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.

 

A question for all the "2012" non-believers

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



This would bring your
approximately 280 number
close to his 260 number.


So you want to fudge the actual
numbers to try and support the failed
claims of Lungold? You see that is the
the problem. Lungold makes a lot and I
mean a lot of false claims. He does this
one after the other to support the fake
numerological to false connect the
Mayan number system to things that
are obviously not connected.


Is there a possibility that you have
misinterpreted his facts as hoaxes.... Falsley?

Are you trying to support the failure by
denying the clear evidence that the human
gestation period is not 260 days?

It certainly seems that you are trying to give
credence to the Lungold false claims. The only
thing Lungold is doing is trying to do is to
show some sort of false link between the Mayan
number system and humans. It is malarkey
just as are all of the other claims.


Even a possibility?
Or, is your conviction so strong that
there's no possible way you are incorrect.

That's a silly comment. Is the human gestation
period 260 days? NO. It is not.


At least I am open to the chance I might be wrong.

What I see too often is closed-minded judgement....

Don't you think you can read? Can't you see that the
evidence is clearly against this nitwit claim of a
connection between the human gestation period
and the Mayan number system?

This is a simple check. You check the facts and the
facts show Lungold is wrong.

-----------------------



Which next hoax do you want to tackle on that list?

Forgive me if I don't want to go through the whole list.....


So now we see that Lungold is wrong on a basic issue
where he falsely tries to tie in a number to his claims
of the Mayan system. You don't think that it is meaningful
that Lungold was a liar and make up false claims?

-----------------------


Just found another link for you .... Gestation

This is from answers.com (not best source I know)


So now in a moment of desperation you bring in a bad
source to hopefully show that Lungold is not the liar and
fraud he is. That is really pitiful.

What is evident is that you are missing the main point
about human gestation which is much more important.
Of course, someone trying to support Lungolds lies just
is going to go down that close minded path.

-----------------------


Okay stereo, that's the first two links that
I have looked at. Both saying that you are
wrong calling him a hoax based on this.....

If you see the 280 is 9.5 months, and we all know
9.5 is a couple of weeks too long.......
Oh wait, that means its closer to 260......
.....That can't be......


The name is stereologist, not stereo. I don't call you deuce
or 3. You are ThreeDeuce,

So you cherry picked 2 links and then did not show the
correct picture of human gestation. One of the links
was a poor link at best.

-----------------------


Here is a snipet from
Transitiontoparentood.com:

How are due dates calculated? In the 1850’s, a Dr.
Naegele determined the average length of human
gestation llwas 266 days from conception, or 280
days (40 weeks) from last menstrual period. He
assumed that the average woman had cycles that
lasted 28 days and that she ovulated on Day 14
of her cycle


So now you are showing your true colors
by using an older calculation. That typical of
people who want to shore up the claims of a liar
and hoaxer like Lungold.

-----------------------


Hmmm, this really makes me wonder
about ALL of your arguments.

These were the first three links about gestation
which I brought up. I didn't even try hard.

I only googled "what is the gestation of a human".

Did you just assume you were right?

No I actually looked up the value a while back
to check on Lungold and I didn't try to be a fake
as you are purposely doing. The figure of
260 is wrong as I will show.

-----------------------

Here are links that show that you and Lungold are wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...


Pregnancy is considered "at term" when
gestation attains 37 complete weeks but is less
than 42 (between 259 and 294 days since LMP).
Events before completion of 37 weeks (259 days) are
considered preterm; from week 42 (294 days) events
are considered postterm.


Although this is well known to have large range, Lungold
chose a number at the short end of the range. He
did this to shore up his nonsense claims of his
numerology.

-----------------------

That information is ultimately from the following source

Dr H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, S. Nilsson, U. Waldenströ (1995).
"The length of human pregnancy as calculated by
ultrasonographic measurement of the fetal biparietal
diameter". Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 6 (5): 353–357.

That source is 150 years more recent than the source
you chose to use.

