TimeWave Zero Thoroughly Debunked (video)

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Sorry guys. Mckenna just did too many mushrooms. Trust me. I've seen some crazy stuff while trippin' also.




This video shows how the math is all fabricated, and actually shows how the graphs were made.




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


Interesting video, very informative...especially the bit about the mushrooms! Thanks for posting this.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
It's poorly debunked. There are not enough research the debunkers have made on the subject. Just to make things clear, the theory can't be debunked until 21/12/12 comes. One can try with all his heart to debunk it, but it would be stupid...



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159
It's poorly debunked. There are not enough research the debunkers have made on the subject.


That really doesn't tell me anything. Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "not enough research?"



Just to make things clear, the theory can't be debunked until 21/12/12 comes. One can try with all his heart to debunk it, but it would be stupid...


The narrator shows how McKenna's notion of "novelty" is completely arbitrary and that McKenna, by his own admission, changed the end date to match José Argüelles' 2012 claim. In my opinion, the video debunks Timewave Zero pretty well.

You might always claim, "Well, we don't know what will happen," and I guess you'd be right. In that vein, you can't disprove the "theory" that hordes of invisible dragons will fart the Earth into a CO2-drenched Venusian hothouse overnight on December 21, 2012.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by UndeadDinosaur

Originally posted by Gab1159
It's poorly debunked. There are not enough research the debunkers have made on the subject.


That really doesn't tell me anything. Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "not enough research?"



Just to make things clear, the theory can't be debunked until 21/12/12 comes. One can try with all his heart to debunk it, but it would be stupid...


The narrator shows how McKenna's notion of "novelty" is completely arbitrary and that McKenna, by his own admission, changed the end date to match José Argüelles' 2012 claim. In my opinion, the video debunks Timewave Zero pretty well.

You might always claim, "Well, we don't know what will happen," and I guess you'd be right. In that vein, you can't disprove the "theory" that hordes of invisible dragons will fart the Earth into a CO2-drenched Venusian hothouse overnight on December 21, 2012.


I believe it's already been fully debunked. He made the software to end on 12.21.12. So timewave zero expires in 12.21.12 so when you load it up again in year 2013 it's still going to say "0". The software WAS made to end that day. There hasn't been anything "fully" predicted by this. Yes there is a window of "prediction" but there is not a window for "precise prediction".

And I has VERY good evidence debunking. Maybe you should try to debunk this video? But wait...that means you'll actually have to do some work and back up your "theories".

PS Wanted to add, why can't something novel happen on the left side? It seems the left side of the arks have more "damage" then the right side. For example the tsunami that killed 200,000 people. Was on the left side. But it wasn't counted as novel.

Timewave Zero IS a graph that had potential but FAILED in the future (now).
edit on 29-11-2010 by xweaponx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by xweaponx
There hasn't been anything "fully" predicted by this. Yes there is a window of "prediction" but there is not a window for "precise prediction".


I wouldn't even say there's been anything "partially" predicted, whatever that means.


And I has VERY good evidence debunking. Maybe you should try to debunk this video? But wait...that means you'll actually have to do some work and back up your "theories".


Perhaps you misunderstood my post.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
To the OP:

Firstly, one of your main points is that "its about what's NOT on the graph", yet you haven't added any points yourself and talked about them to back up this claim. I would be interested to see that.

Just wanted to addres a couple of the points you made in your video. I am talking about the section where you are talking about the red graph with the dots in the peaks and troughs (starting at ~10:30):

"The '93 WTC bombings were more novel than the 2001 bombings".

That is self-evident, because the first time something happens the more novel it is than the second. The second attacks were on a much larger scale but still the same theme as the first bombings. Secondly, look at the graph directly after those events. After the '93 bombings the graph trends upwards again, indicating the event didn't have as big an impact on the world. However, after 9/11 the graph dips sharply into novelty.

9/11 was a novel event for a few reasons: The scale of the attack; the deaths and destruction caused; that it was using aircraft, which hadn't been done before. It was NOT novel for other reasons: It was violence used against humans; was either a terrorist act and/or government plot (depending on your individual beliefs), neither of which are novel things and the building had been attacked in '93.

The RESPONSE to 9/11, which is the sharp dip into novelty, is what was new. Americans didn't feel invincible anymore. The world at large was deeply affected and CONNECTED as almost every single person on the planet witnessed or at least heard of the event.

What's NOT lavelled on the graph here is what was happening during that time. Everyone was reeling and feeling the shock for a while. Then the media machine kicked into gear and ALL we heard about was Terrorists and War. That is why the graph trends upwards again, as people go from being vulnerable and open to new experiences, to a fear response.

The event at the inflection point is when Enron files backruptcy. This event doesn't necessarily cause the inflection, it just happens at a very novel time. As said above, I think that inflection is to do with the fear response after 9/11 and the War of Terror, which while new in name is not novel in any way. However, the Enron bankrupcty was also a novel event - due to the Enron Scandal and exposing massive corporate fraud and corruption and affecting many other companies.

At the top of the second peak you were talking about, the UN declares 2008 the year of languages. This is at the peak so not a hugely novel event in itself. You say this causes the dip into novelty but that is not necessarily the case - events don't necessarily cause inflections in the graph, though they may be related. However in this case they declared that in an effort to "promote unity in diversity, global understanding" (www.un.org...). Now you can question the UN's true motives but IMO that could contribute to more interconnectedness in the world.

