It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# 12-12-12 Stellarium Video and 12-2-12 Picture

page: 4
6
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:01 PM

The transit in 2004 was visible across the US in the early morning hours. A transit is a short event and will not be visible from all portions of the earth. I knew of it, but not which parts of the earth where it will be seen.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:25 PM

You took some numbers and did arithmetic which had no rhyme or reason and came up with a number that you associated with the Gregorian calendar. Was that number going to be the same date in the Hebrew calendar or the Chinese calendar or the Julian calendar (still in use today).

Lucus does not just compile data. He draws and compiles conclusions, not data. What's so confusing about that? It must be since you did not report that distinction.

The date 2012 is a made up next date in the sequence of prophecy dates. The date 5-5-00 was a date stated to be a date of doom and gloom and what happened? Nada. Sitchin chose 2085 or something. The Mayan Haab calendar does NOT wrap in 2012.

Calendars tick off time. They can count cycles of the moon, of Venus, of the sun, but they all count. To find how two calendars match up is called the correlation problem. It is possible to translate back and forth between two calendars if the correlation problem is solved.

The correlation of calendars is sometimes a difficult problem. The Haab calender is a good example. The 2012 date is based on what is known as the GMT or Goodman, Martinez, Thompson correlation. This supposed that the Haab began on August 11, 3114BC. What's wrong with that? The problem is that the Haab calendar contains positions of Venus. The positions do not match. So we are left with a decision. Either the GMT correlation is bad or the Mayans were not as good astronomers as we have been led to believe.

Andreas Fuls has determined a new correlation for the Haab and Gregorian calendars. The new correlation takes into account positions of Venus and newly found and translated Mayan texts. The Fuls correlation puts the end of the Haab calendar at either 12-21-2220, 12-22-2220, or 12-23-2220. Regardless of the indeterminancy of the exact day the Haab doesn't wrap for 210 years from now.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by stereologist

As far as ancient man knowing the positions of the sun, how do you think astrology works? When the zodiac sign is Leo where do you think the sun is? It obscures Leo because the sun lies in Leo. Do you think that the ancients needed computers to figure that out?

Before you spout do some basic resea4rch and find out about the post and its context.

I'm spouting? Really!!! You mean to say you just happened to pick that alignment out of the thousands to choose from? Like... say... oh hell I don't know, one that could've been viewed from the planet! And you have the nerve to ask a question about ancient man and the zodiac… Are you kidding??? Did you mention the fact that that alignment you purposely posted, took the time to go an get and post here… did you mention to anyone that your picture could not be viewed from our planet? Hell no you didn't, you said even in this response it was done to show alignments only... But how does an alignment that can’t be seen from this planet count for anything???? Your picture can’t be seen happening from anywhere on the planet…. I mean come on, I need to stop spouting, wtfever!!! But I guess it's okay for you to post pictures to make a point, even though if someone does even a little bit of research they will realize your picture totally destroys your point… Especially when you consider the topic of this thread… holy crap who are you trying to kid? Which means you either purposely or ignorantly posted a picture that truly equals nothing in relation to this entire topic... but I need to stop spouting!

Ohh, and I'm very aware of a Nostradamus prediction regarding 5/5/05. To which... when people bring it up, I say, I wonder if it was a false interpretation instead of a false prophecy.... Because if you re-read that prediction and then read what happened in Salt Lake City on that day... I then always ask was his prediction a miss or a hit? That's not for me to say... I can't read his mind and I sure as hell don't care how others read his predictions.... I only care what the truth is. Whether it has to do with 5/5/05, 5/5/00 or 2012. I only care about the truth and only allow my studies to lead wherever they lead... Your, mine or someone else interpretations be damned.
((In my quest to be honest about everything... That Nostradamus prediction could've been for 5/5/00 instead of 5/5/05... its been to long and I just don't care enough to research the year, but what happened in Salt Lake City still stands regarding his prediction and that date...))

Dec 3, 2012 can be viewed from Stellarium. The pyramids at Giza can be viewed from the air and pictures can be taken… Measurements can be made on the ground. There are a whole host of things that can be done to prove whether those Pyramids at Giza were created to honor either that Planetary Convergence… that can be viewed from Earth instead of only from space like your picture…. Or Orion’s Belt. I personally don’t believe they were built to honor Orion, I just don’t believe it… while at the same time I have a hard time believing I could’ve found out the truth simply by using a free downloadable program. But there it is… I even sent that discovery outside of ATS, and have received emails stating that YES that alignment seems to match the physical layout of Giza… The fact that it happens in Dec of 2012 is one hell’va twist/ cawinkadink… especially when you consider the Mayan’s…. and ALL THE OTHER Cultures from around the world warning about the exact same TIME frame… The placement of the Sun in Leo be damned!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 5-5-2010 by littlebunny]

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by stereologist

Andreas Fuls has determined a new correlation for the Haab and Gregorian calendars. The new correlation takes into account positions of Venus and newly found and translated Mayan texts. The Fuls correlation puts the end of the Haab calendar at either 12-21-2220, 12-22-2220, or 12-23-2220. Regardless of the indeterminancy of the exact day the Haab doesn't wrap for 210 years from now.

