The 2012 Forum Has Become a Snake Pit

Ahem... Related thread:

Proceed As Quickly As Possible In An Orderly Fashion In The Opposite Direction Of The Deniers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

S+F for your thread.

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Ahem... Related thread:

Proceed As Quickly As Possible In An Orderly Fashion In The Opposite Direction Of The Denyers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

S+F for your thread.

Wonderful. A link to another thread with no facts.

Here's my plan: Ignore the deniers who are obviously never going to believe what's happening right now, in front of their own eyes. If we stop to try and persuade them, all we'll be doing is wasting valuable time. They're on a sinking ship. They had their chance to listen.

Another one who just chooses to ignore.. Should I say it again?!

Ignoring is ignorant.

reply to post by littlebunny


Thanks for the all of the snide comments. It certainly is interesting how people get so heated when simple mistakes are pointed out such as:
1. time and velocity are not the same
2. multiplying a velocity by time does not result in time but in distance
3. long lists of arithmetical operations for no purpose at all do not spontaneously have significance

This reminds me of a skit from SNL in which an older grumpy guy whines about the good old days when everything was terrible and their feet bled and ached from ill fitting shoes but they liked it.

Back in the good old days when ignorance was bliss and no mamby pamby weisenheimers came around and started to make us think and we were making up stuff dumber than the contents of an outhouse pit we were an ignorant lot, but we liked it.

That is what I am hearing. Moaning and whining for the days of ignorance are really appalling.

yet this one person is allowed to call people, stupid, idiots, liars, asses, or whatever the hell else pops into his Google Professor mind.

So here is someone trying to be the top liar of the day. I don't call people stupid. I don't call people idiots. In fact one of the whiners in this thread made fun of me for posting that I thought people were smart. It was such a childish act that they felt compelled to repeat the remark in more than 1 thread.

On the other hand if you want to be a troll and repeatedly lie about a subject you can earn the title of liar. That has been earned by someone in this thread after they repeatedly lied to a number of other posters about the contents of the Washington Post article concerning IRAS. The issue went from mistake, to multiple mistakes, to many lies to being a liar.

On the other hand I have been called a liar for a typo. I have been openly called stupid. The moderators did not remove the post. I have been called #. That appears to be a cowards way of writing what you step in when circumnavigating the back end of a bovine.

The simple solution is to go back to the threads that deal with 2012 and actually write posts worth reading. i said it before and I will say it again, I think all of you are smart enough to write posts that defend your positions about 2012. So go out and do it.

reply to post by stereologist


Still waiting on the evidence of all of your claims of these things being impossible - wow that's a big claim to back up. of course you already know I was joking and exagerating with my last post, but its worth stating in case there is any confusion.

So yeah, you've made these claims, you insist that the burden of proof is on the believer, so cough up those links. You can hold your links to your own level of scrutiny and expect we will do the same.

reply to post by Cecilofs


You've made very few substantial statements in the 2012 forums. A long search for things of substance did turn up some whopping mistakes. Some of the mistaken claims you have made:
1. You can't predict anything you have to wait.
2. ALL scientific theories are based on the idea that one day they will be shown to be wrong.
3. Science is the new religion. Scientists believe they know everything.
4. TWZ was not orchestrated to match up with the end of the long count calendar.
5. Revelation matches 2012.
6. You also claimed that the Gregorian calendar was not based on natural cycles.

1. You can predict eclipses. The Mayans did it and modern astronomers can do it much better.
2. You need to learn what falsifiable really means.
3. Science and religion are very different. You should learn why.
4. The original date was not the same and then TWZ was changed to cash in on the later craze.
5. Really? Where is the date?
6. That was an attempt at a joke I presume.

Then there were all of the personal attacks on me. Typical of people with nothing to say.

I 100% agree with the OP. I think it's a great shame that a group of people can't come together to discuss possibilities without being ridiculed, humiliated and generally pissed on.

And where the hell's the ignore button gone?

