Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

reply to post by wilburn


I never said the world would end.

Almost every time I ask someone to back up their TWZ claims I get a post like yours which essentially says that you cannot defend even a little bit of your statements about TWZ.

1. Can you tell us all how you think novelty/habit are measured?
2. Can you show us how measurements taken match TWZ?
3. Can you show us how novelty is increasing exponentially as we approach the singularity?
4. Do you understand why TWZ is NOT fractal?
5. Can you show us how novelty/habit in human history lines up with TWZ?
6. Do you understand that time is the independent variable in TWZ?

These questions come from your posts and all I am asking you to do is to make an effort to back up your own claims.

Originally posted by stereologist


Almost every time I ask someone to back up their TWZ claims I get a post like yours which essentially says that you cannot defend even a little bit of your statements about TWZ.

They have been well defended I simply do not care to engage you any longer.

Thank you friend for your efforts.

reply to post by wilburn


That is far from the truth.

Nothing has been defended and unlike Zagari you are unable to make any effort to support these claims. I don't believe that you have the interest or tenacity shown by Zagari. Mistakes such as not understanding that the TWZ is not showing an alteration of time reveal the poor understanding of the situation.

I look forward to seeing what Zagari's research into TWZ reveals.

In the mean time consider learning what TWZ is and think about the issues:
1. How is novelty measured?
2. Is it even possible to measure novelty?
3. ... and so forth

reply to post by stereologist


novelty is measured [ for TWZ ] by one simple metric - : " does it fit the graph " - assanine isnt it

reply to post by wilburn


Look that the person you indicated in the post from this thread that you say I copied and pasted probably made a try to predict something like me. The two posts are different and for the last time, I DON'T copy and paste. You alerted the mods for no reason. Because if someone gets the info from the graph of course the predictions will be similar, but there are things I mention that the other poster didn't.
To copy and paste means writing identical things, and anyone who sees the two different posts immediately notices that the two posts are organized in a completely different way.
I take it seriously with timewave, I spent hours trying to organize my latest month by month prediction post and YOU come here to tell me it is copy and paste? Calm down yourself because this is a place for serious research, not for troublemakers. I warned you to the mods for improper behavior.

Originally posted by Zagari
I warned you to the mods for improper behavior.

Thank you so very much my friend for assisting my attitude.

In the future, when you copy and paste, and IMVHO you most certainly did, I will ignore it so that I will not upset you any longer.

reply to post by wilburn


Okay, let's completely clarifie this issue: the poster from June 17 2009 mentioned River Phoenix in his predictions post. Do you see the words River Phoenix in my March 2012 post? 1st proof that is NOT copy and paste.
I mention a solar flare coming for May 5th 2012. The 2009 poster DOESN'T mention it. 2nd proof this is not copy and paste.
3rd--- You don't know how I organize my own research before posting: I spend hours trying to find the proper words to write my post, I am not even American, so I have to do a bigger effort than you guys to word my posts.
4th- The other poster doesn't mention Japan evacuations, and I do mention it. ANOTHER difference.
5TH - The other person mentions Russia invading another country in May 2012. I DO NOT mention it. Once again another difference.
6TH - The other poster mentions alien disclosure for March 2012. I DO NOT mention it. Another difference.
7TH - He mentions " wedding new laws " ( ??? wedding new laws, really? ) for April 2012, I DO NOT mention it. Another difference.
8TH - He mentions phones revolutionary period for August 2012, I DO NOT MENTION IT. Another difference.

CONCLUSION: The post made by that person in June 2009 and my post of March 6 2012 are completely different.

Do you want to ignore me? That's okay for me because I will do the same thing from now on.

reply to post by Zagari


Zagari, my friend:

It is obvious that you fail to understand that the TWZ software is tracking the human interpretation of reality. It's not necessarily 'mirroring' it or reflecting it - the wave that is. After all, there would be no reality without the human interpretation of that reality.

Let me further explain in your homestead with no personality evoked.

It's similar to quantum mechanics where the physical characteristics of a particle seem to change with the observation of the particle, likewise the universe would lack a certain essence (and might actually be fundamentally different) if there was no conscious observer experiencing it.

You see, imho this reality we collectively experience is a result of a seemingly random series of event. By simply opening your eyes and looking at the sky, and then processing that information, we are trying to make sense of all the factors working together to comprise the reality of the sky we see. If so for the material universe, then why not for time?

Zagari, I understand your angst, you fear The End as you know it.

reply to post by wilburn


I do not fear the end of the world, I simply don't trust you and your " know-it-all " attitude. Don't call me " my friend " because you make no part of my friends in this website.
Me and Stereologist do not agree on many things but we recognize each other tenacity into bringing on our own opinions. Stereologist is more okay than I thought. You, I have some bad vibes coming from you. You are registered since yesterday and you claim everyone else 's insight on the graph is incorrect. Read all 194 pages, and " Timewave Zero: a closer look " thread and the timewave thread of September 2008. We know what we are talking about.

Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by wilburn

 

I do not fear the end of the world, I simply don't trust you and your " know-it-all " attitude. Don't call me " my friend " because you make no part of my friends in this website.
Me and Stereologist do not agree on many things but we recognize each other tenacity into bringing on our own opinions. Stereologist is more okay than I thought. You, I have some bad vibes coming from you. You are registered since yesterday and you claim everyone else 's insight on the graph is incorrect. Read all 194 pages, and " Timewave Zero: a closer look " thread and the timewave thread of September 2008. We know what we are talking about.

Thank you for your input, again, it appears that you are upset for no reason at all, it must be having a bad day and for that I send my sorrow.

Nonetheless, I not only have read the entire thread, I have the entire collection of Terence McKenna's audios, videos, files, books, lectures, audiobooks and workshops of which I have poured through for years.

I would gladly give you the link to such information including The Split Molecule video which was sent to me by Seconal but I do not think that you would take my gift. It would do you well to at least have the video since having a small grain of experience with '___' is better than your complete inexperience.

But I can no longer allow you to waft this thread away from the OP and his topic, Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition so excuse me as I continue to learn and post what I have learned.

In his 1994 interview with James Kent, from the transcript, McKenna explains...

TM: Well, the timewave predicts the past, and the past has happened, so there isn't a whole helluva lot of fudging you can do. Predicting the future is no challenge to anybody because who can rule you out of bounds?

I think that, based on its ability to predict the past, judged by the ordinary ways we judge predictive success, that the timewave should be taken seriously. It isn't a mystical doctrine, and I don't defend it with mystical arguments. I put it forward as an exotic scientific hypothesis to be tested and overthrown by the usual methods.

I believe this has been forgotten, if not entirely misrepresented, by recent posters in the thread.

reply to post by wilburn


Someone should tell you that you have such a big ego. I also had read with passion all Mckenna's interviews, theories and ideas. I am one of the major contributors to this thread together with other acknowledged people. You will see me a lot on this thread, since I post almost every day. I did not have a bad day until I had read your claims. Your claims about copy and paste had been debunked by my analysis of the two posts. The issue needs to be over now. We won't discuss about it anymore.
Now, let's stop being off topic and continue discussing the ideas of Timewave theories, the ideas about time, reality and such things.

reply to post by wilburn


I do not put mistical content into my posts. I know that given the timewave accurately maps the past, it is able to accurately map the future as well.
Timewave does need to be taken seriously. This theory should be on everybody's mind.
Predictions can be done to test the timewave. Current events should be reviewed comparing them with current resonances from the past. And we do this since 2009.

Knock it off.

The back and forth sniping needs to stop. Now. Just agree to disagree for Pete's sake!

Stick to the topic and refrain from personal attacks. Failure to heed this advisory may result in a suspension of posting privileges and temporary thread closure.

reply to post by wilburn


He claims that it predicts the past. I do not believe that is not true.

Can you substantiate that story?

Originally posted by wilburn
In his 1994 interview with James Kent, from the transcript, McKenna explains...

TM: Well, the timewave predicts the past, and the past has happened, so there isn't a whole helluva lot of fudging you can do. Predicting the future is no challenge to anybody because who can rule you out of bounds?

I think that, based on its ability to predict the past, judged by the ordinary ways we judge predictive success, that the timewave should be taken seriously. It isn't a mystical doctrine, and I don't defend it with mystical arguments. I put it forward as an exotic scientific hypothesis to be tested and overthrown by the usual methods.

Considering how quickly things are changing and becoming more connected around us, this 'end' of things as we know it is happening every moment of every day. As Terence has said, it is not and cannot be defined or supported mystically.

The reason the future is becoming harder and harder to visualize is that we perceive it as an acceleration, as a chaotic ride into oblivion. 20 years ago, people trying to visualize the future were more confident than they are now.

The nature of 2012 is this barrier - this point in which we cannot see, hardly imagine in its fullest, nor even contemplate what exists beyond it in its entirety. WW3, a perfect example.

This is something we're facing in which there is no precedent in human history that can give us any idea as to what will happen once we reach infinite change and connectedness. This is where we're headed as a species imho and this is also the beliefs of T. McKenna expressed before his untimely death.

reply to post by wilburn


Alvin Toffler made similar claims in "Future Shock". They were claims of the same ilk - without merit.

To suggest we cannot see beyond some point is not true. There is no barrier in 2012.