-----------------------

Now if we go to the wiki page on gestation we see the
following in the table.


Humans 259–294


You termed this

This would bring your
approximately 280 number
close to his 260 number.


Did I ever say 280? No. You stated 280. I only stated
that 260 was wrong. It is. 260 is a value that represents
only a small fraction of normal births. It's not close to the
center of the normal range. The middle of the normal range
is 276, not 280.

-----------------------

So you are not telling the truth about the wiki page on
gestation. That's one misrepresentation.

-----------------------

Let's check out the answers.com. OH NO! You lied here.
You used the info before it says CORRECTION:


Correction: A pregnancy is considered to be
"full-term" between 37 and 42 weeks.....therefore by
definition, ALL full-term babies will come in that time
frame. I think that's what that was meant to say. 40
weeks is still considered the standard length of a
pregnancy and "due dates" are based on that number.
However, newer studies have indictaed that the true
AVERAGE gestation for a healthy pregnancy with
spontaneous in a nulliparous (first-time) mother is
approximately 41 weeks and 3 days, with multiparous
(with previous children) mother giving birth
spontaneously, on average, at 41 weeks and 1 day.
But in America in particular, most labors are induced
before reaching that gestation without medical
cause, so they never reach the natural gestational
"average".


That's two zeroes for your effort.

-----------------------

Now let's review that last link.

-----------------------

This is the last link. Please provide proper links.
www.transitiontoparenthood.com...


Only 4% of babies are actually born on their “due dates”.
6-10% of babies are born early – prior to 37 weeks; 4-14% of
pregnancies last more then 42 weeks.


That page again repeats that 90% to 76% of babies are born
in the range of 37 to 42 weeks. That link again shows that
Lungold is wrong.

-----------------------

Didn't you thin I'd check out your links? That is 4 for 4 that Lungold
did not tell the truth when he attempted to link the Mayan
number system to humans. In this case his claim that human
gestation is 260 days is wrong.

Why did you try to misrepresent this fact?

edit on 9-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 




Yes, like we are gullible about the gestation period...

You do know that stereologist is wrong...correct?

Do you actually think we'd avoid reading your clear
misrepresentations of the facts?

The facts are very clear. The mean human gestation
is greater than 260 days. That was clear on all of the
links you provided. You simply chose to misrepresent
all of the information you provided.

Shame on you.

-----------------

You thought we'd be gullible and fall for your ploy?
Telling the truth is easy. It is better than ending up
with egg on your face as you have just done.

-----------------


Links and facts please...

Next time consider being truthful. Also, if you provide
a link actually provide a real link that can be followed
so that it makes checking your facts easier. I see that
you need to be checked.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


It is clear that 2012 believers will stoop to
all sorts of embarrassing efforts to attempt
to shore up a hoaxer like Lungold. They
misrepresent and openly lie. They think
that people will not check their sources.
Rather ludicrous don't you think.

------------------------------------


I have seen ZERO anti-2012 posters present any
peer-reviewed information which says that 2012 is a hoax.

That's laughable. It gets posted all of the
time. I just posted a peer reviewed article that
shows that the human gestation period is not
260 days. You chose to misrepresent a series
of 3 links to support the falsehoods claimed
by Lungold.

--------------------------------------


But, here you see ..... all talk with zero substance.

But you lied about the links. You lied about the link
from answers.com where it clearly stated correction.

--------------------------------------


Prove to me that I am wrong.
Show me links and videos.

Are you going to tell the truth? I have my doubts.
edit on 9-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



I counter argued the first item that you singled out.

Actually you lied. You misrepresented 3 links and 1 was a clear lie.

------------------------------------------------------


YOU are the one 100% sure that he is wrong.
And yet, you are down 0 to 1.

What was the point in telling a lie? You probably know well enough
that Lungold tells lies, make things up as he goes along, and is
a completely untrustable source.

------------------------------------------------------

So Lungold was wrong about the 260 days of human gestation.

