grab and Bolt - the one's who do not wish to, are the ones which wish to pull a fast one on the tourists and try to charge extra after sitting around doing nothing for most of the day. It's noticed [that the 'egg throwers were female']... Had it been males, they would have been physically attacking the driver, which is the normal story we read when such 'turf conflicts' exist.

Yes.. wrong idea... The issue is IF the child will be permitted to exit Thailand with an expired Thai Passport, or on a French Passport that has no entry stamp. Thai Passports are not issued at Embassies in Thailand... The issuance of Passports of other nations is not relevant to this discussion.

@NativeBob >> Have you ever renewed a child's Thai Passport ? IF so, have you ever done so without 'both' parents present ?

He's muddying the waters and generating confusion - Your visa status is irrelevant as is your marriage status. You are listed on the Birth Cert as the father. Both parents need to be present, or you need a PoA. --------- We renewed our Son's Thai Passport 6 months ago. We both needed to be present at the Thai Passport Office to renew our Son's Passport.

The rights are equal: Both parents need to be Present even if its the the Thai mother who wants to renew the Thai Passport for the child. Confusing statement muddying the waters. It doesn't matter if there is also a Marriage Certificate. With both Father & Mother on the Birth Certificate - both parents need to be present, OR a PoA (from the non-attending parent) is required. Irrelevant how he dresses, IF he doesn't have the right paperwork (PoA) or the Mother / Wife also present. rattlesnakes question has nothing to do with the visa he's on... also the visa he is on, has no relevance to the Childs renewal of their Thai passport.

Here is yet another shining example of modern enlightenment: a conspiracy stitched together by the algorithmic hive-mind of social media. It kicks off with some basement philosopher, armed with nothing but Wi-Fi and unwarranted confidence, mangling facts. The digital village quickly awakened - like moths to a particularly stupid flame - each one parroting the last, building a rickety cathedral of nonsense on the foundation of their shared ignorance. The recent Blue Origin New Shepard flight - many are suggesting this was a fabrication and also use the SpaceX Falcon 9 flight as a comparison. The Space X Capsule was scored on re-entry, Blue Origin was clean. Blue Origin’s suborbital capsule never comes close to the speeds required for atmospheric reentry heating - there’s simply not enough velocity. Topping out around Mach 3 (roughly 3,500 km/h), it doesn’t generate the friction or compression needed to produce the iconic fireball effect seen in true spaceflight. For contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets exceed Mach 10 during ascent, and the Dragon capsule reaches orbital velocity - about 28,000 km/h. That staggering difference explains why Blue Origin’s launches lack the visceral drama of orbital missions. To the untrained eye, it might even seem theatrical - too clean, too slow, too suspiciously smooth. The landing of Blue Origin was too hard to be realistic: Tolerable, if a bit jarring. Passengers endure about 4 Gs on descent - not insignificant, but still a cakewalk compared to the brutal forces experienced in orbital reentry. The capsule is equipped with semi-reclined crash seats designed to absorb some of that final impact. The door Blue Origin was flimsy compared to other 'space craft' and opened inward: It opens inward by design, a deliberate safety feature. When there’s a pressure differential between the inside and outside of a cabin (as there is at altitude), an inward-opening door becomes physically impossible to open, preventing accidental depressurisation. Critically, the door can be opened in an emergency: a removable handle allows for external access post-landing. During one mission, a passenger reportedly opened the door too early, prompting ground crews to halt the impromptu escape - not for safety, but because the scene wasn’t yet Instagram-ready. The Blue Origin Capsules interior is basic and looks faked: The capsule’s interior may appear spartan - even cheap - compared to high-performance orbital vehicles, but that’s largely because it doesn’t need to endure the same brutal conditions. Three Gs on ascent, four on descent - mild, by spaceflight standards. There’s no need for the heavy shielding, intricate thermal protection systems, or complex avionics demanded by true orbital spacecraft. All of that said: the Blue Origin’s flights aren’t fake - but they are hollow. The whole affair is less about exploration and more about elevation - of egos, that is. It’s a meticulously choreographed joyride for the ultra-wealthy, controlled entirely from the ground, dressed up in the language of space travel but stripped of any real stakes. Its a carnival ride for billionaires, masquerading as progress. A trip to the Kármán Line (the boundary of space) not an orbital flight - all of the comparisons used to suggest the Blue Orbit flights are faked can easily be picked apart. The Blue Origin Capsules had Mannequins and no people: (zoom in on the hand). This one is doing the rounds on social - the photo is of a test flight where Mannequins were used. What’s circulating online is a misleading narrative spun from a test flight that used mannequins to simulate human passengers. This is standard practice for testing purposes, as mannequins equipped with sensors provide critical data about the forces passengers would experience during launch and landing. There’s no conspiracy here—just practical, controlled experimentation, essential for ensuring passenger safety before actual human flights. ------------------ All of the above illustrates how easily a conspiracy can be both fabricated and believed, built on a foundation of flawed narratives and falsehoods. What's even more alarming is how many will eagerly embrace such fabrications, driven not by genuine conviction, but by an unwillingness - or inability - to engage in the effort required to evaluate and verify the facts. Far too often, it’s the path of least resistance that wins: the lazy and the ignorant rushing to adopt narratives without a second thought.

