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.

 

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

page: 5
66
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



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.

That's not what I stated.

I stated that Calleman has a viewpoint which is in great contradiction with what is known about the Maya. He is either a dunce or knows he is perpetrating a hoax.


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.

There are many examples given that show Calleman is a hoaxer. His 9 levels are well known to be a western viewpoint placed on the Mayans and not of their creation. The attributes such as galaxy and mammal are not of Mayan origin.

Calleman is either a dunce or a hoaxer. I really doubt he is a dunce. He has managed to make a living by authoring books for the gullible.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Myans, sure why not. Makes as much sense as anything else I've read here



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



and if we eliminate this hyperinflation, the age of the universe is pushed back to...oh...16.4ish...? [/.quote]
Do you have any evidence for this claim? I very much doubt that.

The age of the universe according to Calleman is just one of the date mistakes in his fictional hierarchy that he has composed for the gullible.

None of his dates work. Every one of his dates is a failure just as is his age of the universe. Calleman is off by 20% - a whopping failure.

Please provide any sources for the age of the universe. Your tossed out list of dates are at this time an unsubstantiated collection which need to be checked.
edit on 8-2-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Seems consciousness did, in fact, make a small but definite shift toward greater emphasis on "ethics" at that point.

How do we explain this ethics shift with these new games:

Sega Installs ‘Toylet’ Games in Japan’s Urinals

There’s the faintly misogynistic “The Northern Wind, The Sun and Me,” where you play as the wind trying to blow a girl’s skirt up, and the harder you pee, the harder the wind blows.


Just trying my hand here at shoehorning irrelevant material into the discussion.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
only 260 days?!
looks like thing really are moving fast....
try to keep up!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



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.

That's not what I stated.

I stated that Calleman has a viewpoint which is in great contradiction with what is known about the Maya. He is either a dunce or knows he is perpetrating a hoax.


Hmmm.... I think you're right - about that not being what you stated. But it was surely implied heavily.. You said, "I suspected that this hoax was the work of Calleman and Lungold." After that, you moved on to suggest he failed in his assessment of Mayan data - as a support for your initial implication. Nowhere before this post of yours did I read an either/or statement.... Did I miss it?



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.

There are many examples given that show Calleman is a hoaxer. His 9 levels are well known to be a western viewpoint placed on the Mayans and not of their creation. The attributes such as galaxy and mammal are not of Mayan origin.

Calleman is either a dunce or a hoaxer. I really doubt he is a dunce. He has managed to make a living by authoring books for the gullible.


I propose a possible third option: he is deluded. Not saying he is not a hoaxer, but also not saying he is either a dunce or delusional. If delusional, he could be not a dunce at all...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
stereologist, if only you would read The Trickster and the Paranormal, you would see that sometimes the hoax/real dichotomy is false.
edit on 8-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Student X
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.


No, dear Student, I fear your memory has failed you. Let me step you through the events in sequence.

I said: "Reason and evidence are not the exclusive domains of science. Tell me, in this land of love you apparently dwell in, what method does one employ in differentiating between reality and fiction, truth and falsity?"

You replied: "The Humanities. Mysticism."

I replied: "How does one determine whether conclusions he reaches by way of the humanities and mysticism are true or false?"

You replied: ???????

Now, if you'd like to amend your position, that's perfectly fine with me, but let's not muddy the waters. Whatever the case, just invoking "consciousness" doesn't tell me anything, because it doesn't tell me what you're conscious of. What is the object of consciousness that allows you to differentiate between truth and falsity, sans reason and evidence? How does that work? C'mon, tiger. Give it a go.


"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


Ironically, the author had to employ some method of reasoning to formulate those ideas.


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.


Such hostility, Student. I'm not even sure how to respond to these insults. And things were going so well....

Proponents have nothing to lose by taking the JREF Challenge, and $1 million to gain. You can insult the organization and Randi personally all you want, but the burden is still on claimants to support their own claims. The burden is not on "skeptics" in general to accommodate them.


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


What skeptics say about the paranormal: "Where is your evidence?"


I will take the liberty of assigning you some homework, pseudo-skeptic.

For starters, the above book.


I don't accept homework assignments from angry students, nor do I knowingly send my money to people who propagate fantasies masquerading as reality (except the government, but only because they use threats and violence if I don't). However, a quick Googling of reviews and an interview with the author have led me suspect this is just more of what you have done throughout this thread: make excuses for being unable to cough up anything even resembling evidence.


Then these ones.

Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence

An Introduction to Parapsychology

The Trickster and the Paranormal


If you want to have a linking contest, we can do this all night, and I can send you to sources you don't have to purchase.

www.skepdic.com...

skeptoid.com...

And why your entire world-view might be incoherent:

bahnsenburner.blogspot.com...


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.


Student, are you even going to attempt to show that "psi" phenomena exist?

Are you going to explain how you determine what is true and false without using reason or evidence?

Seeing how a list of links to books and a string of insults comprise your best "argument," I guess not.

Good luck trying for your prize money. Really, you should go for it. You lose, you're not worse off. You win, you can actually prove Randi wrong instead of just insulting him, along with all the other "skeptics" you're apparently so angry at.


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


Even if one completely rejects science as a method, he cannot claim to think at all about any proposition, while simultaneously maintaining that reason and evidence play no role. He might ignore, misinterpret, imagine or falsify some or all of the information at his disposal, but he nonetheless applies some standard of evidence just by considering the matter, and he applies some method of reasoning to parse that information and draw conclusions, whether he would term it "reason" or not. The concern, then, is not whether one applies reason, but whether he reasons well.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



and if we eliminate this hyperinflation, the age of the universe is pushed back to...oh...16.4ish...?

Do you have any evidence for this claim? I very much doubt that.

The age of the universe according to Calleman is just one of the date mistakes in his fictional hierarchy that he has composed for the gullible.

None of his dates work. Every one of his dates is a failure just as is his age of the universe. Calleman is off by 20% - a whopping failure.

Please provide any sources for the age of the universe. Your tossed out list of dates are at this time an unsubstantiated collection which need to be checked.
edit on 8-2-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)


In Jeremy Rifkin's 1980 book, Entropy, he lists the age of the universe as 18 billion years. Where he acquired that datum is unknown.

Other efforts to date the universe are listed here (with the suggestion that they consistently increase with time...):

www.lhup.edu...


From Wikipedia (for what it's worth:


The problem of determining the age of the universe is closely tied to the problem of determining the values of the cosmological parameters. Today this is largely carried out in the context of the ΛCDM model, where the Universe is assumed to contain normal (baryonic) matter, cold dark matter, radiation (including both photons and neutrinos), and a cosmological constant. The fractional contribution of each to the current energy density of the Universe is given by the density parameters Ωm, Ωr, and ΩΛ. The full ΛCDM model is described by a number of other parameters, but for the purpose of computing its age these three, along with the Hubble parameter H0 are the most important.


Note the assumptions: ΛCDM model (do we KNOW this is the correct model? I think not...), that we know the overall values throughout the universe for the input into the model (some parameters are guessed at - an educated guess, perhaps, but guesses none-the-less)...

Here's one presentation that gives 14 billion:

www.history.com...-of-the-universe

Here's a scientist questioning assumptions:

sci.esa.int...

And there's a great deal more but I think you should do the additional footwork. Google "age of the universe history."

Also... Why is it that you addressed only my mention of having encountered many different "true" ages for the universe - a VERY petty issue - and not the more pertinent elements of my post?
edit on 2/8/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UndeadDinosaur

No, dear Student, I fear your memory has failed you. Let me step you through the events in sequence.


I'm not going to play along with your disingenuous rhetoric. If you can't or won't see that I was referring to a particular claim, then I think we have irreconcilable differences that will prevent fruitful conversation.


Ironically, the author had to employ some method of reasoning to formulate those ideas.


Again, you are disingenuously trying to twist my claim into something I didn't say. Reason and evidence have their place. So does a hammer. But not everything is a nail.

I am not going to continue with you. I will leave you with those books I linked you to and wash my hands of you. Goodbye and good luck.


edit on 8-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
5 pages of arguements...


is there any specific event that happened at any of those dates in the "Galatic underworld" bar that would lead anyone to believe we are a "fully ethical society"?

I just did a quick search but honestly....Fully ethical?


Nov 3rd 2010..
www.answers.com... ??

Nov 24 2006...
www.google.ca...=en&source=hp&biw=971&bih=519&q=Nov+24+2006&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Nov+24+2006&fp=2cebb34f216005c8

Nov 19th 2007...
www.google.ca...=en&biw=954&bih=519&q=Nov+19+2007&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Nov+19+2007&fp=2cebb34f216005c8

Nov 13 2008...
www.google.ca...=en&biw=954&bih=519&q=Nov+13+2008&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=Nov+13+2008&fp=2cebb34f216005c8

SO...Feb 11th 2011...leads me back to something i posted a few days back
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't understand why people would take these prophicies seriously... so we'll see i guess...

3 days and counting...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
5 pages of arguements...


is there any specific event that happened at any of those dates in the "Galatic underworld" bar that would lead anyone to believe we are a "fully ethical society"?