The next issue the claim of 260 cell types in the human body,
There are over 200 types of neurons. Another fallacy claimed
by Lungold to support his numerological baloney.

------------------------------------------------------


You really need to treat people with
more RESPECT stereologist.

You need to tell the truth. Don't get the idea that people are
not going to look at your references and see that you lie and
misrepresent what is stated.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



Can you show me where it says
"End of Calendar - Nothing Happens Today"

There are no predictions or prophecies associated with
the end of the long count calendar. There are modern
hoaxes that have been written, but nothing from the
ancient Mayans.

----------------------------------------------


What I don't understand, is how can you be sure
That nothing will happen even TOMORROW?

Much less have the foresight to predict 1.5 years,
with absolute certainty. /quote]
Straw man argument. What we can say for certain is
that the date in question arises from the long count
calendar and that calendar has no associated
prophecies or predictions.

---------------------------------------------


What you need to look at to determine what
MIGHT happen on dec 21, 2012, we need to look
at what happened the last time this occured.

This happened witht the emmergence of Jesus,
as the age turned to pices.

You are quite mistaken if you think Jesus appeared
in 3114BC. The current long count begins in that year.

------------------------------------------------


The Mayans also say that the world has been
destroyed 5 times in the past, and will again.

And yet you give a 0% chance that their
Calendar could mean anything upon completion?

We are living in the 4th world according to the Popul Vuh.

Could we have a link on that destruction claim. I believe
you are mistaken about the world being destroyed. There
are destructions of the men-like creations, but not the
world. For instance, animals survive the flood of resin.
multiple times.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Steologist, you are nothing but a troll.

You make oneclaim about the gestation not beng 260.

I pull up the first 3 links, and quote them ver batim,
And you call me a liar, and say I am misrepresenting.

Anyone can read the last 2 pages, and see you
Are a stinking bag of hot air.

Do not call me a liar.

The links clearly say the gestation is 260 days.
This is what the first 3 links said.

You still disagree, and still have not posted any facts or information just bullsnip opinions.

I apologize for my short sidedness.
But, there was a timw when I actually read your posts
and treated your posts with some decency.

Now, I see all that you are is a thread flamer,
And nothing more thana horrible troll who can not logically debate.


How can you argue and say that I lie, when I have done
Nothing but post the quotes about the topic you stated was a hoax.

I clearly explained where the 260 and 280 numbers came from.

Did you realize that different cultures have ways of computing time differently?

Some cultures start thei age at conception, where
Americans start counting age at birth.

It does not mean one is a hoax,
It just means that you can not see the world outside
Of your precious little bubble.

I finally realized what your avatar is...
It's a bulsnip meter.
Unfortunatley, it pegs out everytime you post....


----------------------------------------

The only one good thin about your replies,
Is that other intelligent people will read the thread.

They will read your lack of arguments.

They will read how you talk down to people.

They will read how, when faced with the fact that there
Is the possibility hat you might be wrong, you call
everyone else liars.

They will read your responses, which are right on par
for subpar intelligence, wit, and substance for anti 2012 posts.

Really, you might want to find someone who ca debate facts
INTELLIGENTLY, and not stoop to insults.

---------------------------

One favor, if you call me a liar, then tell me what I lied about?

Am I just another hoaxer?

What is my motivation, why lie?

---------------------

I do not know what more to say, as t your gestation response.

I could not be more clear and concise, yet you accuse me of
Cheating and lying.

You either need much better reading and comprehension
(8th grade level should get you through the thread)

Or, a psychologist, because this is not a conspiracy.
I am not lieing to decieve you, and people are not
watching through your windows.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yes, the last long count started around 3000 bc.

But, this goes back to readingand comprehension.
It was at the last changing of the ages that
Christianity came about.

I never sad it was at the beginning of the long count.

I will not let you attempt to belittle or discredit me,
With things I did not even say.

