Feb 11th we will go into the new consciousness...

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by DragonSpirit2

 

I suspected that this hoax was the work of Calleman and Lungold.

What hoax? I am unfamiliar with Calleman, but know a bit about Lungold's work - and I didn't see "hoax" in it...

Please elucidate.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I really have to thank you OP for bringing this to attention. Also for directing me to the Youtube talk. Very interesting indeed. Cheers!

Yeah I'm pretty sure the OP is referring to the evolution of consciousness a.k.a. calleman/barbara hand clow etc. According to these authors, we're entering into the last ( I hate to call it last remember it's a CYCLE) section of the cycle of the evolution of worlds/ the 8th level of consciousness or more accurately stated the 8th evolutionary cycle of consciousness life/death up/down in/out creation/destruction. This is (please bear with me) where we will experience ALL of the same things we experienced in the last cycle (idea-creation-fruition-destruction) but on a much much faster timeline. I could spend all day talking about it, but I wouldn't do it any justice or would it make much sense unless you get the ENTIRE SPECTRUM of the idea from Calleman. If everybody really wants a good grasp on what the OP is trying to say look it up or read a book about it! I really like Calleman's approach and funny enough a TON of the evolution of man's consciousness synchs with Calleman's work. Otherwise lets not belittle another person's beliefs or ideas. Everyone is definitely free to express themselves. And yes who knows if Calleman has the right timeline/info who knows!? But it still makes for an AWESOME read.
I think there will be more of a personal aspect to it of course. Not this magical beam of happiness that will make everything better. It's up to us guys and gals! You have within you all of the exact same resources that Jesus, Buddha, Krishna ALL of the mystics had. Now is the best possible time for us to leave this darwinian paradigm behind us. We have reached a boiling point and there are only two options left... evolve or die.

funny enough I do realize I call for us to leave darwin's theory of evolution behind and then tell us to evolve in the same sentence. HA I meant more along the lines of leave the mindset of "survival of the fittest" behind.

Originally posted by UndeadDinosaur

Originally posted by Student X

I've said my peace and advised love and mysticism over reason and evidence.

Indeed you have, and apparently this skeptic will have to remain skeptical.

Why? There is plenty of reason and evidence out there to persuade a true skeptic. Its the pathological pseudo-skeptics that can't be persuaded and have to remain "skeptical".

So first it was a horribly wrong (but forgivable) conflation of science and general standards of evidence and reason. Now you deliberately poison the well by throwing cynicism into the mix? Not that cynicism can't have its uses, but that's just a shameful irrelevancy.

Not really. Cynicism is a strong element in skeptic circles. Granted there might be a few skeptics out there who, upon closer examination, would reveal a minimal amount of cynicism in their hearts. But I doubt there are many such skeptics around here.

Cynicism and disbelief are psi-inhibitive. Love is not. If a "skeptic" is to have any chance of being in tune with the 'new consciousness' then he or she must take a leap of faith to be in a psi-conducive state of mind.

"Your task is not to seek for love,
but merely to seek
and find
all the barriers within yourself
that you have built against it." -Rumi

reply to post by The only 1 who knows the

If you take the last 2 numbers of the year your were born plus your age you will be in 2011 you will find that this will equal 111.

This is not true if you are born after 1999.

last 2 digits of the year you were born = x-1900
age you will be in 2011 = 2011-x

sum = (x-1900) + (2011-x) = 2011-1900 = 111

Not so interesting is it?

If you were born after 1999, then sum = (x-2000)+(2011-x) = 11

Also remember the luminous mysteries in the bible?

I certainly hope they are more mysterious than this date thingy.

reply to post by Amaterasu


We've been over the hoaxes made up by these 2 in many threads. There are all sorts of discussions here in the 2012 thread about how their claims are not true. As Xcalibur254 suggested do a little looking around ATS and learn how their claims are false.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Amaterasu

But the initial layer is 16.4 billion years (life of the universe, anyone?).

The universe is only 13.7 billion years old. This is the first date failure offered by Calleman and Lungold.
2012: Calleman's purposeful
2012 : Calleman's contradictions
2012: Calleman's correlation

Here is an authority on the Mayans, which Calleman is not, who discusses the glaring faults in Calleman's claims.

Oh, exact date wait while I mark that one down on my calander.

No prediction giving an exact date 'ever' hit on that date.

Dates scream hoax to me.

Originally posted by Student X
Why?

Because you can't provide evidence in support of your claims. In fact, you insist that evidence isn't the proper tool, and that we're all engaging in "scientism" for opposing you, when we have no way of even discerning your claims from imagination.

There is plenty of reason and evidence out there to persuade a true skeptic.

Evidence of what, and where is it?

Its the pathological pseudo-skeptics that can't be persuaded and have to remain "skeptical".

