# data[].attributes.body
Description:  suppressed by the authorities in when people of authority or power hide information that could benefit the well being of society

Connection:  In this video a former government official talks about things the government is hiding from us, such as how they record phone calls from between citizens and that the government was spying on the french presidents. There is also a conspiracy the government is hiding the truth about life on other planets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Things The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:  Appeal of Authority is using someone in a position of authority or power related to the topic to make your claim more believable.

connection: Doctors are the people we turn to for health issues and advice. its a proven fact that smoking causes cancer and other health related issues, doctors don't recommend smoking. this ad portrays that camels are better for you because doctors smoke them, when in fact all cigarettes are bad for you.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Ancient wisdom is persuading someone to believe your theory because its been around for a long time.

Connection: This video shows ancient wisdom because it suggest that the ancients beings created them. people are more likely to believe facts about something from 100's of years ago simply because they still exist today. They believe that if the facts were false they would have figured it out by now therefor they must be true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
indiana jones and the kingdom of the cryst...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mysterious artefacts beyond human comprehension. Potentially cursed. Will the truth behind these Central American crystal skulls be revealed? Don't forget to Subscribe for more Conspiracies! - http://bit.ly/1dmVsvF A massive thank you to our super fans who have supported us on our Patreon page.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: confirmation bias is when you choose to believe something strictly due to the fact that it supports your beliefs. information that contradicts your beliefs is usually ignored.

Connection: a solid example of confirmation bias is Donald Trump as president. this article goes over all the reasons Trump should not be president. A lot of people have a negative impression from Donald Trump,  and since he became president the public has viewed him as a joke. The news seems to broadcast all the negative things trump has done since becoming president and very little about anything positive Donald Trump has done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mr. Trump's brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns - as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done - should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors' money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.
A straight talker who tells it like it is?
Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won't reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he's talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals - his campaign pledge of a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico - has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.

Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies - with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.

He used the shameful "birther" campaign against President Obama's legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters' questions.

Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would "loosen" libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.
An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?
His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump's debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser's estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for - only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.

If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump "an international pariah." Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a "hoax," although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin's dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin's vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump's urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.
A change agent for the nation and the world?
There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans' financial future, and alienating our allies won't protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.

The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration's progress on the environment, vowing to "cancel the Paris climate agreement" on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of "stop and frisk" policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association's ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive "shootouts" with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump's silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters - a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters - translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation's life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mr. Trump's brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns - as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done - should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: "all natural" is when you use the word natural to make people believe its good for you.

Connection:  In this article it goes over some food that claims to be healthy and all natural but in fact are no, such as cheddar cheese. most people grow up thinking cheddar cheese is orange when it is actually white. so when you buy "all natural" orange cheddar cheese its not actually natural, there is artificial coloring in the cheese.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You're heading to the super market, attempting to start your health kick for the millionth time and fully ready to pick up some delicious finds. There's just one problem -- how do you know what's actually good for you? Many items claim to be all natural but are they really?

Photo: Getty

These big questions are rarely answered by your local supermarket workers and you can't help wondering whether or not you're making the right decision in your food choices. The truth is, many "all natural" health foods are not what they claim to be, but that doesn't mean you have to be in the dark when it comes to what's actually all natural and what's not.

Luckily for us, nutritionist Lisa Grudzielanek, shares 5 things to watch for on food labels when you're just not sure what to believe.
1) "Natural Flavors"
An ambiguous umbrella term that means it's made from natural flavors (in a lab). In other words, added chemicals are virtually impossible to avoid.
2) Cheddar cheese with an orange flavoring
Photo: Getty

Yes, many of us are guilty of having this in our home and have grown up thinking cheddar cheese is "naturally" orange. But the truth it, it's actually white -- aka food coloring is a red flag for UNNATURAL.
3) "Natural flavor with more natural flavor"
So -- supernatural flavor?! That's a big sign of something fishy no matter which way you look at it. Often times, when something says it has natural flavor added to its already supposedly natural flavor, that means the amount of added chemicals is off the charts.
4) "Made with real butter"
Photo: Getty

If it's made WITH real butter than what else is in it?! Most of the time, this is a sign of processed starch and several other lab made chemicals. No thank you!
5) "Made with real chocolate"
Similarly to the "made with real butter" scheme, there's something fishy about having to call out the fact that it's made with real chocolate. Typically, if you turn over the package and read the label, there will be a handful of items in that "real chocolate" that actually aren't real at all.