Now here is some information I know nothing about... See how easy that was, and I didn‘t even call you a name… how grownup am I... But I will know more about this concept in very short order.

However, you should read my thread on hidden clues within Religions and why I find those dates you posted above so interesting... they seem to match, or are close to the hidden numbers I discovered within the Bible, I will have to read that persons work and compare his dates to my own... but for now... Damn interesting...

Responding in line with the purpose of this forum and thread...

Even if I allow this one person to change my textual concepts of the Mayan's/Aztec's... that still doesn't account for all the other cultures that seem to be pointing to our time as interesting, (dangerous), times. But to be honest, I don't know anything about that person's mind set, evidence, to argue for or against his dates ATM... but I will say thank you for adding yet another layer to my research.

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 5-5-2010 by littlebunny]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:28 AM

Here is the question that was asked.

What I was wondering is, even though they are only aligned from OUR POINT OF VIEW, does this

happen often like in that picture?

And I posted a response off the top of my head based on the "our POV" question.

Face it your criticism is wrong. You didn't bother to look at the question.

But I guess it's okay for you to post pictures to make a point, even though if someone does even a little bit of research they will realize your picture totally destroys your point

Don't you feel foolish saying this when the answer I posted addressed the question.

Next time read before making a scene.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:31 AM
Here's another hint for your research little bunny, the Mayans did not any predictions concerning the end of the Haab calendar.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by stereologist

Don't you feel foolish saying this when the answer I posted addressed the question.

Next time read before making a scene.

Not only do I not feel foolish, I am now thoroughly convinced you did so to try and harbor doubt towards my discovery and this thread. Because the question had a broader subject then just any willy-nilly planet alignments... BTW is English your first language? I'm not asking that question to be rude, truly I'm not... just a few things you posted that has me wondering... If English is your first language, then I stand completely by my above statement... If not, then perhaps I should be a little more soft gloved as it were!

Regarding your second post... perhaps that is something we can talk about later after I've had some time to research that person and his information, however, that will be in ANOTHER thread entirely.

--Charles Marcello

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:45 PM

I am now thoroughly convinced you did so to try and harbor doubt towards my discovery

I smell conspiracy claim brewing!

Actually I answered an off topic question. I suppose that makes the answer off topic as well.

There are online places to find the heaps of conjunctions and oppositions that occur every year.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:18 AM

...Andreas Fuls from the Technical University of Berlin was one of the scientists I spoke to during the production of the show, and he applied a quantitative approach to the problem by running thousands of computer simulations that shifted the Maya calendar recorded in the Dresden Codex up and down the Julian calendar until the errors between astronomical observations in the two calendars was minimized.

The result is a ~200 year error in previous attempts at correlating the Maya and Julien calendar! With the new correlation that at least Andreas Fuls believes would be more correct, it looks like the serious droughts of the A.D. 800s did NOT cause the demise of Mayan civilization and the end of the 13th Baktun and therefore the calendar would not occur until 2212! Not every Maya scholar shares Andreas’ opinion but if he was right, I guess National Geographic will have to make another film about the Maya in about 200 years!

We learn some very interesting things in that short article... Number one, the errors are supposed to be minimized, and two Not Every Mayan scholar shares (agrees) with Andreas' opinion.[?] Those two statements had me thinking, why on Earth is this persons "opinion" worth anything? Why state what he did as an "opinion" instead of a thesis? Why would National Geographic do that??? That bothers me… Let alone… and minimize errors? Are we to believe with all our technology that our star charts don't match up with the Mayan's/Aztecs even now? How sad is that? And lastly... seeing how the arrival of Cortes was predicted to the DAY, wouldn't that be a good place to start when it comes to the "stars"? I know other researches have, but I don't see any mention of that in that short article, or any of the other article I've read while researching this Fuls character. I now consider this person and his "opinion" worthless. Now I won't tell others what to believe, I'll only state how I view this supposed refuting of other more scholarly work that I've studied with regards to the Aztecs/Mayan's and their end date of Dec 21, 2012... thank you very much!!!

