2012 of no Concern? Then, why is our own government hoarding 2012 food supplies?!

He’s a salesman after all. Of course he is going to twist things to make them sound like there is impeding doom waiting around the next corner.

Mountain House foods has stopped supplying much to the private sector and has devoted 90-95% of their resources in the last 4 months to filling orders for the Gov't/FEMA....

Why is the government hoarding 2012 food supplies?

Because the government is crazy.

CDC is warning of a zombie apocalypse.

The military is happy they "killed" a guy whose been dead for 9 years

Bill Clinton is in charge of the Ministry of Truth

So yeah, why not be prepared for 2012. They're probably panicking more than anyone else over May 21.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Do you not agree to some extent, of an acceleration in occurence and magnitude of world events that seem to be crescendoing and culminating to a head right about 2012 in the grand scheme of things (Earth time-wise?)

No. That's just absurd. Where is this acceleration? Events are going along at the same pace. Maybe you are just more aware of events? Maybe you are applying wishful thinking? The world is not changing as claimed. Events are no faster than before. Events are not more common than before.

Then there is the odd notion that things are headed for 2012. Why not 2013, or 2014, or 2100 for that matter?

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


May I state up front that I try to avoid videos at all costs. I think you've done a fair job here of stating what the content of the video is. Much appreciated.

So is it possible that this person's gripe is that emergency supplies are being used for actual disasters here or away instead of allowing them to be placed in holding bins for wackos for a nonexistent threat? Is that the problem here? Well, bravo if that is the case.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

So, in conclusion, The governement is not just buying it up in abnormally large amounts, but it is doing it at a rate that suppliers cannot keep up with, all of a sudden! Enough, to where, their orders are larger (they'd have to be) than a guy who is preparing every one of his bunkers with enough food for 60 people to last 4 years on, for immediate use, practically! That's an AWFUL lot of demand, in an AWFUL short time, for an ENTITY that could've been slowly preparing for any possible NON-E.L.E. for quite some time, now.

So you think that a producer ships equally to all buyers? There are preferred customers that get to "cut in line." These supplies might be shipped off to Japan, to the floods of the Midwest, to Afghanistan, to Libya, to Brazil, or to any other place where people need to be fed now.

Should we prevent starvation in disaster areas that are happening or should we allow some guy to profit from building bunkers for loonies?

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


hmmm...it is a valid question...

according to a book called the mayan prophecies by adrian gilbert and maurice cotterell, the lid of palenque and the Vatico-Latin Codex provided additional clues which spoke of four previous ages and that we are in the fifth age...the mayans used two calendars...a 365 day and a sacred 260 day. cotterell had studied solar activity and sunspots for years and was drawn to the mayan calendar because of a number...specifically: 1,366,560...the mayan super number which was eerily similar to the number he came up with: 1,366,040...this is the fifth period which corresponded with the changes in polarity of the sun's magnetic field and the shifting of the warped neutral sheet...to quote directly:

"To summarize, the time periods of the sun that seemed to matter were:

a) 87.455 days (1 bit) = the period of time the sun's two magnetic fields take to come back to their starting positions relative to one another;

b) 8 bits = 699.64 days (1 microcycle);

c) 48 bits = 4197.81 days = 11.49299 years;

d) 781 bits = 68,302 days = 187 years (1 sunspot cycle);

e) 97 x 68,302 days = 18,139 years (1 complete cycle of the warped neutral sheet).

This last period and it's subdivisions now interested him more and more. Breaking it down into it's constituent parts he could see there were five time periods included in it which corresponded with changes in polarity of the sun's magnetic field and the shifting of the warped neutral sheet. These were given by:

1) 19 x 187 years = 1,297,738 days

2) 20 x 187 years = 1,366,040 days

3) 19 x 187 years = 1,297,738 days

4) 19 x 187 years = 1,297,738 days

5) 20 x 187 years = 1,366,040 days"

--end quote

in a nutshell, cotterell discovered that the four previous ages the mayans were referring to correspond to the four previous time cycles of the sun...and the sun will be completing it's fifth cycle on december 21, 2012...he speculates, as do i, that it is our very own sun which is the mechanism for the rise and fall of previous ages and will be the cause of another major earth upheavel...the poles shift on the sun, too...one of the finer books i was fortunate enough to come across

reply to post by teknalchemist


These two people, adrian gilbert and maurice cotterell, do not understand arithmetic or physics. You can see it in their numbers. They are giving way too many digits of precision.

The sun's solar cycle is 11 years. After 2 periods of 11 years the poles are in the same relative orientation. But this does not happen every 11 years. It happens on average every 11 years. Some times it may be significantly less than 11, sometimes significantly more.

Where does this value come from: "87.455 days (1 bit)"?

How does "48 bits = 4197.81 days = 11.49299 years; " attain more digits of precision?

Just a quick look at the arithmetic makes you wonder what is going on here.

in a nutshell, cotterell discovered that the four previous ages the mayans were referring to correspond to the four previous time cycles of the sun...and the sun will be completing it's fifth cycle on december 21, 2012...he speculates, as do i, that it is our very own sun which is the mechanism for the rise and fall of previous ages and will be the cause of another major earth upheavel...the poles shift on the sun, too...one of the finer books i was fortunate enough to come across

Actually, what is happening here is nothing more than nonsense numerology. This cotterell has done nothing more than mess with numbers with no rhyme or reason and come up with a silly solution based on silly math.

reply to post by filosophia


Your post is so true. I posted earlier that the govt. is crazy. They are becoming so paranoid they make us look sane and we are suppose to be the conspiracy nuts. It has gotten so out of hand that the term transparency means watching them have a mental breakdown. I thought they couldnt get any worse when they told everyone to wrap their houses in saran wrap and duct tape right after 9/11. It is getting scary watching our supposed leaders. When your dealing with people that are showing signs of having mental breakdowns they are capable of anything.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by teknalchemist

 

Actually, what is happening here is nothing more than nonsense numerology. This cotterell has done nothing more than mess with numbers with no rhyme or reason and come up with a silly solution based on silly math.

i'm curious of your tone?

if there was anything written which was confusing, i assure you it was not the fault of cotterell...if anything, it was merely my poor attempt at providing some insight into a relatively unknown phenomenon...which is no easy task considering the format of this forum

perhaps in the future it would be more prudent to question and then deduce before passing judgement...it also wouldn't be such a bad idea to pick up the book and have a look before blatantly writing it off with such a smug demeanor

i joined this site to provide information that i feel may be of interest and of use and, hopefully, to learn some things along the way

if your response is any indication of type of people who i can look forward to speaking with, i'll pass...

if you are genuine and wish clarification, i would be more than happy to provide such

and in response to the only two questions you actually did pose:

Where does this value come from: "87.455 days (1 bit)"? How does "48 bits = 4197.81 days = 11.49299 years; " attain more digits of precision?

"...cotterell used an equation based on snapshots of the sun's and the earth's combined magnetic field every 87.4545 days...this was done because every 87.4545 days the sun's polar and equatorial fileds complete a mutual cycle and, as it were, came back to zero."

and the number 11.49299? well that was me hitting the nine key twice...it was supposed to be 11.4929...no mysterious, anomalous digit here...just a fumbled finger and a lapse in review

i hope you have the fortitude to follow up and actually read the book...you might actually learn something

reply to post by teknalchemist

perhaps in the future it would be more prudent to question and then deduce before passing judgement...it also wouldn't be such a bad idea to pick up the book and have a look before blatantly writing it off with such a smug demeanor

Why would I bother reading the book when you post a segment that shows the author is unable to do simple high school level math?

This is the author that was castigated by Major Jenkins for his numerous and obvious mistakes. He also charges that the authors repeat themselves time and time again in order to pretend that there is substance to their claims. They do this instead of providing any evidence.

if you are genuine and wish clarification, i would be more than happy to provide such

1. Where does this value, the bit, come from and why is its value represented with 5 digits of precision?
2. Where does the constant 48 come from?
3. Where does the constant 781 come from?
4. Where does the constant 97 come from?

Can you justify this claim? 187 years (1 sunspot cycle)

if your response is any indication of type of people who i can look forward to speaking with, i'll pass...

Thanks for the whining, but in my post I already asked if you could explain any of the following. You read the book so it should be easy for you.

Where does this value come from: "87.455 days (1 bit)"?

How does "48 bits = 4197.81 days = 11.49299 years; " attain more digits of precision?

Originally posted by Byrd
This really reminds me of the same hysteria before Y2K. People were buying bunkers, buying propane generators, and spending a lot of money on things that computer programmers (and scientists and everyone else) said wouldn't happen.

As with the Y2K kerfluffle, they'll find themselves cash short again in 2013... until someone finds another "disaster" to scare folks with.

The scenario involved in this case and all thats occurred since 2000, wasn't occurring back before the Y2K hysteria and doesn't remotely compare to being the SAME. Whatever concern people are having, is becoming more and more valid and reasonable when compared to the Y2k period imo.

Originally posted by Mayura
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

These tin cans won't mean much once the Earth turns into a star.

Say whaaaat?

I 100% agree

Originally posted by teknalchemist

if your response is any indication of type of people who i can look forward to speaking with, i'll pass...

Just as a little help to a newcomer I note that you have a waaay better star to post ratio than stereo, so some folk must like what you're saying

reply to post by stereologist


you, my good sir, are an ass...

not only have you accomplished to respond with another antagonistic approach...it's also obvious you can't even follow up on your criticism

you reference ONE person who criticised cotterells work...and it would be none other than john major hopkins...the self serving, self proclaimed "mayanologist/2012 extraordinaire"...

give me a break...and it's also obvious you didn't even bother to read the review...not that it would have actually helped you since you haven't bothered to read the book to compare notes

"yes, there are typos and mislabelling of graphs and some other errors, but the more "serious" errors that he whines about were actually included by the authors for contextual purposes and are not relied upon for further theory and substantiation, as Jenkins disingenuously claimed, and are not significant in any case

it's pretty amazing actually to read this review after reading the book and seeing how little relevance the criticisms have to the substance of the book reviewed...and how he flatters the "established authorities" on the subject while pushing his own pet theories, which he now arrogantly considers to be a complete ensemble piece. This review reminds me of some of the criticism of Henrik Svensmark and his cosmoclimatology theory where the critics conveniently ignored the obvious and striking correlation between cosmic rays and temperature and between cosmic rays and solar activity, but focused instead on the errors in modelling cloud formation
as a result of the GCRs...would be boneheaded if it were not so deliberate...oh and Jenkins completely fails to understand the references to the Dresden Codex...or did he?...he also claims to understand precession but fails to take it into account in his zeal to criticize, something that he has since corrected but only indirectly...i could go on...

it is interesting though because Jenkins focuses on [his understanding of] the Mayan's own beliefs and has decided that it's all about passing through the Galactic Center, "the gate" and a new spiritual beginning and golden age in 2012 whereas others, like Gilbert, while decoding the Mayans' own understanding of this, tries to also build on their scientific knowledge and observations and draw conclusions from them

in any case, you will have learnt nothing about "Mayan Prophecies" by reading Jenkins' review so if you do want to learn about this then I recommend actually reading it, but reread the review afterward because a couple of the typo corrections are quite useful, and read Jenkins' own "Cosmogenesis" (I think that's right), I'm sure it will be flawlessly proofed with all i's dotted and t's crossed and with no spelling mistakes"

now if you really wanted to question his work, you should have used the co-author, adrian gilbert...you might have heard of him before from the orion mysteries etc...he personally regretted co-athoring the book but it was moreso because of cotterell's insistence in not adding references to atlantis, ufo's and anything else that could tamper with the purity of the work...gilbert also did not wish to include any references to cotterell's work in
astrogenesis...which happens to be praised by john major hopkins, by the way

you would have known that last part had you read hopkin's review

or you could have used the fact that in john major hopkins review he had pointed out that José Argüelles has done similar work and should have been referenced or acknowledged

of course, that would have only lent credence to the phenomenon and you are obviusly more interested in debunking than you are at learning or even discussing the topic in a civil manner

so now that we've established your lack of understanding and unwillingness to provide quality input other than googling 'critics of maurice cotterell' and finding the first person you come across...let's move on...

Why would I bother reading the book when you post a segment that shows the author is unable to do simple high school level math?

i think it's pretty obvious that you are the one having a hard time grasping high school level math...

1. Where does this value, the bit, come from and why is its value represented with 5 digits of precision?
2. Where does the constant 48 come from?
3. Where does the constant 781 come from?
4. Where does the constant 97 come from?

these were explained in my first post:

"To summarize, the time periods of the sun that seemed to matter were:
a) 87.455 days (1 bit) = the period of time the sun's two magnetic fields take to come back to their starting positions relative to one another;

b) 8 bits = 699.64 days (1 microcycle);

c) 48 bits = 4197.81 days = 11.49299 years;

d) 781 bits = 68,302 days = 187 years (1 sunspot cycle);

e) 97 x 68,302 days = 18,139 years (1 complete cycle of the warped neutral sheet)

and then reiterated in my second post:

"...cotterell used an equation based on snapshots of the sun's and the earth's combined magnetic field every 87.4545 days...this was done because every 87.4545 days the sun's polar and equatorial fileds complete a mutual cycle and, as it were, came back to zero."

and the number 11.49299? well that was me hitting the nine key twice...it was supposed to be 11.4929...no mysterious, anomalous digit here...just a fumbled finger and a lapse in review

i also explained the 5-digit discrepancy in the same response yet you ask the question again in your second post after it had already been answered...sheesh

Can you justify this claim? 187 years (1 sunspot cycle)

i'm not here to do your homework for you...i am providing information to allow others to follow up or critique using logic and reason...all you provide is gibberish and a reference to something you didn't bother reading nor can you make an honest assessment without referencing the original work to compare...since you clearly do more talking than reading(since it was already explained) here's a picture for you:






and i'll even throw another link in for good measure which graphs the 11000 year solar record:

landscheidt.wordpress.com...


there are more worthy souls worth conversing with and i'm through wasting conversation on the likes of you when it's apparent you WON"T read it and will probably waste your time googling more critics instead...save yourself the trouble...my discussion with you is over

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by teknalchemist

if your response is any indication of type of people who i can look forward to speaking with, i'll pass...

Just as a little help to a newcomer I note that you have a waaay better star to post ratio than stereo, so some folk must like what you're saying

your encouraging words are much appreciated...after seeing some of the posts made by stereo, it's obvious he is not indicative of the spirit of this forum...and i suppose someone will always agree to disagree...

a little civility is never too much to ask, though...peace

I do not buy into the the whole 2012 deal at all. But with that being said I do feel that within the next 3 to 5 years we are going to be in for a very big chance to our way of life. And it will have nothing to do with 2012 or any other year. Too many things are all happening at once. Our own govermnet is going mad, the list of odd and strange things going on all over the world and even time itself is not acting right it seems. Even if 99.99% of all of that fades way and only the .01% does happen it will be enough to change our lifes in a very big way forever. I have not idea of what is is is not going to happen but it will be blamed on 2012 all the same. I feel if we can live though the next 5 years we maybe home free (for a while at least).

reply to post by teknalchemist

you reference ONE person who criticised cotterells work...and it would be none other than john major hopkins...the self serving, self proclaimed "mayanologist/2012 extraordinaire"...

I managed to point out one person that showed how ridiculous cotterell's work is and you continue to show your true colors - a name caller. What is so obvious in your response is an inability to show even the slightest ability to respond to the issue.

i think it's pretty obvious that you are the one having a hard time grasping high school level math...

It is glaringly obvious that you made no effort to substantiate the material. Instead you attack me. Again just showing your true colors.

these were explained in my first post:

Clearly you understand nothing about these basic high school or grammar school issues since you cannot respond. You have not explained anything at all.

cotterell used an equation based on snapshots of the sun's and the earth's combined magnetic field every 87.4545 days...this was done because every 87.4545 days the sun's polar and equatorial fileds complete a mutual cycle and, as it were, came back to zero.

Let me repeat myself since you seem unable to grasp the issue.

Where does this 87.4545 cycle as you claim come from. Cotterell has obviously made this up and the claimed precision to promote his hoax. You did try and substantiate this cycle claim didn't you or did you take this hoax hook line and sinker without turning on the brain?

i also explained the 5-digit discrepancy in the same response yet you ask the question again in your second post after it had already been answered...sheesh

The only reason I can think of that you thought you explained this is that you have not a clue as to what is being asked. The precision cannot increase as the calculations are done.

i'm not here to do your homework for you...i am providing information to allow others to follow up or critique using logic and reason...all you provide is gibberish and a reference to something you didn't bother reading nor can you make an honest assessment without referencing the original work to compare...since you clearly do more talking than reading(since it was already explained) here's a picture for you:

This is not a matter of homework. You are the one posting this rubbish and I am asking you why you would bother to post such ridiculous material. The answer is becoming obvious. You have no idea what this person stated. You fell for the idiotic "numerological incantations." The initial values, the calculations, the numerology, the lack of understanding of precision are all clearly indicative of someone making stuff up.

You managed to post a graph with the claim of t=. The graph is quite incomplete with no explanation of the horizontal axis.

In summary this material is bogus.

reply to post by stereologist

Clearly you understand nothing about these basic high school or grammar school issues

since you cannot respond. You have not explained anything at all.

Let me repeat myself since you seem unable to grasp the issue.

Where does this 87.4545 cycle as you claim come from. Cotterell has obviously made this up

and the claimed precision to promote his hoax.

The only reason I can think of that you thought you explained this is that you have not

a clue as to what is being asked. The precision cannot increase as the calculations are done.

why do i feel like jeff goldblum screaming at will smith from the movie independence day,
"FAT LADY, FAT LADY...YOU'RE OBSESSED WITH THE FAT LADY!"


you are right...i have no clue what you are speaking of...and apparently no one else either including john major hopkins or any other critic...no one else seems to have an issue with the precision of his calculations except you

the major issue john major hopkins and other critics had with cotterell in regards to his calculations, "...was that the detailed graphs don't actually show significant termination points at the end of the 13-baktun cycle."

in fact, hopkins is also quoted as stating:

"The Maya did, in fact, know about the true solar year by way of the "year-drift formula" in which 1507 true solar years (of 365.2422 days each) equal 1508 haab, or "vague solar years" of 365 days each."

You have no idea what this person stated. You fell for the idiotic "numerological incantations." The initial values, the calculations, the numerology, the lack of understanding of precision are all clearly indicative of someone making stuff up.

uh...ok...whatever that's supposed to mean...

i may not be an astrophycisist or have a degree in non-linear mathematics but i can sure smell desperation

if no one else seems to have an issue with those 'precisions' you keep barking about, then why do you? you know something they don't?

so, as i stated before, you are right...such a simple high school/grammar school issue simply slipped past the likes of myself, john major hopkins, every other critic and cotterell himself who is an engineer, a phycisist and best selling author

congratulations...now please go away...

reply to post by teknalchemist

you are right...i have no clue what you are speaking of...and apparently no one else either including john major hopkins or any other critic...no one else seems to have an issue with the precision of his calculations except you

It's too bad this issue is above your understanding, but I will try to explain it to you.

i may not be an astrophycisist or have a degree in non-linear mathematics but i can sure smell desperation

I can smell a lack of understanding basic issues. Bear with me and I can see if I can help you out.

if no one else seems to have an issue with those 'precisions' you keep barking about, then why do you? you know something they don't?

Yes. This sort of hoaxing is rather obvious. It begins by reverse engineering the claim. Here these hoaxers have begun with the final value. Then they cook up some silly numerological incantations. When the process if run in reverse they are given a number which they report with too many digits of precision. Why? Well, their nitwit hoax won't work out if they don't provide a number which they found through reverse engineering.

This sort of hoax is pretty obvious. I've seen it before. It often trips up students that think they can put a fast one on their teachers.

congratulations...now please go away...

Please go away.