It then drops down further to the high-speed train in the English Channel opening. That's a pretty novel event and again represents the increasing connectedness of the world. It is using new technology (though not the first high-speed train). Again not necessarily the cause of the inflection.

At bottom of the big dip is european scientists discover 32 exoplanets. You say sarcastically this was very novel, implying that it wasn't. However discovering new planets IS novel. It redefines our understanding of ourself and our place in the cosmos. I agree that it didn't have a wide-spread impact, but that is why you don't see any sharp inclines or declines after it. What you have is an inflection point, which again I don't think was necessarily influenced by this particular event.

You also talk about how the Earthquake and Tsunami that killed 200,000 people was on the left side of the graph. I don't see a problem with that. It was a horrible thing and it did get on global news, but so does every war and scandal now days, so that's not novel. There is nothing novel about a natural disaster. The novel part was the death toll - everything else was not novel. Even the response was not novel - a few countries and people chipped in to give aid, but this is the same thing that happens in wars, floods and famines. It did elicit an emotional response from people and being in the main stream media meant that it represents interconnectedness - which is why it occurred at a time that was still overall more novel than 9/11 for example. However the response does not register as a change in slope on the graph.

What you didn't talk about was the GFC, which in 2008 had far more to do with the timewave graph IMO. Also Climate Change, Obama and countless other things.

I think the point you are trying to make is that those events were associated with a larger dip into novelty than for 9/11 and therefore should have been more important. However you are saying that the 9/11 dip was not as deep as the other one. The counter to that is:

1. That events aren't necessarily causal to the change in slope of the graph - its the other way around. That the potential for novelty influences global events. In novel periods of time especially novel things are more likely to happen and vice versa. This also means that inflection points on the graph are where events that change people's perceptions are likely to happen.

2. Looking at single events is one thing but only a small piece of the puzzle. To get an accurate picture you have to look at the aggregate of all the events in the world as well as each individual person's experience of that time period (which is not feasible to do and yes it does mean Timewave can never be proven either - which is why its a theory). For example the graph overall trends downwards and we can see this trend in society over time - that things become much more complex and interconnected over time.

An interesting study for example would be analysing the number of emails, phone calls and text messages sent over a given time period and see if that matches up with Timewave - because that would be representative of people's connectedness.

3. You have to take into account the slope of the graph as well as overall novelty change. As an example, the slope after 9/11 is much steeper, indicating things changing rapidly. By contrast the second slope you talk about is not as steep, indicating that things change slower.

4. Novel events always happen and non-novel events always happen. We are talking probabilities here - in novel times more novel things are likely to happen and vice versa. This is again why looking at single events doesn't give the whole picture.

5. I'm not sure if you are aware of the concept of resonance in relation to Timewave Zero, but contextually it makes more sense to compare peaks with their resonances. I realise in this example you gave you were trying to look at the overall changes though and just compare the overall change in novelty in the two time periods.

6. There could be things happening that affect us deeply over time, or are very significant to our overall evolution towards the singularity, but they are either only apparent in hind sight or are not publicly known/recorded in history. As an example it could be a decision made by whatever people you believe are in control (Government, TPTB etc) that most people don't ever hear about, but influences the course of history from then on. A different example would be the evolution of human consciousness that is not recognisable to us at the present time.

I do realise that this statement is "slippery" in the same way you describe McKenna's idea of novelty, but unfortunately that's the way this theory is. Its very controversial and instantly dismissable by mainstream logic since it is related to the future and the inspiration came from the use of psychedelics. It also completely goes against our current concept of time. As such you can either choose to dismiss it for those reasons or choose to keep an open mind. In the latter case, I don't think it does the theory justice to approach it from a purely mathematical perspective. Again plotting events on the graph can give part of the picture but by far not the whole picture. If Mckenna was right then there are factors at work that we don't fully understand yet, for example the relationship between humans and psychedelics in terms of evolution of language and the teleological attractor ahead of us in time.

As for November coming and going - we aren't out of that window till January the 17th, 2011. And we are seeing a lot of novel things of late, not to mention massive global tensions in general. We've got heaps going on in the economy, with more bailouts, bank runs etc - some of which is novel. We have politcal tensions rising and superpowers playing some dangerous games (US devaluing dollar and China shutting down its industry), we have NASA announcing a new kind of bacteria that could change their search for ETs (or delay the public knowledge of ETs if you are that way inclined). And lets not forget the big one - Wikileaks. Which regardless of what you think of it is very novel and is having a global impact right now. We haven't seen this fully unfold yet either.

We are on the downward slope until Jan 17th, 2011. We still may be in for a bumpy ride.

I can't speak to the math of TWZ but thematically I think its spot on so far.

edit on 8-12-2010 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Also, in regards to the arbitrary nature of how McKenna lined up the end date - you are understating how he did this. I do agree that in essence he slid the graph left and right to find the right match, but at the same time he did this for the entirety of known global history. He lined it up so it fit with not only modern history but ancient history and geological history (The ice ages etc) as well.

Considering the graph resonates back to the beginning of time I don't consider adjusting it by 1 month a big deal, even if that was arbitrary as well, which it wasn't.





new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join