Now, getting back to my discovery... I've talked with a person about creating a short video for youtube. Not sure how this is all going to play out, but he was very excited about the pictures and math I showed him, along with the planet convergence set for Dec 3, 2012 within Stellarium. We only talked about it for a little while and he said we should get together next weekend and have lunch and talk about creating a video about this discovery. He creates computer animation for local TV stations and others around the country. Not sure when (or if) we can begin, but I hope, if all works out to have something posted in the near future... Just figured I'd give a quick heads-up... keep your fingers crossed for me will ya!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 16-5-2010 by littlebunny]

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:37 AM

1. The errors are minimized because there are errors in the Mayan calendar and observations.
2. Why on earth are other opinions worth anything.
3. National Geographic is purposely written at the 8th grade level.
4. The claim that the calendar predicted the arrival of Cortex is the opinion of Barrios. It is simply bad shoehorning. "I now consider this person and his "opinion" worthless."

Fuls' work has the advantage of working with information not available to the GMT correlation. To claim that having more information to work with leads to a worthless opinion is odd.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:57 AM
Looking up information on the GMT correlation mentions that
Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count

Dates converted using the GMT correlation fall roughly in this eclipse season. The Dresden Codex contains a Venus table which records the heliacal risings of Venus. The GMT correlation agrees with these to within a few days which is as accurately as these could have been observed by the ancient Maya.

When it is posted "That bothers me… Let alone… and minimize errors?" it is necessary to understand that the Mayan observations are rough.

The Correlation Question
Here is a chart showing the various correlations in use or proposed and how well do they do correlate with methods used to produce the correlation.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by stereologist

.
1. National Geographic is purposely written at the 8th grade level.

Wow, the 8th grade level... So you're saying the word thesis is above the 8th grade level... That is so disgustingly laughable its sad as hell. Just like posting a link in Dutch was laughably sad. Here it is in English if anyone wants to read it.

That article doesn't even talk about that Fuls concept until the very end, and then within the short amount of space they use in that long article to finally talk about the "opinion" in question... the article goes on to talk about that person with the same tone as National Geographic. Because everyone has to talk on the 8th grade level so their audience can understand it... But its your source stereologist, so I guess National Geographic got it right, you just got upset because one of your sources got smacked down into the opinion column where it belongs because his work has been challenged by many and accepted by none that I can find. Sure people have read his work, but so what... I mean right? For someone who claims to work in science you should understand how that goes...

Oh wait... you only understand that point when you're being rude or putting someone else down... I forgot… when it comes to your sources its okay, but let someone else post a link and well then its 8th grade dribble and nothing more. You're right stereologist, how inconsiderate of the rest of humanity... lets do everything you want to do, and think the way you do... That way we can all be A-holes and none of us will talk to each other. Great plan!!!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 16-5-2010 by littlebunny]

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:46 PM
Another personal attack by little bunny. Can you do anything else?

The original information I had access to was not in English. I posted a link I could find. The link provided by little bunny is not the same information I posted as crudely suggested.

Everyone should be aware that National Geographic has an editorial policy of writing at the 8th grade level. That's a well known fact. That is their choice to make.

Again, the Barrios date is junk.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
Another personal attack by little bunny. Can you do anything else?

The original information I had access to was not in English. I posted a link I could find. The link provided by little bunny is not the same information I posted as crudely suggested.

If anyone is interested in the truth... Please click on the link I posted above, and then at the top of that link, read what they have to say, and then click on their link... and then... come back here and click on stereologist link...

Some of you might be surprised, I'm pretty sure most of you won't be.

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 16-5-2010 by littlebunny]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:41 PM

You are right it is the same info. Your post was so poorly worded that I never bothered to click on the link to check. My bad. Next time I won't trust your write up.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:43 PM
I still chuckle at the suggestion of using the Barrios claim as a means of developing a correlation function. Pathetic.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:59 PM
You first said,

Originally posted by stereologist

The link provided by little bunny is not the same information I posted as crudely suggested.

And then you post this

Originally posted by stereologist

You are right it is the same info. Your post was so poorly worded that I never bothered to click on the link to check. My bad. Next time I won't trust your write up.

So now you’re admitting you’re a LIAR! You come onto ATS and tell everyone the link I provided was not the same information… Yet now you come on and say, well yes it was, but what I wrote was poorly worded… Hmm, I wonder what I said that was so poorly worded.

[I]Originally posted by littlebunny[/I]

That is so disgustingly laughable its sad as hell. Just like posting a link in Dutch was laughably sad. Here it is in English if anyone wants to read it.

Oh yeah, that is so ambiguities no one in there right mind would understand my poorly worded sentence, that anyone can read your worthless article in English.. Have you no shame at all. You have got to be the fakest person I’ve ever met. I just can’t keep doing this with you. How incredibly fake you are in every sense of word.

--Charles Marcello

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:18 PM
Do you have anything interesting to post or are you going to continue to whine like a baby?

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
Do you have anything interesting to post or are you going to continue to whine like a baby?

your like a smart a\$\$ troll.

cool.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:12 AM

Do you have anything useful to add to this thread? Apparently not.

top topics

6