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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


What about McKenna and Arguelles and those frauds called Yellowbird and Keisha? And then there is that Thoth wannabe named Drunvalo.

2012 is a hoaxer magnet. It is a draw for all those that want to fleece the gullible. And behold - it works.


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

I don't know a single one of those names.

No doubt any important story will draw hoaxers,
its a way to earn money.

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

But, just because there's hoaxers means its false?

So, just because one ufo report is a hoax,
all ufos are hoax, and thereby we are
utterly alone in the universe.

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

Or, is there a possibility that hoaxers are talented
disinfo agents sent to discredit the entire 2012 subject?

These agents could provide shreds of truth, with vast
amounts of false testimony. The crowd would gobble it
up, because the subject is so controversial.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

Why weren't you attempting to disprove 2012 BEFORE the Y2K scare?


Well, I don't know if you could call me a disbeliever... Well, I guess you could. I think it will be a day just like any other....

But I don't go around trying to disprove it either...

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I had not even heard of the 2012 conspiracy until long after the Y2K scare. So I could not have tried to disprove it even if I had wanted to.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


You never heard of any of these 2012 hoaxers. They are the main group. I did leave off Calleman and Lungold.

This is not an important story. What has drawn people to this story are the hoaxers.


But, just because there's hoaxers means its false?

Of course not. The problem is that all of the proponents are hoaxers. There is nothing but hoaxing. The claims are false from the outset.


Or, is there a possibility that hoaxers are talented disinfo agents sent to discredit the entire 2012 subject?

There is no 2012 subject outside of the hoaxes. The controversy is solely from the hoaxers.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I can asnwer your question, OP.

The reason why no one put any stock into the 2012 demise theory, is because it wasn't fashionable at the time to discuss it.

Before 2004, people were honest about not knowing how to read a Mayan codex. Since everyone has had internet for a decade now, they are all experts on Mayan lore. Only within the last 7 years or so has the Mayan fashion craze gained momentum. It's in style to play scientist for a little while.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'll come to say that if nothing happens AT ALL...Immediately after Evasius does the same...Lol.

Remember, that thread is not exactly my thread, but Evasius's thread.

I will admit is false if time travel isn't invented, if we don't discover any other universe, if no alien civilization comes to visit us, if no technological singularity occurs...

Than yes, I will admit it has been nice to research, but the research was false.

But in case the things I expect to happen, DO happen, what will you skeptics say???

What if ?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


Those are a lot of what ifs to occur in a little over a year.

The problem with the research being done on TWZ is that it is not research. It is shoehorning and cherry picking. You are all looking for some sort of verification and claiming success. The entire thing is based on something defined as novelty, but no one is measuring novelty. I saw all sorts of claims of novelty increased or decreased yet the only standard in play was the plot itself. Instead of testing whether or not the plot is useful, the plot is taken to be true. That's not research. That's called fooling yourself.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is more novelty when at a certain point the graph is lower than in the previous point. How easier could it be? This is the way to see if a certain point is more novel than the previous one.

A person goes on the java graph, selects the map of the decade 2000- 2010 and everyone should be able to see what point was more novel...The point where the graph goes lower than all the other novel points indicated y the graph for that specific decade.

Why do you complicate this thing? It is very easy...

Its not something you measure. Its something you can very easily see and graphically observe.

If you don't accept this thing, well, no explanation of mine will ever make you accept that, so why are we still discussing the thing?

One day we will discuss again, and IF ever a bunch of aliens come to visits us in next year ( hahah what if? ) I would pay to see your face...Just joking



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
This TWZ shoehorning reminds me of a test of astrology once here people were given a sheet to fill out with a little personal information. Later each person was given a personal horoscope based on the information supplied. The people were asked to rate the horoscope. People in the class were amazed at how well the personalized horoscope matched them. It was then revealed that each person in the class received identical horoscopes.

This is an example in which people fooled themselves into believing. Everyone thought this one size fits all description was unique to them and well suited.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


This is an example of how little you know about astrology. Astrology is at best psychology, not only horoscopes. Horoscopes don't mean anything. Description of signs and planet transits mean a lot.

Don't make me start a discussion about astrology. After timewave zero, my second interest is astrology.
I study astrology in european books since I was 15.

Just don't make me try starting a discussion.


Just please discuss something you know SOMETHING about. Once in a while.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 



Don't make me start a discussion about astrology. After timewave zero, my second interest is astrology.
I study astrology in european books since I was 15.

Fine. Not only are you mistaken about TWZ, but you also believe in the hoax of astrology. Not a surprise.


Just please discuss something you know SOMETHING about. Once in a while.

You should try taking your own advice.

TWZ is not fractal. You should learn what fractal means. It might help.
You have done no research with TWZ. You should learn what the word means.


This is an example of how little you know about astrology

I know that in tests it is a miserable failure. Time and time again it has been shown to be a hoax. This little experiment which was designed to show how easily people fooled themselves shows exactly that. It was more than a test of the hoax of astrology. It was a test at how easily people do exactly what you and your associates have been doing in the TWZ thread - deluding themselves.
edit on 8-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 



There is more novelty when at a certain point the graph is lower than in the previous point. How easier could it be? This is the way to see if a certain point is more novel than the previous one.

A person goes on the java graph, selects the map of the decade 2000- 2010 and everyone should be able to see what point was more novel...The point where the graph goes lower than all the other novel points indicated y the graph for that specific decade.

Why do you complicate this thing? It is very easy...

There you are admitting to the fallacy of your ways. You accept the plot as real and fit whatever you can find to match the graph. You are not testing the graph to see if it works. You are pretending it is some kind of gold standard.


Its not something you measure. Its something you can very easily see and graphically observe.