He skidded off the road and crashed - I think it can readily be assumed the driver didn't compensate for the poor conditions. As another poster suggested - no seatbelts ? - while we can never be sure, damage suggest this was an entirely survivable accident if seatbelts are worn.

Great Point... While I have never been asked (2x) and neither has my Wife, while travelling with our child without the 'other parent' - a couple of friends have been questioned. They didn't have any documentation, however, a phone call to the 'other party' was carried out. We always travel with a form, which 'should' be translated and notarised by the local Amphur, but we never go that far. This is the form we use (unfortunately I had to save as JPEG as this site doesn't allow loading an MS word or PDF document).

I believe this is because a Thai national cannot legally be refused entry into Thailand. Even with an expired passport, they can still prove their Thai citizenship. The immigration officer may have been incorrect or simply trying to offer a workaround by suggesting your daughter enter on her US passport. However, since she holds dual nationality, Thai law requires that she enter and exit Thailand using her Thai passport. From a legal standpoint, her Thai citizenship takes precedence when dealing with Thai immigration. This offers first hand experience for rattlesnake (the Op) - where your daughter was effectively told she cannot exit Thailand on expired documentation.

What if the Father is unavailable or even Unknown? If the father is 'unknown' then he is not listed on the birth certificate, the mother does not need his consent to apply for or renew the child’s passport. The mother can apply alone as the sole parent with full parental authority. If the father is legally recognised (i.e., his name is on the Thai birth certificate), but he’s simply unavailable, then things get a little trickier. I believe a court ruling that grants the mother sole custody or full parental power is required.

While the term "truth seeker" sounds noble, it becomes problematic when it's used to rebrand conspiracy theorists in a way that preemptively legitimises their claims. Seeking truth is admirable, but true inquiry requires rigorous evidence, a willingness to revise beliefs, and an openness to being wrong. Simply questioning the mainstream doesn’t make someone a truth seeker - it’s the method and intellectual honesty that define the pursuit, not the title. The idea that ridicule is a sign of hidden truth is a logical fallacy - specifically, the Galileo gambit. Just because a theory is mocked doesn’t mean it’s correct. Many ideas are ridiculed because they lack coherence, evidence, or rational foundation - not because they’ve “hit a nerve.” Fringe claims often invite scorn because they’re outlandish, not because they’re dangerous revelations. To quote Kwilco (earlier on in this thread) who quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” Asserting that “confirming lies” automatically leads one to “the doctrine of those in charge” assumes a shadowy control structure without first proving its existence. Jumping from observed inconsistencies to grand narratives about elite cabals and hidden doctrines is often less about truth and more about pattern-seeking in chaos - a psychological impulse, not a logical conclusion. Additionally, the notion that the most sensitive topics are inherently the most true (“bullseye”) is circular reasoning. Sensitivity doesn't imply validity.

No... Its a simple is a term used to describe the belief or explanation that significant events or situations are covertly orchestrated by powerful, often malevolent entities, rather than unfolding through transparent or natural means. At times, such theories have proven to hold elements of truth - where dominant narratives were indeed shaped or manipulated to conceal inconvenient realities. In other instances, however, these theories spiral into the realm of the irrational and unhinged, driven not by evidence but by an entrenched anti-establishment mindset. For those lingering at the fringes of reason, suspicion becomes a lens through which all truth is distorted, and paranoia masquerades as insight. While some conspiracy theories have, over time, been vindicated or revealed to contain elements of truth, it would be a categorical error to treat all such theories as equally credible. The existence of valid conspiracies does not grant automatic legitimacy to every claim that wears the same label. To group them all under one umbrella and regard them with the same level of seriousness is to ignore the vast spectrum that exists - ranging from plausible skepticism to outright delusion.

One of the other facets to consider - the Passport Office in Thailand may want to see an Original Document - thus: Timing plays a key factor in getting the original posted over. I'm not sure of this of course - but Thailand does like its 'originals'... With other documents when an original is required, I've sometimes got away with a coloured print (depending on the office and individual officer).

The speed in which they were hit and the change of lanes at the last 50 yards contradics your theory....totally the drivers fault.. What... you mean the video is wrong and the pedestrians did actually look as they crossed ? Its not a theory that the German pedestrians showed a lack of awareness and a lack of regard for their own well being - its clear from the video that they strolled across the crossing without looking. I agree with you that the Songthaew driver is 100% at fault from a legal perspective. But, I the video also shows the pedestrians showed a high level of disregard for their own safety when crossing without paying any attention at all for any oncoming traffic ---------------------- Where did the 'Songthaew change lanes' ? - is there another video we haven't seen on this thread ? Even, if the Songthaew it did approach at high speed and change lanes its would have been easy for the pedestrians to avoid impact had they looked and taken greater care.