Click through for more healthy eating myths:

More on AOL.com:
The most violent phenomena of nature
Filmmaking vs. nature: Capturing a real geyser
Photographer Henry Lizardlover really lives up to his name

Read Full Story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 signs 'all natural' food is actually really bad for you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You're heading to the super market, attempting to start your health kick for the millionth time and fully ready to pick up some delicious finds. There's just one problem -- how do you know what's actually good for you? Many items claim to be all natural but are they really?

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Finding faces and patterns in everyday objects or nature. Patternicity is the reason the brain believes something that is not real.

Connection: In the picture below there is a regular leaf with holes in it, but the position of the holes makes it look like a face. This is an example of Patternicity.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Simplicity is when you are given multiple theories/choices and choose to believe  a certain one due to the fact that it is the easiest to understand or explain.

Connection: elow is a picture of our weekly discussion options, this shows simplicity because each week we are given 3 options to choose from and typically the students would choose the easiest one for them to complete

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The unexplained are things we don't know for sure, you cannot prove them and they cannot disprove them.

Connection: In this article it talks about possible life on other planets that are not in our solar system. Currently telescopes can only view planets within the milky way therefor you cannot prove it or disprove it, making it unexplained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As more planets are discovered outside Earth's solar system, scientists must update estimations about the likelihood that life has formed somewhere other than Earth.

Credit: ESO

SALT LAKE CITY - What are the odds that alien life exists elsewhere in the universe? At a major physics meeting, experts talked about updates to historic predictions about whether humans are alone in the cosmos.

In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake wrote an equation to quantify the likelihood of finding a technologically advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe. The so-called Drake equation took into account factors such as the fraction of stars with planets around them and the fraction of those planets that would be hospitable to life.

In the years since 1961, scientists have updated the values in the Drake equation to incorporate newly acquired scientific information. For example, when Drake wrote his equation, scientists didn't know for sure if stars other than the sun had planets around them; now, researchers have evidence that most stars host planets. But science wasn't the only thing that influenced Drake - even current events factor into his calculation. [ The Father of SETI: Q&A with Astronomer Frank Drake]

At the heart of the search for life elsewhere in the universe is the question " Is Earth unique?" said Matthew Stanley, a science historian at New York University. Stanley discussed the history of humanity's evolving view of its place in the cosmos at the American Physical Society April Meeting on Saturday (April 16), in a session focused on recent discoveries in planetary science.

Humans once thought that the Earth was not only unique, but at the center of the entire universe, Stanley said. Scientific investigations eventually showed that our planet is not even at the center of its own solar system - it is one of seven other planets and many smaller bodies orbiting the sun.

On the other hand, in the last 20 years, scientists have discovered thousands of planets around other stars, and most of those planets are not like Earth (they're big and gaseous, like Jupiter). And most solar systems are not like Earth's solar system (big planets orbit close to their parent star, whereas in Earth's solar system, the large planets orbit further out).

Does this suggest that Earth is unique? Stanley said that currently, this question is difficult to answer, because telescopes that search for exoplanets have a selection bias toward large, gas giant planets that orbit very close to their parent stars. With current technologies, these types of planets are easier to detect. With that in mind, scientists are still trying to estimate how many rocky and Earth-like planets are out there.

By one estimation, for every grain of sand on Earth, there could be as many as 10 Earth-like planets in the universe. That's according to Peter Behroozi, a Hubble fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, who presented during the same session as Stanley. (Of course, it is important to remember that the universe is a very big place, and at the moment scientists can search for life only on planets within the Milky Way galaxy.)

An artist's concept of planet system Kepler-47. As scientists learn more about the cosmos, estimations of the likelihood that life exists beyond Earth are changing.

Credit: NASA

Behroozi is working to link galaxy formation with planet formation. In a paper published in 2015 in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Socity, he and his co-author showed that larger galaxies produce a greater number of Earth-like planets than do smaller galaxies such as, for example, the Milky Way. But because there are many more Milky Way-size galaxies in the universe, that's where most Earth-like planets in the universe should be found. Thus, Earth's location in a Milky Way-size galaxy is not unique.