Or maybe you just haven't made your case.

Not really. Cynicism is a strong element in skeptic circles. Granted there might be a few skeptics out there who, upon closer examination, would reveal a minimal amount of cynicism in their hearts. But I doubt there are many such skeptics around here.

Yes, really. It was unnecessary, and your speculation about the content of skeptics' "hearts" doesn't help. You seem pretty cynical about skeptics, actually.

Cynicism and disbelief are psi-inhibitive.

Cynicism is an inevitable result of exposure, and disbelief is the inevitable reaction to an absence of evidence or preponderance of contrary evidence. Without disbelief, I shudder to think of the world we might inhabit.

Love is not.

On the contrary, love can destroy people mentally and physically.

If a "skeptic" is to have any chance of being in tune with the 'new consciousness' then he or she must take a leap of faith to be in a psi-conducive state of mind.

More excuses for your inability to produce evidence. If you can prove the existence of the "new consciousness" and/or so-called "psi" phenomena, James Randi will give you $1 million U.S. Good luck.

---
The concern, then, is not whether one applies reason, but whether he reasons well.

Originally posted by UndeadDinosaur

Originally posted by Student X
Why?

Because you can't provide evidence in support of your claims.

What claims are that?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

We've been over the hoaxes made up by these 2 in many threads. There are all sorts of discussions here in the 2012 thread about how their claims are not true. As Xcalibur254 suggested do a little looking around ATS and learn how their claims are false.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The link you provided links back to your post earlier in this thread...

I just spent quite a while looking through things here on ATS in a search for "Calleman." I did not see a whole lot of negative commentary. Nothing remotely suggested "hoax," though many suggested misunderstanding...

Perhaps you can point out where the "hoax" was clarified and delineated. ("Hoax" suggests a willful effort to con people; misunderstanding suggests earnest belief based on a failure in understanding what is out there.)

Thanks.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

But the initial layer is 16.4 billion years (life of the universe, anyone?).

The universe is only 13.7 billion years old. This is the first date failure offered by Calleman and Lungold.
2012: Calleman's purposeful
2012 : Calleman's contradictions
2012: Calleman's correlation

Here is an authority on the Mayans, which Calleman is not, who discusses the glaring faults in Calleman's claims.

Ah. Missed this post. I will look into this. But FYI... WE DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL AGE OF THE UNIVERSE. I have heard, though the years, 8 billion, 10 billion, 13.7 billion, 14.5 billion, and 18 billion - all based on various calculations using various observations and assumptions. But they all seem to run in the 16.4 billion ballpark.

Originally posted by Student X
What claims are that?

Oh, don't play coy, dear Student. That you can distinguish truth from falsehood via love, the humanities and mysticism, sans "The Hammer," of course. Your more recent references to "new consciousness" are so-called "psi" phenomena are million-dollar claims.

Since you think evidence and reason aren't the right tools for the job, however, and are consequently unwilling or unable to provide any evidence or respond to much of what I've written, I really question whether this horse still has a pulse.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Ah. Missed this post. I will look into this. But FYI... WE DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL AGE OF THE UNIVERSE. I have heard, though the years, 8 billion, 10 billion, 13.7 billion, 14.5 billion, and 18 billion - all based on various calculations using various observations and assumptions. But they all seem to run in the 16.4 billion ballpark.

Don't mix and match different estimates made over time. The current estimate of the age of universe is going to be more precise than say an estimate in the 1960s. The reason for that of course is better instruments and more launch vehicles in space above the Earth's atmosphere.

The age of the universe is 3.7 billion years, which is plus or minus 0.13 billion years.
Age of the Universe

Just the 13.1 billion value suggests 3 digits of precision. So the error in 16.4 billion years is very close to 20%. That's a whopping error for the Mayans seeing that they are so often claimed to be so much more amazing than we are by the New Age hoaxers.

That is just one failure for Calleman. All of the other ages are failures too. The length of time of human existence, and mammal existence, and multicellular life are all wrong as well.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Calleman is perpetrating a hoax. He has spent quite a bit of time researching or so he claims. Therefore he should know that his so-called interpretations of Mayan writings are not supported by anyone other than himself. In fact, his interpretations fly in the face of the knowledge we have of the Mayans. For example, he talks about a time of mammals and galaxies. Where in any Mayan writings does it suggest that the Maya knew of galaxies and where does it suggest that the Maya used Western taxonomy? He is either a really, really bad researcher or he knows that his claims are false. Calleman is simply stripping money from the gullible.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Calleman is perpetrating a hoax. He has spent quite a bit of time researching or so he claims. Therefore he should know that his so-called interpretations of Mayan writings are not supported by anyone other than himself. In fact, his interpretations fly in the face of the knowledge we have of the Mayans. For example, he talks about a time of mammals and galaxies. Where in any Mayan writings does it suggest that the Maya knew of galaxies and where does it suggest that the Maya used Western taxonomy? He is either a really, really bad researcher or he knows that his claims are false. Calleman is simply stripping money from the gullible.

