It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Tsarion is Wrong - a debunkumentary

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   


Parts 2 thru 5 here: (playlist)
www.youtube.com...


the2012deception.net...
This video reviews Michael Tsarion's Origins and Oracles DVD, and attempts to show that not only is Michael Tsarion factually inaccurate about crucial issues, but it will demonstrate that best explanation for his mistakes is that he is intentionally deceiving people. I will also show how the views he promotes is intended to indoctrinate the truth seeker into a mind set that will prepare them to accept a new version of world government and dogma, one that most truthers would never suspect as being a part of the system they once rebelled against.

I will discuss his science about 2012:

Magnetic pole shift in 2012?
Galactic Alignment
Precession of the Equinoxes
The "Golden Nebula"
The Photon Belt
Enlightenment - DNA/ Chakra changes

Other issues:

'The Macrobes'
Lucifer
Tsarion mind control tactics
Huge mistakes
Etymology
Storytelling
Blavatsky
Motivations
Who benefits?
2012 endgame



[edit on 6-4-2009 by Amenti]




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
interesting video. i believe there is, however, support for the similiarity of ankh and anunnaki. the idea that mesopatamian and egyptian words were not etymologically linked to each other, was part of the attempt to cover up how mesopotamians founded dynastic egypt. and THAT is biblical.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
interesting video. i believe there is, however, support for the similiarity of ankh and anunnaki. the idea that mesopatamian and egyptian words were not etymologically linked to each other, was part of the attempt to cover up how mesopotamians founded dynastic egypt. and THAT is biblical.



You may believe there is a connection, but without any proof of a connection it remains a belief. not to mention, why are two of the vowels not vowels, and why is there a vowel in the first word, AND neither mean heavenly serpents.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Amenti
 


oh i agree he's totally mistranslated the serpent (seraph) references. a nephilim is a human hybrid, whereas a seraph is an angelic being. i'm also a fan of michael heiser. ever read anything by david rohl? he proves to me, sufficiently, that dynastic egypt was not founded by africans but by mesopotamians.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Amenti
 


oh i agree he's totally mistranslated the serpent (seraph) references. a nephilim is a human hybrid, whereas a seraph is an angelic being. i'm also a fan of michael heiser. ever read anything by david rohl? he proves to me, sufficiently, that dynastic egypt was not founded by africans but by mesopotamians.


I am a fan of him as well, I havent seen that but I did read a paper he wrote refuting Grahamn Hancock on the nuclear ark theory nonsense...You have peaked my interest though.Ill look into it.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join