See, yet again you show that you accept the plot as true. You are not doing any research are you? All you are doing is pretending that the plot is correct. Of course you haven't tried to measure something, because you can't or won't.


If you don't accept this thing, well, no explanation of mine will ever make you accept that, so why are we still discussing the thing?

Because I have been pointing out how ridiculous it is to call what you do research. You are shoehorning and cherry picking whatever to match this plot.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Stereologist, your stance against 2012 comes from
the fact that you view Lungold, Calleman, and the
other two people you named, to be hoaxers.

I have read very little into Calleman, or how he
interprets the calendar. But, I have always given
him credibility, because of Lungold's close
association.

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

Can you show me the facts/links on why you think
Lungold is a hoaxer?

I promise to take an objective look at it.

I always study both sides to every story, and form
my OWN conclusion. So, I am more than willing to
hear your piece.

If you can not show me evidence of being hoaxers,
I will eventually stop listening / responding to your posts.
I don't want to think of you as a useless troll.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


The problem with the likes of Lungold and Calleman is that their claims are demonstrably false. That is why they are hoaxers. I am not assigning then to the bin of being hoaxers without the fact that they put out falsehoods.

A clear example is the claims of the 9 levels based on the 9 levels in a pyramid. That is not Mayan. That is a hoax perpetrated by Lungold. The number of fallacies he has pushed is huge.

Here is a page I found online. How many errors can you find:
The Mayan Calendar Applied
by Ian Xel Lungold

Here is a sample of blatant errors:
1. Number of days for human gestation
2. Number of different cell types in the human body
3. The claim that the "human reproduction cycle follows this moon cycle"
4. Misleading statements about the Tun calendar
5. "The Tun calendar of 360 days is the Macro-Cosmic time scale of evolution."
6. "all the way back 15 billion years to the Big Bang"
7. "The Mayan calendars are built in 9 levels or 9 major stages of evolutionary development."
8. "Next came the Familial Cycle, a consciousness stage of the first monkeys 40 million years ago."
9. "The Tribal Cycle follows, (2 million years ago) developing Homo erectus and winding up with Homo sapiens."
10. "From there Consciousness began to form Cultures (102,000 years ago) and thereafter the National Cycle began (3115 BC) when the first nations were formed, we started writing and the first pyramids were built."

The list can go on and on. This guy was a fraud and a hoaxer.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Calleman and Lungold share many of the ideas. Here is a Mayan archaeologist that blogs on 2012.

Get the simplest facts correct please

In this blog the archaeologist points out that Calleman can't get even simple facts right. I suggest that Calleman did not research at all and simply copied Lungold's nonsense and tossed in his own baloney.

I can verify that temple 4 is higher than temple 1. I have climbed both.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 





Just please discuss something you know SOMETHING about. Once in a while.


Well, some people don't like to discuss fiction...and TWZ and astrology is pure fiction



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You are the only person on the planet claiming Timewave Zero is not fractal. I know exactly what the definition of fractal is and I found out that while watching timewave zero time cycles.

I tried finding someone else on the whole internet that says the graph is not fractal, I haven't found ONE. Only you.

I don't know why I should believe the only person on the planet that says that graph is not fractal.

You are trying to give me false information. Go tell that to someone who doesn't know a thing about fractals.

Your job is to confuse people, to drive every person that dares posting into 2012 threads toward YOUR agenda, that is dismissing everything about 2012.

Nothing you say changes my opinion. When 2013 will come, I will change my opinion. For now my own experience tells me timewave zero theory is true.

And you won't be able to make me change my mind.

Your agenda fails with me.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Stereologist, your stance against 2012 comes from
the fact that you view Lungold, Calleman, and the
other two people you named, to be hoaxers.



I've never heard of these guys. But if they are not hoaxers, prove to me that everything that they say is absolute truth and that they have never benefited in any shape or form from their announcements. A few papers in Science or Nature would help.

AFAIK the 2012 issue originated back in the early 1990s with Maurice Cotterell. Until then everyone was obsessed with the end of the word in 1999

Others have since jumped on the bandwagon and will no doubt find new ones in 2013.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 



You are the only person on the planet claiming Timewave Zero is not fractal. I know exactly what the definition of fractal is and I found out that while watching timewave zero time cycles.

So someone that doesn't understand the meaning of fractal taught it to you? No wonder you are confused.

What is the fractal dimension of the curve is this is fractal? Please tell me.


[I tried finding someone else on the whole internet that says the graph is not fractal, I haven't found ONE. Only you.

That means you have only looked in all of the places where people don't understand the meaning of fractal. What is the fractal dimension? You claim to understand what fractal means so please tell me the fractal dimension.


You are trying to give me false information. Go tell that to someone who doesn't know a thing about fractals.

Please tell me what the fractal dimension of the plot is.


Nothing you say changes my opinion. When 2013 will come, I will change my opinion. For now my own experience tells me timewave zero theory is true.

Being gullible to a fault is the sign of a closed minded person.


And you won't be able to make me change my mind.

Definitely a close minded approach.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by stereologist
 


You are the only person on the planet claiming Timewave Zero is not fractal. I know exactly what the definition of fractal is and I found out that while watching timewave zero time cycles.


Dunno about fractal. But for the record I claim that Timewave Zero is a big pile of new age sh*t and slighty less real than Noddy and Big Ears' plan to build a spaceship out of a toilet roll tube and some sticky-back plastic.

owever, if you believe it, I still have tickets for the 'B' Ark. The Mutant Star Goat is coming ........



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


You never read anything about Timewave zero. Not in this website. I can guess it from your sentence.

Useless to talk about the graph with people like those who post in this thread...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join