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.

 

Comparing Y2K to 2012

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awarenessiskey
Y2K IS MAN MADE,


So is the Mayan calender.



Those who say 2012 is bs and compare it to y2k is ignorant.


We shall see.



Originally posted by sticky
We might be making that connection so that it fits our prophecy.


That's exactly what's happening. No matter WHAT happens or doesn't happen in 2012 or around that time, it will be attributed to the prophecy. :shk:




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well the Timewave sez itsa gonna be sumthin'.As do the Crop Art Glyphs.
I think the deep seated bias against 12.21.12 has to do with prophesies and numerals,OUTSIDE the Western Holy Book,which has been held to be absolute TRUTH and which denies all others.Even if you're not a hardcore,extra bucket of crispy Christer Fundamentalist,you are probably influenced by all the conditioning you've gotten.Not attacking,per se just giving as got.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


No, there is conjecture about 2012, but no actual evidence. None. Saying there is is intellectually dishonest at best. Either you don't know what critical thinking is, or you actively try to avoid it so you can keep telling these apocalyptic fairy tales.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


No, there is conjecture about 2012, but no actual evidence. None. Saying there is is intellectually dishonest at best. Either you don't know what critical thinking is, or you actively try to avoid it so you can keep telling these apocalyptic fairy tales.



Not avoiding anything, Sparky. Just trying to point out the VAST differences between Y2K and 2012. They're not in the same ballpark. Not even the same sport.

Sure, I'll meet you halfway, regarding conjecture. But, stop with all the 'no actual evidence' line of thinking - you have already decided which side of the fence you are on, so to accuse someone ELSE of 'critical thinking' ineptness is quite laughable.



[edit on 1/5/2010 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Help, we have a decennium problem 2010, instead of Y2K and 2012.
www.h-online.com...

www.dshield.org...

www.symantec.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I haven't decided which side of the fence I'm on - I follow the evidence. If no evidence exists for 2012, I won't believe in it. If there is evidence, I'll believe. I've not made my mind up. As it is, the only "evidence" for 2012 is poor interpretation of an ancient calendar, a distrust of NASA, a fundamental lack of knowledge of science and the scientific method, and overwhelming scamming by people selling books and trinkets.

So, unfortunately, there is no evidence for 2012, so I'm not believing in it, and no one of any rational mind should either.

Yes, Y2K and 2012 are totally different. The former happened, and the latter won't. Different.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Yes, Y2K and 2012 are totally different. The former happened, and the latter won't. Different.


Any catastrophes with Y2K were prevented, therefore it did not happen. I'm pretty sure all the predictions of things going haywire didn't come true.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by warbird03
 


The former DID happen to many, many people. So no, not all the predictions didn't come true. Many did, however.

We could see how Y2K was going to be a problem, as there was real evidence pointing to it. As for 2012, it's all just conjecture and guesswork.

2012 is nonsense.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
REPLY / Challenge to davesidious...

[DAMN IT! I had this long involved reply written up, but an accidental page-refresh deleted it all. Ugh!
]



As you ('debates' like this) are not worth the time of a re-write, I will simply point you Here to give you some of my thoughts regarding this matter.

If, beyond that, you still choose to ignore the historical and Scientific evidence for real concern(s) surrounding 2012, then feel free to put your $money$ where that ill-informed mouth is: Now, accepting Bets for 2012...
[Original Post / Where I get involved - be sure to reach Pg 5, 2nd post - for the 'goods']

The 3 people on that thread, above - including the OP - that thought they had the stones to step up all seemed to disappear after I made my all-too-logical-and-legit challenge - I suspect you will be no different - we'll all be waiting.



[edited for link change]

[edit on 1/6/2010 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You're being too vague. Far too vague. Your 'challenge' isn't fair at all, as it doesn't test the predictions in any way, shape, or form. It's far too open ended, and doesn't specify with any certainty what exactly constitutes a win.

I think people walking away from you has nothing to with your claims being valid, but quite the opposite.

