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.

 

New Creepy 10/28/11 Website Mystery

page: 509
104
<< 506  507  508    510  511  512 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
lnteresting about Pi

www.maths.surrey.ac.uk...

Don't know if this is valuable......it's way beyond me.

www.disp.duke.edu...




Conclusions • Volume holograms are most sensitive to angular shifts in Pi/2 geometry • Volume holograms are most sensitive to wavelength shift in reflection geometry • The reflection geometry is not particularly angularly sensitive




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cingularity

Originally posted by ReAdY2AsCeNd
reply to post by OveRcuRrEnteD
 


I didn't feel the quake, although I don't live far from it. Lots of people told me they felt it and even had things falling, not too far from where I live.


Perhaps they haven't waken up from the illusion yet.


Which still makes me think Hologram. This is a hologram we live in, an illusion.

What happens when that hologram starts to break down? WHO or WHAT is projecting the hologram we live in?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Anishnaabe
 


Open has told me the same thing. I would share the email with everyone, but I made a promise to open - and I am going to keep my word,. Open says they only posts on the Oct282011 site. No where else.

When someone asked Pate on this thread if he was open he replied:
"I am NOT open.
I am open.
Prepare."

I took this to mean one of two things.
1. He doesn't know open but is aware of the "message", he does not agree and is here to put a stop to it.
2. He knows open and is here to help aid us, to "see".

There seemed to me to be so much confusion within the group, when things changed on the main page, who had said the right thing. This makes me lean toward option 2.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ReAdY2AsCeNd
 


If thats true he is probably enlightened as well



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Patefacio
 


Pate.

Which post is this referring to?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by cingularity
 


Im pretty curious about what open thinks about this



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patefacio
I have stated my answer to this burning question previously in my posts. Those who didn't get to read it are welcome to look back and decide for themselves.

To one, I am most certainly [0pen]
1, most certainly becomes many
Too many, I am most certainly not (0pen)


Curious as to why you used the 0 instead of O?

I think I know but your words would help me.
Thanks...

ETA: Also why is one open in [] and the other is ()?
edit on 13-9-2011 by ReAdY2AsCeNd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ReAdY2AsCeNd
 


Hes probably referring to separate things/people



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ReAdY2AsCeNd
 


No referral, the "coincidence?" is regarding the Aronoskfy film.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by favouriteslave

Originally posted by cingularity

Originally posted by ReAdY2AsCeNd
reply to post by OveRcuRrEnteD
 


I didn't feel the quake, although I don't live far from it. Lots of people told me they felt it and even had things falling, not too far from where I live.


Perhaps they haven't waken up from the illusion yet.


Which still makes me think Hologram. This is a hologram we live in, an illusion.

What happens when that hologram starts to break down? WHO or WHAT is projecting the hologram we live in?


Cing I never thought of it that way. But since I am not scientifically inclined, why am I awakening? Is the science here just to drive the ball home?

Slave now you have me questioning. I am thinking it would be ourselves.

ETA: obviously I can't type today either. hehehe
edit on 13-9-2011 by ReAdY2AsCeNd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Molimo
 



That is what I am taking from all his posts.
Guess I need to go back and read them again.
Maybe I missed something.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Maybe some are just reading too much into the possible coincidental connection of someone's chosen username here and that of Open. I take people at their word until I see evidence to the contrary. A few cryptic comments do not constitute evidence for me, anyway.

Patefacio is not the only one to have been accused of this, like I also mentioned many pages ago.

And despite a previous post by...Druid I think about obsession or something along those lines, I still haven't seen a single word from Open in the various emails people have posted here and his comments on the record part of the oct28 site that could be seen as angry, opinion-ramming or other things of that nature. He seems, if nothing else, consistent. Meanwhile, many have come and gone here.

It was only yesterday someone was here (TheSilentWatcher) saying how he had told Open he had 24 hours to reveal "it" or he would spill the beans but they never came back, leading me to suspect they were just trolls (possibly one and the same despite there being 2 accounts at least that were obviously trolling). At least he isn't posting the same video multiple times, blathering about lists and generally being off topic. Just my 2 cents.


And now some heavily garlic-infused vegetarian Sate is calling me. Back in a bit.

PS I reserve the right to be wrong.

edit on 13/9/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Added a PS, correctsd typos.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I think i heard open was at some point angry/frustrated?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I appreciate your opinion.
I am glad others have noticed that I do not force my ideas upon this community, rather I allow everyone to either agree with an idea, or have it be completely disregarded. I am not here to pursuade a single soul.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReAdY2AsCeNd

Originally posted by Patefacio
I have stated my answer to this burning question previously in my posts. Those who didn't get to read it are welcome to look back and decide for themselves.

To one, I am most certainly [0pen]
1, most certainly becomes many
Too many, I am most certainly not (0pen)


Curious as to why you used the 0 instead of O?

I think I know but your words would help me.
Thanks...

ETA: Also why is one open in [] and the other is ()?
edit on 13-9-2011 by ReAdY2AsCeNd because: (no reason given)


That is a good catch. It's so confusing!

WHo is a troll and who isnt? Patefacio or the other who is giving him 24 hrs to spill the beans? It's been 24 hrs right?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by favouriteslave

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by favouriteslave
 


Are you implying that palefacio (spelling?) might be Open?


I posted this some 100 pages or so back, it's been buried.

Latin Word List » Patefacio
Definition: To disclose, expose, open, make open.

The Latin Word Patefacio has many meanings, mainly: to disclose, expose, open, make open.


Etymology of apocalypse:
late 14c., "revelation, disclosure," from Church L. apocalypsis "revelation," from Gk. apokalyptein "uncover, disclose, reveal," from apo- "from" (see apo-) + kalyptein "to cover, conceal" (see Calypso). The Christian end-of-the-world story is part of the revelation in John of Patmos' book "Apokalypsis" (a title rendered into English as "Apocalypse" c.1230 and "Revelations" by Wyclif c.1380). Its general sense in M.E. was "insight, vision; hallucination;" meaning "a cataclysmic event" is modern. As agent nouns, apocalypst (1829), apocalypt (1834), and apocalyptist (1835) have been tried.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by favouriteslave

Originally posted by ReAdY2AsCeNd

Originally posted by Patefacio
I have stated my answer to this burning question previously in my posts. Those who didn't get to read it are welcome to look back and decide for themselves.

To one, I am most certainly [0pen]
1, most certainly becomes many
Too many, I am most certainly not (0pen)


Curious as to why you used the 0 instead of O?

I think I know but your words would help me.
Thanks...

ETA: Also why is one open in [] and the other is ()?
edit on 13-9-2011 by ReAdY2AsCeNd because: (no reason given)


That is a good catch. It's so confusing!

WHo is a troll and who isnt? Patefacio or the other who is giving him 24 hrs to spill the beans? It's been 24 hrs right?


Slave I think, nah I KNOW the answer to that.

Some things done is secret IS with ill intent from the heart.

I am going to u2u but not for the purpose of being secret, just I don't wanna derail the thread.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I gave your post a star!!



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Where is there a reference to the Aronofsky film?

en.wikipedia.org...(film)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by favouriteslave
 


Yep...
24 hours.
I have been up all night waiting on this "spilling of the beans".
*sigh*



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 506  507  508    510  511  512 >>

log in

join