This work not only helps scientists make estimations about how many planets are currently in the universe, but how many will form, assuming the universe continues to grow and evolve in the same way it has in the recent past. In the 2015 paper, Behroozi and his colleague look far ahead into the future and estimate that "the universe will form over 10 times more planets than currently exist." The paper summary goes on to say that there is "at least a 92 percent chance that we are not the only civilization the universe will ever have."

During his talk, Stanley re-traced the history of humanity's search for life beyond Earth, and showed how people are influenced by their own times and experiences when trying to predict what lies beyond this planet.

William Herschel, an extremely influential 18th century astronomer, believed that intelligent beings lived on the sun. In the 19th century, mainstream astronomers thought they saw artificial canals built by intelligent creatures on Mars and Venus. Observations of those two planets and the sun by space-based probes have disproved those ideas, but new research has also given rise to updated ideas about how and where life could exist elsewhere in the universe.

For example, Stanley said, in the last 40 years, scientists have adopted a broader view of the conditions under which life can exist. So-called extremophiles are organisms that live in environments that were previously thought inhospitable, like at the bottom of the ocean, under the ice in Antarctica and in areas that receive high doses of radiation.

Stanley said many aspects of the Drake equation need updating not only with new scientific evidence, but also with new perspectives. (It should be noted that there are scientists and writers who have dedicated entire books to updating Drake's predictions.)

Drake's equation, for example includes the variable L, which stands for "the length of time such [technologically advanced] civilizations release detectable signals into space," according to the SETI Institute.

When Drake wrote his equation in the 1960s, the value for L was thought of as the time between when a civilization discovered atomic energy and when that society managed to destroy itself through nuclear annihilation, Stanley said.

"That's a totally reasonable way to think about the length of time of a civilization at the height of the Cold War," he said. "But there's been recent work ... arguing that we shouldn't think about 'L' in terms of nuclear war. We should think about it in terms of environmental destruction. ... That is, it's the time between the discovery of a steam engine and catastrophic climate change."

The equation also includes the variable fc, which represents the fraction of alien civilizations that "develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence" (such as radio communications or television broadcast signals sprayed out into space), the SETI Institute said.

Today, however, many of Earth's communications no longer leak out into space, but are instead passed neatly between ground sources and satellites. There are still projects searching for leaky alien communications, and some scientists have proposed that humans should look for focused, laser-based systems used by alien civilizations to communicate between multiple planets or even multiple star systems. But Stanley's larger point is that to some extent, humanity can only look for alien civilizations that bear some resemblance to our own.

Today, the search for life on other planets is largely focused on telescopes that can study the atmospheres of distant planets and look for signs of biological processes. For example, high levels of methane (produced by many living organisms on Earth) or oxygen in a planet's atmosphere could be due to biological activity. And one day, researchers may be able to search for artificially created atmospheric elements.

"So even if we bomb ourselves back to the Renaissance or the Stone Age, the evidence that a civilization once existed on our planet [would not be] erased," Behroozi told Space.com.

The composition of a planet's atmosphere could even reveal how an intelligent civilization that once lived managed to kill itself, Stanley said.

It may be impossible for humans to be purely objective in their speculation about life the universe, Stanley said. He added that he thinks personal bias and human experiences will always infuse science, but that those things can also help lead to successes in science. Having different perspectives helps people look at things in new ways, which can lead to breakthroughs, he said. That's why, he said, it's actually a good idea for scientists to "talk to people outside your field ... listen to marginal people. Get a diversity of people, people from different backgrounds, different genders [and] different kinds of cultures.

"I think it's actually helpful to embrace the fact that this is always how science is done," he said. "And to accept that everybody's different, everybody has weird ideas, and that's actually a source of strength rather than weakness."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are We Alone? Scientists Discuss the Search for Life and Odds of E.T.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SALT LAKE CITY - What are the odds that alien life exists elsewhere in the universe? At a major physics meeting, experts talked about updates to historic predictions about whether humans are alone in the cosmos. In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake wrote an equation to quantify the likelihood of finding a technologically advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe.