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.

 

2011 to 2012 - Youtube video

page: 11
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RizeorDie

yeh sure i just bought a tv and playstation3 for $900, but that was before i realised what was happening in the world... i'm going to sell it all next week and get ready
edit on 16/1/2011 by RizeorDie because: btw great video man, i'm going to subscribe to you're channel as i hope you will be uploading more

Why not return it? lol




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 



so imo..we are doing our best in using the tools we have at hand..especially the computer..once you are ready to learn..or driven by the hearth...there aint no expert that can laugh at you..thats rude

Doing our best is not denying. By denying the difference between a pole shift and a magnetic reversal you are avoiding doing your best. Are you still going to make strange claims even after being shown evidence to the contrary? Are you going to claim that Nibiru or whatever you want to call it exists even when the experts make it demonstrable that no unknown planet can enter the orbits of the known planets?

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud

Constraining the Orbits of Planet X and Nemesis

Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?

PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

Do your best: find out from the experts that Nibiru/whatever is an impossibility.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


It's the spam-a-thon where no research is done and the whoosh of the issue goes over all of their heads.

Nothing shown here suggests that an increase in floods is occurring. Nothing has been done but prepare a laundry list. This is not research. Where are the comparisons to previous years. What we do see is that the sum total of all of these floods does not add up to a big flood. These pale in comparison.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


Wildlife deaths are not uncommon. Go to your local university and ask the ornithologists. I did.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 



Yah and everyone thought that 2010 was bad. It seems to me that everything is speeding up. more floods,more deaths,more scares than ever before in such a short time. I can only imagine what the rest of 2011 will bring. If the trends continue at an increased rate then something very very bad will happen.


No one has provided any evidence whatsoever that floods are more common. A simple laundry list of floods has been posted, but that does not show that there are changes.

Provide any evidence whatsoever, other than personal hunches, that anything is speeding up or changing.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


Hello, I see you are having somewhat of a civil conversation.


I have been watching a couple of your threads and wanted to point you to this one if you have not seen it yet: Superfast pole shift

It seems that certain people can't leave threads like this alone. They can be rude and immature in their arguments. They take any scientific evidence and summarily call it rubbish - usually without looking at the evidence. I have found the best approach to certain people is to ignore them.

Here is another link that is on your topic you might not be aware of: Magnetic reversal in progress

Thanks for trying to get the word out, even with all the certain distractions.


CU



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I addressed all of your thoughts on cycles! I'm just not good at posting quotes the way you do. So I ended up posting one large quote with my answers next to yours.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dnvrliz
 



Planet X was spotted back in 1984 and was covered up.....believe what you want !!! Everyone has a different take on this, mine is that I believe in Planet X....we can agree to disagree !!!

That's not true at all. Back in 1984 the IRAS data was being reviewed and some objects were detected in infrared, but there was no counterpart on plates taken in visible light. This part of the newspaper article came from a statement by one of the astronomers:


So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a
nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that
it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the
light cast by its stars ever gets through.


The object turned out to be a new type of galaxy. It wasn't a part of the solar system. In fact, none of the unknown celestial objects turned out to be part of our solar system.

Read the newspaper article here:
Possibly as Large as Jupiter; Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered

Here is another place about the IRAS data:
IRAS

The observatory also made headlines briefly with the discovery of an "unknown object" that was at first described as "possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system." However, further analysis revealed that, of several unidentified objects, nine were distant galaxies and the tenth was "intergalactic cirrus". None were found to be Solar System bodies.


The claim of a 1984 cover up is nonsense. At no time was a new planet observed.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SkunkSense
 



You would like links to extreme weather?
Ok....keep in mind this is just for January.

No. I want evidence to support the claim that flooding is increasing. Floods are common. Bad floods happen every year and many times a year. Where is the evidence that it is increasing?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SkunkSense
 


If changes are happening fast, then why are people unable to show that it is happening. So far we have a few incomplete laundry lists of events. That does not show an increase. About all that has been shown is that floods do occur and presently are not rare. That I believe is true. Floods are not rare conditions. I just see no effort made at all to show that floods are increasing.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CUin2013?
 



It seems that certain people can't leave threads like this alone. They can be rude and immature in their arguments. They take any scientific evidence and summarily call it rubbish - usually without looking at the evidence. I have found the best approach to certain people is to ignore them.

Another person that couldn't get the evidence straight and posted fallacies and outright deceptive posts. You purposely misrepresented evidence. You are a good example of why it is important to under the difference between a pole shift and a magnetic reversal.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 

You have a problem with matching the start and end quotes. I am using parentheses here instead of square brackets, but look for matching (quote) (/quote). If you don't close a quote you get a run on quote situation.

I'll go back over your post since I did not see that there were answers in there. Thanks



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


en.wikipedia.org...
This shows a list of floods in the world from 1900 and on. Looks like an overall increase to me. I know you'll just say the reporting was bad back then, or you'll say that tech is better now so we know of more! Just can not please a skeptic.

1900-1950 10 floods in 50 years
1950's 6 floods in 10 years
1960's 4 floods in 10 years
1970's 3 floods in 10 years
1980's 4 floods in 10 years
1990's 12 floods in 10 years
2000's 21 floods in 10 years
2010's 6 floods so far in 2 years

Mind you this is from one source and if you look from the 1970 forward you see a steady increase. Just wondering what the top of the cycle will look like? It looks like we should be having 30 or more by 2019 if you follow a ten year cycle.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'll try the quote, end quotes next time we have a forum run together! Lol

Thanks for the tip.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 


Things without cycles:
1. Just because other planets are created has no effect on the acyclical nature of Earth's creation. It happened once and won't happen again.
2. The change of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing to an oxidative atmosphere was a singleton. Events on other planets have no bearing on the acyclic event here.
3. Once a technology is developed it is a one time event. Technologies are not created, used, and then destroyed. Not at all. Even if a later technology replaces an earlier technology that does not make the event of the development of the earlier technology a part of a cycle.

Time is linear. Events happen one after the other. These are not cycles and no amount of trickery makes them part of a cycle.


Some not so clear cyclical events - really repeated events

1. Floods do not follow cycles. Floods of various levels are stochastic events in which there is a probability that an event may occur within a given time period.
2. Forest fires do not follow cycles. The simplistic model you have given does not describe what actual happens in a forest.
3. Extinctions are not cyclical. There have been proposals for periodic extinctions, but none of the papers can agree on the periodicity of the events. I should also point out that people did not exist 10Ma.

There is this often claimed notion that everything is cyclical. That fits into the notions of time for ancient cultures and religions. I suggest Eliade as an excellent text on the matter. This search for cycles has permeated many places even the stock market. Forcing cycles on non-cyclical events begins to break down very quickly.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CUin2013?
 



It seems that certain people can't leave threads like this alone. They can be rude and immature in their arguments. They take any scientific evidence and summarily call it rubbish - usually without looking at the evidence. I have found the best approach to certain people is to ignore them.

Another person that couldn't get the evidence straight and posted fallacies and outright deceptive posts. You purposely misrepresented evidence. You are a good example of why it is important to under the difference between a pole shift and a magnetic reversal.


and this is how you divert people from the real issues that we want to discuss. Go throw your trollish drivel somewhere else.

Grow up.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Bad floods happen all the time, every year, but you just said not one since 2004...

...........................................

You are trying so hard to see things differently than what they are, every dam source states that this many storms are not common.

Things are NOT normal, you had better get used to it.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CUin2013?
 


I am sorry you are such a sore loser in a debate.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



Bad floods happen all the time, every year, but you just said not one since 2004...

That's not what I said. Let me clarify. There are many floods and some are considerably worse than others. Recent floods although bad for those affected are not bad floods compared to others of the last 100 years. In fact the last really bad flood was in 2004.

Take the floods in Pakistan last year. That did not make the big floods of the last 100 years either.


You are trying so hard to see things differently than what they are, every dam source states that this many storms are not common.

Whether or not a storm is common has nothing to do with anything when it comes to claiming that floods are more common. Floods are not usually caused by common storms.


Things are NOT normal, you had better get used to it.

Do you have anything other than a hunch to back up your claim. I'd certainly enjoy seeing evidence that something abnormal is occurring. So far it has been nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CUin2013?
 


I am sorry you are such a sore loser in a debate.


I am sorry you have to resort to badgering to distract people.

The only losers are all the birds, fish and mammals that have recently died. Then there are all the people that have recently lost everything due to floods, earthquake, snow, etc.

Get a clue.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join