I would wager 8 people out of 10 who reads the whole thread,
Would think you are acting like a baffoon.

Still no answer about 260 vs 280?
Can you see where the two different numbers come from?

Even though its easier to call me a liar, and say that
I fabricated those numbers, or misrepresented, all
I did was pull the quotes off the site.

But, that took 5 more minutes than you are willing
to put into this thread, so I completely understand.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Stereologist, I need to give you a little credit....
You did post a link in our gestation debate.

Good job attempting to research before post.

But, next time, stay on topic.
Gestation and pregnancy are not the same exact things.

Pregnancy is how long it takes the baby to get out,
Whereas gestation is how long it takes the baby to fully form.

Even in the own link that you posted it says that
babies born before the 259 day mark are labeled preterm.
So, that means 260 days is full term.


Hmmm, did I edit wikipedia just to discredit you?

No, this is not a conspiracy, again this is just me
reading more than the first paragraph of a website.


For those keeping scores-

That's 3 of my posts, and one of his
All giving credence to 260....

That's 4 to 0, and human gestation is
the fight that he wants to choose to call 2012 hoaxers.

Perhaps we need to work on math,
In addition to reading and comprehension.

Can we add an troll-rehab class to that also?


edit on 9-6-2011 by ThreeDeuce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Stereologicless -

Thanks for the pregnancy link, perhaps I
can use it to further our conversation.

I checked out all the references and external links,
for ones that might include gestation information.

Let me see what I can find in the link YOU provided.
That should mean its fair game.

Reference # 16 ; definition of premature birth:
Premature birth: A birth that takes place before 37 weeks of gestation have passed.

Just doing my own math but if premature is 37 weeks x 7 days = 259
Then that means mature is 260.

There's that number again, but I must be lying again.


One definiton I read about gestation,
Makes me think there's not much difference between
Gestation and pregnancy,

But that does not falsify my 260 argument.....
I am just able to admit that I was incorrect.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
As for destruction,
The Mayans say it will be

"The changing of the world as we know it"

It is possible that destruction will not happen.


It is also possible that you, stereologist,
Are correct and everyone else is wrong.

But, if you want to tell me that you are 100% correct,
I know you are lying.

We only know what we are told.
The history we know has been skewed and edited.

So, how can you knowledge be infallable?

Shouldt there be an age limit for ATS?
It feels like arguing with children



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'll tell you now, you surely have an agenda. That video is pure misunderstanding of the theory. The poster cannot even explain himself the correct way.
It is only superb because it agrees with your ego and debunking agenda.

You' re a joke. A joke I tell you.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Stereo, I am still waiting since NOVEMBER your own thread debunking timewave zero to see how fast will it sink down...
You don't understand the basics of the theory, of course you don't want to create your own thread. It is not into your protocol. You can only replie to threads trying to debunk every single letter being said.

XYZ , do you want to create a thread debunking timewave zero? Let's bet it won't last more than 5 pages?

I am still waiting. Of course no one can debunk it before 2013. You claim no one knows the future. So, you two guys cannot know the future and cannot be completely sure 110% that the theory is false.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



I pull up the first 3 links, and quote them ver batim,
And you call me a liar, and say I am misrepresenting.

None of your links worked. You cherry picked misleading
information from the pages. You lied in the second link
because you picked the information that was CORRECTED
in the subsequent paragraph. That's typical of a troll.


Do not call me a liar.

You did lie. You clearly and obviously chose text that
was followed by CORRECTION.

On those very pages you referenced was information
clearly showing that 260 was wrong. You chose not to
use that information. You chose to misrepresent,
except for the second source where you chose to copy
the information that was corrected.


You still disagree, and still have not posted any
facts or information just bullsnip opinions.

Another lie. I'm not surprised. I posted 4 links, not
references as you did. I event posted a reference
to a peer reviewed article showing that 260 was
wrong. So drop the lies. Everyone reading this thread
sees that you are telling bald faced lies.