I recall from renewing my Sons Thai's passport - both Parents need to be present. If one of the parents is not present, I believe a Power of Attorney from Thai Embassy / or consulate must be secured. ------ Regarding 'exiting' Thailand on an expired Thai Passport and using the Passport of Dual Nationality (French in this case) to travel on - I think its risky and Immigration may not permit exit on an expired Thai Passport. I'd advise to cover my bases and get the PoA, then have the Passport renewed in Thailand.

In other discussions, I’ve noticed you challenged Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which is a bold stance stance, to say the least. At the same time, your insights into the sonoluminescence of distant celestial bodies have genuinely intrigued me. No offence intended, by the way - I enjoy our exchanges and the intelligence with which you write.... But I have also observed that you often diverge from mainstream perspectives. Perhaps it’s a case of playing devil’s advocate to stimulate discussion, or perhaps you genuinely lean toward alternative frameworks because you want to be an 'alternative thinker' and naturally have 'anti-establishment' bias. Some of the ideas you've posted directly contradict well-established, demonstrable physics, while others carry a hint of plausibility - especially given the inherent gaps in our understanding of phenomena occurring far beyond our reach (such as distant celestial bodies). It’s always an engaging debate with you, and I find myself genuinely pausing to consider my responses carefully - rather than instinctively thinking, “Oh, give over, you utter fool.” ..... That alone makes our exchanges far more worthwhile than, say, arguing whether circles exist (a point I made in the thread).

It’s easy to think of yourself as an independent thinker, but leaning into fringe theories while avoiding mainstream, fact-based science often leads to conspiracist thinking rather than an informed understanding. As interesting and thought provoking as your input is, its readily debunked. You are ultimately an example of why this thread exists.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries argues that polio never truly disappeared, but was simply renamed after the introduction of the vaccine - reclassified as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or heavy metal toxicity. She claims that by changing diagnostic criteria, the medical establishment manufactured a dramatic decline in paralytic polio to credit the vaccine. While this theory has gained traction in alternative health circles, it misrepresents the nature of scientific progress and relies on correlation without causation. In reality, polio - defined specifically as paralysis caused by poliovirus infection - has decreased by over 99.99% worldwide since the launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988. From 350,000 paralytic cases annually in 125 countries in the 1980s, we now see fewer than 200 cases per year, primarily limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The reduction in cases occurred alongside mass vaccination campaigns, not simply a change in how paralysis was labelled. While diagnostic criteria were refined in the 1950s to require laboratory confirmation and longer-lasting paralysis, this was a product of improved technology and understanding- not manipulation. Moreover, Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs at a rate of 1–2 per 100,000 people per year globally, while non-polio enteroviruses like coxsackie and echovirus cause millions of mostly mild infections annually, with only a small fraction leading to neurological symptoms. These conditions are biologically and clinically distinct from poliomyelitis. And while substances like DDT, mercury, and lead were used widely and are neurotoxic, their epidemiological footprint never matched the scale or seasonal/geographic pattern of true polio outbreaks. Ultimately, polio wasn’t renamed or disguised - it was nearly wiped out through decades of coordinated vaccination, surveillance, and public health efforts. If it had simply been reclassified, we’d still be seeing tens of thousands of children in wheelchairs or iron lungs worldwide. Instead, those numbers have plummeted - because the virus, not just the diagnosis, has been driven to the edge of extinction. Polio is caused by a virus (poliovirus), not a toxin. The virus was isolated in the 1900s, well before DDT was invented. Polio outbreaks occurred before DDT was used, though they were smaller. Most scientists say the apparent correlation is just that - a correlation, not causation. However, DDT is a known neurotoxin, and it can affect the immune system, so it’s not impossible that it made polio infections more severe in some people. So was Eddie Bravo - a flat earth fruit cake... just because someone gets airtime on The Joe Rogan Experience it doesn’t automatically make their ideas valid or truthful. Joe Rogan gives a platform to anyone, no matter how wild or unconventional their views might be, which allows for a wide range of perspectives, whether they’re controversial or not.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/10/848 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6254221_Ilheus_Virus_Isolate_from_a_Human_Ecuador https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00682-5/fulltext Three very reputable publications... Information regarding the isolation of viruses is widespread. Isolated SARS-CoV-2 Virus - here >> https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/albums/72157712914621487/ Yawn... seriously - this is similar to listening to someone convinced that the earth is not an oblate spheroid... oh, thats you too... Ok, I'll again, this is similar to listening to someone convinced that circles do not exist... And yet again, I fell sullied and just a little more stupid for even entering the debate with such silliness.