Cough up your evidence as to why there is real scientific concern for Dec. 12 2012. Go on. I dare you


I can save you some time: there isn't any.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Of course you would think that (why they went away) - it allows you to keep flapping your gums without actually backing anything up.

That's the point: Dec. 21, 2012, isn't an end all-be all date for me (most folks), rather it is a culmination of MANY theories that - if you apply the 'critical thinking' you preach so much about, and look at the SCIENCE behind some of these theories - you will see how many of them interrelate with one another and come to a head within the next 3 years: from the possibility of a passing binary star, to the geophysical changes (that are on record as cyclical, and imminent), to the political and economic climates [NWO, war, collapse] of today reaching a fever pitch, nevermind the undeniable actual climate changes, to the more metaphysical changes such as the evolution of consciousness - how everything is speeding up (THAT is the Mayan calendar you should be focusing on), to Deterioration of Earth's Magnetosphere and the solar max occurring in 2012 (both confirmed by NASA, and other 3-letter agencies), and the list goes on and on...

Bottom line is, regardless of which theory you subscribe to, or even if you subscribe to none (which appears to be the case): my contention is, within the next 3 years, life on this planet will be SO altered by at least one but more likely a multitude of these theories coming to fruition, that it will effectively BE the end of times for most people - at least, you will not be in a position to even accept my payment (dead / hiding / FEMA camp / etc)

Beyond that, please enlighten me as to precisely what is so 'vague' about my proposal?

It's real simple - the terms clearly illustrate a logical way for either of us to collect on our bet, regardless of what happens, and in the most sensible way. If that doesn't work for you, I'm all ears for an alternate arrangement.

[the 'evidence' is in the link labeled 'Here', and elsewhere - I'm not going to hold your hand]


[edited for spelling/grammar]

[edit on 1/6/2010 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
"2012" can be comparable to the year 1999 for Nostradamus followers, and comparable to 1998 for Edgar Cayce followers.


For months and years prior, many people were anticipating this great 1999 Nostradamus prophecy:
The year 1999, and seven months,
from the sky will come a great King of Terror,
to bring back to life the great King of the Mongols.
Before and after Mars to reign by good luck.



Same for the Edgar Cayce prophecy for the 1990's, many were anticipating the major earth changes predicted by Cayce, months and years prior to 1998.

The Cayce prophecy:
There will be the upheavals in the Arctic and in the Antarctic that will make for the eruption of volcanoes in the Torrid areas, and there will be shifting then of the poles so that where there has been those of a frigid or the semitropical will become the more tropical, and moss and fern will grow. And these will begin in those periods in '58 to '98, when these will be proclaimed as the periods when His light will be seen again in the clouds. As to times, as to seasons, as to places, alone is it given to those who have named the name and who bear the mark of those of His calling and His election in their bodies. To them it shall be given. /// In 1998 we may find a great deal of the activities as have been wrought by the gradual changes that are coming about. These are at the periods when the cycle of the solar activity, or the years as related to the sun's passage through the various spheres of activity become paramount... to the change between the Piscean and the Aquarian age.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I happen to know for a fact, based on the truth that the Mayan calendar is cyclical and has no end, that 2012 will be just another year. Kind of like 2011 or 2013, or 1987, or even the year 3768. They're just years.

The world will go on as usual. No crazy catastrophe of any kind will befall all of mankind... or even some of it... unless there turns out to be a terrorist attack somewhere... even so my prediction will still be correct (Because terrorists aren't natural disasters that end civilization as we know it).



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
I happen to know for a fact, based on the truth that the Mayan calendar is cyclical and has no end, that 2012 will be just another year. Kind of like 2011 or 2013, or 1987, or even the year 3768. They're just years.


You can't just say you know something, you have to back it up. Otherwise, it means nothing.

Prove to us that the Mayan calendar does not actually end in 2012. Or give us a link with the proof.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by warbird03]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Look. I realize this stuff isn't fun to talk about, but simply denying the evidence (historical and scientific) isn't just going to make it go away.

I've got a post that I'm putting together that I will link here, shortly. I think some of you will like it (well, appreciate the effort, anyway)



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
And, here you go...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join