Originally posted by sinohptik


although my scroll wheel on my mouse would probably say differently

Been using that feature myself in this thread, the board powers took away the ignore feature but they left the alert button, press it and keep pressing, demand politeness and civility, if an alert hasn't been dealt with message a sympathetic mod, choose carefully, rather than post "I agree" star the posts you agree with let it be seen how popular a point is.

Pick on their mistakes or bad grammar, ridicule them back, collude amongst yourselves via the message feature but be aware they may be read by others, the main thing is their meanness is a turn off for the casual reader whereas your polite good humour wins friends, no one outside of their gangs likes them.

reply to post by stereologist


This comment pretty much sums it all up for me:

"Buck up and apply basic reading skills. I say let the conspiracy vibes rattle you."

And I say buck up and realize that there are people here who are onto you and your whole ''Anti-2012 Crusade'' on ATS.

Still trying to make GoldenFleece look bad, I see. How's that going for you, by the way? I ask because it looks like you're perfectly illustrating GoldenFleece's whole point in making this thread each time you post to defend yourself in a manner I can only describe as ''ridiculous''.

What ''conspiracy vibes'' are you talking about, by the way? What does any of what's being discussed in this thread have to do with ''conspiracy vibes''?

reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777

And I say buck up and realize that there are people here who are onto you and your whole ''Anti-2012 Crusade'' on ATS.

So how long did it take you to realize that I think that the hoax of 2012 is a hoax?

Still trying to make GoldenFleece look bad, I see.

They don't require any help at all. They make themselves look bad without any assistance.

defend yourself in a manner I can only describe as ''ridiculous''.

I am so happy you think so. I guess not everyone enjoys curling up with a scientific journal and learning something work knowing.

What ''conspiracy vibes'' are you talking about, by the way? What does any of what's being discussed in this thread have to do with ''conspiracy vibes''?

Guess that will have to remain a mystery for you to solve.

reply to post by -Sho-

I 100% agree with the OP. I think it's a great shame that a group of people can't come together to discuss possibilities without being ridiculed, humiliated and generally pissed on.

There isn't a problem until someone shows that the possibilities are not possibilities at all.
There isn't a problem until someone points out other people misrepresenting evidence or faking evidence or being deceitful.

reply to post by Thepreye

Pick on their mistakes or bad grammar

This is actually quite petty. Remember that there are many people on ATS where English is a second language.

Stick to the issue at hand.
Avoid the immediate desperation of asking for people to leave a thread.
Avoid the nasty comments.

Tell the TRUTH.
Don't misrepresent.
Accept having made a gaffe.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by littlebunny

 

In fact one of the whiners in this thread made fun of me for posting that I thought people were smart.

Well, you didn't exactly say "people" were smart:

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

I think that Nibiru believers are smart.

That's better. Looks like you've been having problems with some of the smartest ones.

If I ever imagined this thread would receive 27 flags and last 6 pages, I would've renamed it:

WWE Grudge Match 2012: Team Stereo Vs. The Propaganda Pounders!

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Receiving flags just tells me that there are more whiners than I thought. Thanks for letting me know that beyond the obvious trolls such as your self there are so many people that are disappointed that 2012 is the hoax I have been showing them.

I'm glad that you made the effort to show everyone that I thought Nibiru believers are smart. They've led astray by frauds like Lucus and efforts by yourself to misrepresent newspaper articles.

I believe that Nibiry believers are smart to enough to understand that you are a troll. Get used to be exposed as a teller of lies. Here is some of my evidence backing my opinion that you are a purposeful liar:
1. You've been shown multiple times why newspaper articles in the 1980s suggest that there are perturbations of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus and what happened in 1989. Still you continue to post the same rubbish time and time again that the issue has not been resolved.
2. You've been shown the names of the galaxies referred to in the Washington Post article and still you demand to be shown the names time and time again. Why pretend that you've never been shown something that you have been presented with at least twice?
3. You continue to claim that Nemesis and Tyche and other objects are the same despite being shown time after time that they are different. In addition to mixing these objects together you've tossed other objects into the mix as well.