Now, I see all that you are is a thread flamer,
And nothing more thana horrible troll who can not logically debate.

Your efforts to deflect the fact that you lied and not are
pretending that you did not lie is rather funny. Everyone
reading the thread can see that not only did you lie in
the post where you made the references, but they can
see that you are perpetuating the lie in this post by
claiming that I did not post any facts or information.


I clearly explained where the 260 and 280 numbers came from.

Where did 280 come from?

The number 280 does not appear on page 8 of this thread.

You are the first person to mention 280 on page 9.

Okay, gestation of 260 vs 280 days. Let's talk about this one....

That was not my number.


This would bring your
approximately 280 number
close to his 260 number.

So where did you get 280? Did you think I wrote that
number? When people tell lies they fumble and make
mistakes. You read this number from the links you read.
Is that where this number came from? You read the
number on the links and then continued on with the
lies and thought I had supplied the number. How
funny is that?


Did you realize that different cultures have ways of computing time differently?

So now comes the unimportant information well known
by many that different cultures count ages differently.
That has nothing to do with gestation period.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


They will read how you talk down to people.

When people read this thread they will see you for the
unrepentent liar that you are. They will see that you
knew the value of 280 and mistakenly thought I posted the
number you read from the references where you posted
misrepresenting numbers or in the case of the second
reference just posted the known incorrect values which
appeared above the next paragraph marked CORRECTION.


Really, you might want to find someone who ca debate facts
INTELLIGENTLY, and not stoop to insults.

You don't think it is wrong to openly lie. You lied initially
through the references and then you lied here where you
claimed I posted no facts or information. You lied like
Weiner and Edwards. You lied to cover up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


One favor, if you call me a liar, then tell me what I lied about?

1. You lied about the gestation period in the second
reference by picking the incorrect information which
was followed by a CORRECTION.
2. You lied in this post where you claimed I did not
provides facts and information.

Unlike you that did not provide links, only references to
the information, I provided 4 links and plenty of
information showing that the normal range, and the
estimated number of outliers.

---------------------------------------------------------------


What is my motivation, why lie?

Why did you lie other than in attempt to cover up your failings?
Maybe you thought I would check even though you avoided placing
any links in your post.

----------------------------------------------------------------


I could not be more clear and concise, yet you accuse me of
Cheating and lying. /quote]
Your own posts reveal that you cheated and lied and misrepresented.

edit on 9-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



It was at the last changing of the ages that
Christianity came about.

So now you want to drag in other material into the
thread that is of no consequence?


I would wager 8 people out of 10 who reads the whole thread,
Would think you are acting like a baffoon.

I'll wager than 9 out of 10 realize you lied about the gestation period.
PS, learn to spell. Maybe you can get improve to the 6th grade level.


Still no answer about 260 vs 280?
Can you see where the two different numbers come from?

Yes. Lungold made a false claim.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

The mean pregnancy length was 280.6 days when based
on BPD and 283.4 days when based on LIMP. The corresponding
median values were 281 days and 284 days, respectively.
Probably because of more preterm deliveries, women below
20 years of age had a significantly shorter pregnancy length
than women 20–34 years of age.


------------------------------------------------------------------


Even though its easier to call me a liar, and say that
I fabricated those numbers, or misrepresented, all
I did was pull the quotes off the site.

I used those very same sites to show that you were wrong. I
used the material on those very same sites to show how you
misrepresented the information. I showed how you chose
the invalid information above the CORRECTION. Such
an obvious effort on your part to lie. Then you lied in an
attempt to cover up your failure by stating that I did not
supply facts or information. You are an unrepentent liar.

Did you think I wouldn't check your references?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



But, next time, stay on topic.
Gestation and pregnancy are not the same exact things.

I know that. Did you? I sort of doubt it.


Even in the own link that you posted it says that
babies born before the 259 day mark are labeled preterm.
So, that means 260 days is full term.

I've already point out that information in my post, a post you
referred to with the lie that I did not include facts or information.
Remember, that was the post where you attempted more lies in
a failed effort to cover up your previous lies.

This is part of the lower limit for the time period. That does not
make Lungold right. Lungold is connecting the number system
to humans. Humans do not have a 260 day time period. The
time period is close to 280 days. Lungold is wrong.

No matter how much you attempt to twist and squirm the fact of
the matter is that Lungold was wrong.

Here is what Lungold wrote

260 days are 9 months, the gestation period of the human being.

Even simple arithmetic shows that 260 days is not 9 months. 9 times
30 is 270.


That's 3 of my posts, and one of his
All giving credence to 260....

None of my posts suggest that. Again you are a liar. All of my posts show a
median close to 280. Your posts show 260 because you lied or misrepresented
your references.

So far you are getting straight F's here and black marks for telling lies.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 




Reference # 16 ; definition of premature birth:
Premature birth: A birth that takes place before 37 weeks of gestation have passed.

Just doing my own math but if premature is 37 weeks x 7 days = 259
Then that means mature is 260.


There you are grasping at straws after being caught being
a liar time and time again. The 260 is at the lower limit of
what is considered normal. I already stated that in my post.
The mean, median, and expected values all fall at close to
280 days.

Lungold is wrong.


One definiton I read about gestation,
Makes me think there's not much difference between
Gestation and pregnancy,

But that does not falsify my 260 argument.....
I am just able to admit that I was incorrect.

The difference in humans is small.

It still falsifies your 260 argument because the mean, median, and
expected values for humans is closer to 280.

Lungold was wrong.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



It is also possible that you, stereologist,
Are correct and everyone else is wrong.

But, if you want to tell me that you are 100% correct,
I know you are lying.


Where in the Popul Vuh does it say that anything other than
the replacement of the man attempts was destroyed? It does
not say that the world was destroyed.

Here is an example:
simple.wikipedia.org...

Gods destroy first humans in a "resin" flood; they become monkeys.


Here is another discussion this time from Yale.
www.yale.edu...
No where does it suggest that the world is destroyed.

This the end of the first men.

Next, the gods make men out of mud. But the new
creatures cannot do anything, nor do they hold up very
well in the rain! They are consigned to the trash heap too.


So here is where the human carnage of the men of wood happens.
The world is not destroyed.

This event provides the first carnage in Popol Vuh. Not only
does a resin rain pour down on these creatures, but also everything
in the world turns on them--from cooking utensils to pet dogs. Deities
lead the massacre, with names like Sudden Bloodletter and
Crunching Jaguar. The result is splintering and pulverization for
the men and women made of wood.


The stories continue with a lot of killing and mayhem, but no
destruction of the world.

So where do you get the idea of the destruction of the world?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SooperFadeaway
The Mayan Calender actually ended in 2009, people just "revised it" to end in 2012. But good luck finding an original translation of the Mayan Calender.


Don Alejandro says, the Mayan have no date when the 5th sun cycle will begin.
Don Alejandro is the chief of Maya's


edit on 9-6-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)



edit on 9-6-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 



I am still waiting. Of course no one can debunk it before 2013. You claim no one knows the future. So, you two guys cannot know the future and cannot be completely sure 110% that the theory is false.

Despite your claims that you understand this theory, which it is not, you are unable to give me the fractal dimension of the plot.

I assume the reason is that you don't know what that means. That's ok. You can learn it.

The TWZ plot is not fractal in the typical sense of the word because the plot has fractal dimension 1. It is no different than a line. Lines have dimension 1. The plot has fractal dimension 1. Therefore the claim that TWZ is a fractal is false. It is part of the mystique of this graph.

A theory is based on facts. There are no facts to support TWZ. Thus it is not a theory.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
As far as I know, the Mayans never talked about the world ending or explained the calendar that way. So where did the idea that the end of the calendar is equivalent to the ending of the world originate from? Let's start with that simple question and take it from there.




top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join