I just did a quick search but honestly....Fully ethical?


Nov 3rd 2010..
www.answers.com... ??

Nov 24 2006...
www.google.ca...=en&source=hp&biw=971&bih=519&q=Nov+24+2006&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Nov+24+2006&fp=2cebb34f216005c8

Nov 19th 2007...
www.google.ca...=en&biw=954&bih=519&q=Nov+19+2007&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Nov+19+2007&fp=2cebb34f216005c8

Nov 13 2008...
www.google.ca...=en&biw=954&bih=519&q=Nov+13+2008&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=Nov+13+2008&fp=2cebb34f216005c8

SO...Feb 11th 2011...leads me back to something i posted a few days back
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't understand why people would take these prophicies seriously... so we'll see i guess...

3 days and counting...


I corrected the poster in that all the levels of the (presumed) Mayan "consciousness" steps terminate together, and though we are in the step of "ethics" we will not achieve a completion until 10/11 or 12/12 (depending on who you ask...).

The three days was erroneous if there is validity to the steps.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Student X
I'm not going to play along with your disingenuous rhetoric. If you can't or won't see that I was referring to a particular claim, then I think we have irreconcilable differences that will prevent fruitful conversation.


You said it. Not my fault. The context was pretty clear, actually. I asked a direct question. You gave a very weak answer, so I asked another question, and you dodged it outright. You still can't answer it.


Again, you are disingenuously trying to twist my claim into something I didn't say. Reason and evidence have their place. So does a hammer. But not everything is a nail.


Fine, but how do you differentiate between truth and falsehood without applying reason and evidence? I don't care when you think reason and evidence are appropriate or applicable. That is completely irrelevant to what I'm trying to establish. I'm asking what you use in their place when you deem them inappropriate or inapplicable, and how you know conclusions you reach with this alternative are true. Your resistance leads me to strongly suspect you don't have an answer.


I am not going to continue with you. I will leave you with those books I linked you to and wash my hands of you. Goodbye and good luck


As with your inability to produce evidence and predictable disparaging of it, this doesn't surprise me in the least.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
SnF! Great post! Thank you! I resonate with this message. I have always intuited that it would come sooner than 2012. This 9th level is all about Unity. We are ONE. Remember dear reader, your consciousness creates your reality. You are about to evolve. Start preparing for it. Create peace. Create Love. You are ONE with all. You are ONE with your Creator. If you are not open to this, the transition may be harder for you. Just accept it. Fear nothing. Enjoy the ride. Check out Mayan Majix.com for more info. Peace & Love to you all! Namaste.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I will pay strict attention on the 11th, thanks so much for the tip. This is why I scroll through ATS, great post.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The information came from a Mayan tablet that was translated, and the information revealed the "pyramid" of consciousness. Here is one man's take on it, and he does a decent job. He's a little new-agey for my tastes, however, he does a good job at illustrating the concepts, and it's WELL worth the time to watch these! There is another version, but I liked this one best. Also, it's nice to have the "parts" split up so you can stop and come back when it's convenient, and pick up whatever part you left off with, versus trying to wait for your PC to load a massive video every time you want to come back to it.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


Part 6:


Part 7:


Part 8:


Part 9:


Part 10:


Part 11:


Part 12:


Part 13:


Part 14:


Part 15:


Part 16:


Part 17:


Part 18:



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It's going to be interesting.

Think about it. In just 260 days, we - as a human whole will accomplish the consciousness that has took nearly 12 years to do.

That's... the Y2K scare, 9/11, Wars, Mp3 players, updated video cards, etc..etc.
That's consciousness if you're confused.

We will do all of that much awareness awakening in just 260 days. Quite remarkable.

But it doesn't necessarily mean SOMETHING is gonna happen on 2/11... it's just a Start date for this new cycle.

But who knows really.
edit on 8-2-2011 by PaR3v because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The skeptics and debunkers ruined this thread.
Thanks a lot guys.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sphinx551
 


These people are going to have there Pineal's ripped a new one, soon.

I laugh when i think about it, since i know the feeling...except i was in an accepting mood, and they deny ALL...good luck to them !!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
People think that new consciousness is coming and are expecting it greatly., Only because they are too lazy to change their lifestyle on their own. Always expecting a greater force to better themselves. Just live your life and treat others as you would yourself. There's your new consciousness.

Lame to think that that when the calendar flips suddenly things will be different. Delusional.


edit on 7-2-2011 by cluckerspud because: (no reason given)


Why do you have a problem with laziness? You speak about it as if it were pejorative.




top topics



 
66
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join