This continued and ongoing deceptive behavior of repeating these same few false claims strongly suggests that you are a liar. These lies have long gone beyond the case of a mistake, or repeated mistake.

What this boils down to is that you are not a trustworthy person. There might even be a pathological problem with telling the truth.

Do you enjoy misleading people? Are you smirking when you write these posts you know are false?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Cecilofs

 

You've made very few substantial statements in the 2012 forums. A long search for things of substance did turn up some whopping mistakes. Some of the mistaken claims you have made:
1. You can't predict anything you have to wait.
2. ALL scientific theories are based on the idea that one day they will be shown to be wrong.
3. Science is the new religion. Scientists believe they know everything.
4. TWZ was not orchestrated to match up with the end of the long count calendar.
5. Revelation matches 2012.
6. You also claimed that the Gregorian calendar was not based on natural cycles.

1. You can predict eclipses. The Mayans did it and modern astronomers can do it much better.
2. You need to learn what falsifiable really means.
3. Science and religion are very different. You should learn why.
4. The original date was not the same and then TWZ was changed to cash in on the later craze.
5. Really? Where is the date?
6. That was an attempt at a joke I presume.

Then there were all of the personal attacks on me. Typical of people with nothing to say.

I'm flattered you took time out of your day to search for all my posts and what looks like copy-pasting into this thread. I know this is a waste of time, but oh well..

1. Fair enough, but you are still assuming that your models are accurate and even if they are, that something unexpected won't happen. Sun randomly exploding? Unseen comet smashing into the moon? I agree those things are not likely, but they are remotely possible.

Before you say it, I realise the hook to sucker me into arguing against 2012, but I still maintain doubt about that as well. It is possible the Mayans had it all wrong, or that the date is not significant. At the moment I see that as being unlikely, however.

Not to mention, my quote was actually from a post of me explaining that I wasn't 100% convinced of 2012, so that quote is out of context.

2. Semantics. Perhaps I should have said that they "may" be shown to be wrong, i.e. falsifiable. I think you may be mincing terms because "falsifiable" is often used when describing scientific experiments (i.e. that the experiment is designed to prove the hypothesis wrong). However I was talking in a broader sense in that science is a model as detailed in #3, therefore scientific theories are also models.

3. The systems of thought are very different. However, they have both undergone similar transformations over our history. They were both originally designed to be emergent (always changing), but control structures developed around them, in both cases heavily influenced by the desire to make money. Over time dogma built up around them and expanded its influence so that it became the majority consensus on the planet. Since then, its growth has been stifled by these control structures and dogma, which pervert the original intended messages for material gain. That is why science is the new religion.

True science only ever proposes a MODEL of reality - a "best guess" that when applied produces reliable results in the real world. It accepts that any model proposed can potentially one day be disproven and replaced by a new paradigm. IMO the true messages of religions are about having a relationship with whatever you want to call "God" and learning and growing from it. Yet we are led to believe that our perception of reality - which is heavily influenced by both scientific and religious dogma - is fixed.

4. Semantics and quoted out of context. IIRC I was arguing the term "orchestrated" and I included that the dates were changed in my post. Feel free to copy and paste the whole post if that's not the case. By not doing so you are implying that I was not aware of that fact in what seems to be an attempt to make me look stupid.

5. Again taken out of context. IIRC I was talking about the possibility that if considered metaphorically, concepts of the end times were similar across different belief systems and that similar themes/symbols occur. I still agree with that idea.

6. Again, so taken out of context. Of course it syncs up to many natural cycles (Day/night/solar year). My post was about how they had to make the months different lengths instead of having 13 months of 28 days long, which would sync up more with the lunar cycle. Not sure how it interacts with a solar year.

P.S. I am trying to be civil here and think I am doing pretty well. But I don't appreciate being quoted out of context.

"Typical of people with nothing to say"

reply to post by Cecilofs


You are flattered that ATS made it easy to look over your posts? Please direct your comments to the proper audience.

1. Sun randomly exploding? Unseen comet smashing into the moon? I agree those things are not likely, but they are remotely possible.

Before you say it, I realise the hook to sucker me into arguing against 2012, but I still maintain doubt about that as well. It is possible the Mayans had it all wrong, or that the date is not significant. At the moment I see that as being unlikely, however.

Not to mention, my quote was actually from a post of me explaining that I wasn't 100% convinced of 2012, so that quote is out of context.

Typical false statements of no worth. I doubt you understand the meaning of random in your claim. Unseen comets smashing into the Moon? Heavens sakes there are invisible comets. Thanks for the giggle. These are not unlikely they are silly claims.

The Mayans had what wrong? Did they have it wrong that there was an end to their counting? They were right that a finite interval is finite.

2. Semantics? Really? There is a huge difference between falsifiable and "ALL scientific theories are based on the idea that one day they will be shown to be wrong. " These are completely different.

3. Since when has religion been designed or been emergent. Get real! Science is dogmatic? Laughable. Get real? At best science has been subjugated by politicians and religious figures and frauds such as 2012 hoaxers.

In the second paragraph you clearly express science and religion, yet you flop on the final statement.

4. TWZ was altered to fit into the hoax of 2012. That is clear. It was done on purpose.

5. You can agree all you want that the bible can be twisted and distorted to match 2012. That if fine if that is your claim. Go ahead and place the entire post here if you want?

6. Your claim is that the Gregorian calendar does not match up to natural cycles. Why don't you tell us what you were really thinking at the time. Making up some pig swill about the cycles of Moon does not make sense. Fess up.

Quoted out of context? If that were really true you'd have posted the material in your own defense. Maybe your recollection is different than your posts. Or maybe you wish it had been different. or maybe you were thinking about more issues than you posted.

For now I don't buy your story.
4.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Receiving flags just tells me that there are more whiners than I thought. Thanks for letting me know that beyond the obvious trolls such as your self there are so many people that are disappointed that 2012 is the hoax I have been showing them.

Ok, I respect differing viewpoints and I like when two opposite sides bring in facts to support their argument to help those watching a thread to make up their mind with all the info BUT....

Whiners? Trolls? People disappointed that you showed them a "hoax"?

I think not.

I admit I flagged this very thread because while there's coming in with scientific facts and info to help dissuade people from believing a particular conspiracy, I agree with what GoldenFleece was saying because you do seem absolutely determined to prove that there's nothing to see here.

I've noticed you spend most of your time in the 2012 section trying your damndest to debunk it. Now that makes me wonder whether you genuinely worry in case a member does something stupid closer to the supposed 2012 dates or whether you do it mainly because you want to try and convert everyone who posts in the section to your beliefs and your way of thinking.

That won't happen.

I personally will post what I can and what I feel may add to the discussions because the topic interests me even though I'm of the belief that science isn't completely set in stone (I'm a man of science myself so I should know that right?) and that we can't accurately predict something will or won't happen over a year and a half away from the supposed "date" due to the unpredictable nature of our universe.

Tracking planets and comet journeys in our solar system and making guesstimates based on trajectory? Sure, that's easy. Solar activity and its peak/trough? Little harder to pinpoint but give it a window of a few years and you're likely to be right if you say "this might happen between 2009-2014" or something of the sort.

Sudden activity of the Earth, surrounding universe et al such as the Icelandic volcano, the earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural events that took everybody by surprise around the world in the last decade, that's real tough to call.

See what I mean?

I'm not even calling you a disinfo agent like others might cause to be honest, I feel only those too far gone in the conspiratorial "everyone is against me" is likely to think that. I do however believe that you have as much of an unhealthy obsession with 2012 as members like GoldenFleece may be perceived to be, if not moreso.

I don't think you'd get as much suspicion as you do now if you'd post a lot more in other sections such as Aliens, Area 51 and other places where your debunking detective skills and "thinking inside the box" state of mind may be just as useful, if not more than it is in trying to debunk an entire year before we even reach the halfway point of 2011.

Just editing to add something I missed initially, I don't believe a planet or whatever will mysteriously show up out of nwhere as others do, I wish to gather evidence of what is likely to happen (if anything) to make sense of why this theory is so prevalent.

reply to post by curious7

Whiners? Trolls? People disappointed that you showed them a "hoax"?

I think not.

That's okay. You are entitled to support someone that posts glaring and obvious lies.

I've noticed you spend most of your time in the 2012 section trying your damndest to debunk it.

Please don't overstate the simplicity of showing that 2012 is a hoax. It is easy. I get this notion that you think that just because the hoax of 2012 is so very inane that there must be something to hide.

(I'm a man of science myself so I should know that right?) and that we can't accurately predict something will or won't happen over a year and a half away from the supposed "date" due to the unpredictable nature of our universe.

I don't believe you that you are a so-called man of science. I see this as camouflage. You suggest that you don't understand the precision of measurement.

See what I mean?

I do. You are unable to fathom how science works, yet you pretend to. That's okay. Take the tie to learn how science can make certain predictions and most of all get the notion o precision figured out.

where your debunking detective skills and "thinking inside the box" state of mind may be just as useful, if not more than it is in trying to debunk an entire year before we even reach the halfway point of 2011.

Those supporting 2012 are the ones with their heads in the sand or in the box or whatever metaphor you choose. The evidence is out there to "debunk" if those with their heads in the sand would look at the evidence.

having fun?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by curious7

 

Whiners? Trolls? People disappointed that you showed them a "hoax"?

I think not.

That's okay. You are entitled to support someone that posts glaring and obvious lies.

I've noticed you spend most of your time in the 2012 section trying your damndest to debunk it.

Please don't overstate the simplicity of showing that 2012 is a hoax. It is easy. I get this notion that you think that just because the hoax of 2012 is so very inane that there must be something to hide.

(I'm a man of science myself so I should know that right?) and that we can't accurately predict something will or won't happen over a year and a half away from the supposed "date" due to the unpredictable nature of our universe.

I don't believe you that you are a so-called man of science. I see this as camouflage. You suggest that you don't understand the precision of measurement.

See what I mean?

I do. You are unable to fathom how science works, yet you pretend to. That's okay. Take the tie to learn how science can make certain predictions and most of all get the notion o precision figured out.

where your debunking detective skills and "thinking inside the box" state of mind may be just as useful, if not more than it is in trying to debunk an entire year before we even reach the halfway point of 2011.

Those supporting 2012 are the ones with their heads in the sand or in the box or whatever metaphor you choose. The evidence is out there to "debunk" if those with their heads in the sand would look at the evidence.

1. I'm ok to "support someone who posts glaring and obvious lies"? It seems as though in that line you're giving me permission to do so as if I have to ask you personally before I'm allowed to think anything for myself.

Who says they're lies? Far out conspiracies maybe but lies? That purports the notion that something exists to be considered a truth or a lie in the first place. If this supposed "dwarf planet", "gas giant", "Nibiru/Planet X" or anything else you wish to call it hasn't been sighted or discovered and so far lies firmly in the realms of "speculation and theory" then it can't be a lie now can it?

I could say that gnomes created the atmosphere, that would be a speculation, a far out theory. Now if I said the atmosphere was made of soft silicon rubber coating, that would be a lie would it not?

Vast difference between "lie" and "speculation".

2. "Man of science" was said in a purely contention that I firmly stand on and believe in that side of things, that we need science and have enough evidence to prove, disprove and many other things related to our physical being and surrounding universe. I apologise that I didn't state that at the time, an oversight on my part. I'd rather stand on the side of science than plunge myself head first into theory and speculation although dipping my toe into the waters every once in a while is a nice escape route from the clinical and steadfast approach science takes.

Now I don't blame you for misconstruing my obvious oversight in my statements above in the quotes you used but your response seemed to be on the attack. How exactly would you know for sure I don't understand? Can you read minds? Delve into the heads of people to find out for yourself what a person does and doesn't know?

Of course not. Besides, science hasn't proven that such a thing can even exist or happen. I just feel that my oversight left me open to your attack on me when honestly, I may know more than you on a subject or it could be the other way around. We just won't know because we're on a message board on the internet and not in a scientific convention discussing and trading knowledge.

Not sure if you meant to sound aggressive or not, could be a natural defense mechanism you've developed on the 2012 section since joining ATS and you're a little too quick to judge due to the back and forth you may have had with members such as GoldenFleece. Can't say for sure, that's my hypothesis but as I said, life is made of 50% facts and 50% guesswork until the facts come. I'm sure you will provide the fact to make my hypothesis on your judgmental and "quick on the draw" defensive position.

3. "Thinking inside the box" was my way of somewhat complimenting you so again, please take nothing aggressive from that. As you probably are aware, "thinking outside the box" is a term coined to describe thoughts that differ from the norm, which goes outside the usual realms and confines of science to find a conclusion to a tasking proposition.

You on the other hand "think inside the box" by using what we of scientific minds (myself, yourself, amateur and professional scientists, etc) know as fact and presenting that knowledge to support the factual reality rather than the fringe.

I actually enjoyed reading your posts both before and immediately after I joined ATS and find you of the same intellect as myself, a refreshing change from the usual dumbing down I have to do with friends and family away from the internet to fit in with them.

The only thing is that not only do I find the 2012 section a "snakepit" as GoldenFleece called it due to the rise in arguments and squabbles over who is right rather than sharing knowledge and ideas to create a more factual and evidential scenario than "planet suddenly appears" or whatever, I also do find your obsession with 2012 very unhealthy.

Now I can be as judgmental about somebody I don't know as you were about me by claiming I am "unable to fathom how science works yet pretend to". Which is funny because although I don't know how quantam physics works and can't yet wrap my head around things such as that, my wealth of scientific knowledge and desire to learn more are immense. So yes, contrary to your opinions and "theories" of my own knowledge, I understand science and how it works perfectly well thanks. But I appreciate your concern.

Let's get one thing straight - I studied Science in university, did an honours degree and came out with First Class Honours. I don't say this to boast but to demonstrate that I am not talking out of my ass when I speak about science. Of course I am no expert and I could speak with more authority if I was still in the field. But I left and do you know why? Because I realised that science isn't the be-all-end-all answer to the question of life, the universe and everything.

Yeah, I studied Science for 9 years including High School and I still think there's something to this 2012 "hoax" as you call it (again with no proof I might add).

Now, having an understanding of the history of science, the scientific method and first hand experience with the DOGMA that has seen science become the new religion, I can safely say that YOU are telling lies about science Stereo.

Again, if you really understood true science then you would realise that it is fallable (don't mince words by saying I mean falsifiable here - I mean fallable). As in, you can find fault in it. As in, it might be wrong. As in, you can't say anything with 100% certainty.

You keep talking about predictions and calculations - well they are all based on a MODEL of reality. They might be wrong. They may have worked well so far, but tomorrow that might all change. We just don't know. So we use our models as best we can to make progress in the world.

The lies that get sold to everyone are that "This is how it is", "science knows best", "science can answer any question" and most importantly, "If its not accepted by scientists then it must be false". Those are the lies that are perpetuated by the dogmatic structures that I was talking about. Those are the lies that you are telling daily in this forum, yet you call us liars for putting forward speculation. Hilarious!

That is why we can't predict if anything will happen in 2012 and you can't say that nothing significant will happen that day.

Every time you try you just make yourself look foolish IMO.