I disagree on the "hoax" thing. Mistaken, perhaps. But there have been plenty of examples of people, lone wolves in the timberland, claiming one thing when "everybody" knew differently...that were eventually shown to be right. So just because he is alone in his claims does not necessarily follow that he is creating a hoax.

I'm not saying Calleman will be shown to be correct, mind you (though in this crazy world, who knows...), but that you cannot use that fact alone to call "hoax." If he is vastly profiting...well, perhaps he earnestly (and blindly) believes in what he is selling, or he truly is hoaxing. But, to be fair, unless you know one way or the other with evidence, it might be better to suggest both possibilities, rather than choosing one and claiming it as fact.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Ah. Missed this post. I will look into this. But FYI... WE DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL AGE OF THE UNIVERSE. I have heard, though the years, 8 billion, 10 billion, 13.7 billion, 14.5 billion, and 18 billion - all based on various calculations using various observations and assumptions. But they all seem to run in the 16.4 billion ballpark.

Don't mix and match different estimates made over time. The current estimate of the age of universe is going to be more precise than say an estimate in the 1960s. The reason for that of course is better instruments and more launch vehicles in space above the Earth's atmosphere.

The age of the universe is 3.7 billion years, which is plus or minus 0.13 billion years.
Age of the Universe

Just the 13.1 billion value suggests 3 digits of precision. So the error in 16.4 billion years is very close to 20%. That's a whopping error for the Mayans seeing that they are so often claimed to be so much more amazing than we are by the New Age hoaxers.

That is just one failure for Calleman. All of the other ages are failures too. The length of time of human existence, and mammal existence, and multicellular life are all wrong as well.

First and foremost, I question NASA - sorry, I just do. Second, this assumes an initially hyperinflating universe (proposed to explain the evenness of the background radiation, which was offered in, what I see as a failure to understand that, regardless of the rate of expansion, EVERYTHING was in contact with everything else (and thus quantumly entangled, even in distribution) and the need for this expansion is superfluous - and if we eliminate this hyperinflation, the age of the universe is pushed back to...oh...16.4ish...?

Just saying.

EDIT to add: I am of the opinion that one factor your source heavily relies on, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, is incorrect. Again, they can make these statements based on their assumptions of things. They even say, "If current ideas about the origin of large-scale structure are correct, then the detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations will depend on the current density of the universe..." (Emphasis mine.)

Originally posted by UndeadDinosaur

Originally posted by Student X
What claims are that?

Oh, don't play coy, dear Student. That you can distinguish truth from falsehood via love, the humanities and mysticism, sans "The Hammer," of course.

That's not exactly what I said. I said THIS [particular claim of a coming 'new consciousness'] is not a job for reason and evidence. Its a job for consciousness.

"Reason, leave now! You’ll not find wisdom here!
Were you thin as a hair, there’d be no room.
The Sun has risen! In its vast dazzle
Every lamp is drowned." -Rumi

Your more recent references to "new consciousness" are so-called "psi" phenomena are million-dollar claims.

Yeah, "skeptics" usually fall for the whole MDC publicity stunt. Looks like you have fallen for it too. Thats another indication that you are not a true skeptic, but just another uninformed armchair pseudo-skeptic dancing to a misleading debunker tune.

RANDI'S PRIZE: What sceptics say about the paranormal, why they are wrong and why it matters

I will take the liberty of assigning you some homework, pseudo-skeptic. For starters, the above book. Then these ones.

Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence

An Introduction to Parapsychology

The Trickster and the Paranormal

Hopefully all that evidence will snap you out of your pseudo-skepticism so that you can adopt a psi-conducive state of mind before you miss out on the 'new consciousness.' I will hope for you. Good luck.

"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." - Nietzsche

reply to post by flyingdog

In fact, looking at the graph kinda proves the point. On the turning to the "7th day" of the "galactic underworld cycle", we see the date as Nov 3rd, 2010...When did the ruckus about the TSA patdowns and body scanners pick up in earnest? When did the hoop-la about the wikileaks cables start? Seems consciousness did, in fact, make a small but definite shift toward greater emphasis on "ethics" at that point.

That is shoehorning at its worst. With all sorts of important issues out there how is the TSA procedures issue an issue in ethics? The TSA issue predates Nov 3.

I think you better check the date concerning wikileaks.

Finally let me say that this is a typical myopic view of the world in which only issues relevant to the US are mentioned.

reply to post by stereologist


What hoax is Calleman perpetrating, and what are you talking about with this 13.7 billion years old hoax ??

I cannot find ANY evidence from anywhere that even suggests that number.