Ostension and 2012

reply to post by PulsusMeusGallo

Not only can they not provide proof that something cannot happen between now and the end of the year, yet they will argue incessantly that they are prophetic and 100% accurate, they have taken to lying about what a "2012 event" is claiming any event they choose that so happened to be a 2012 prediction is a 2012 event.

What we do know is that there are some claims that cannot be possible such as new planets in the inner solar system. There are those that might not understand what it is impossible. Not understanding does not change the fact that it is impossible.

reply to post by stereologist


Yes, most of those are false, however, you don't know 100% that the 2012 theory is false. Without knowing you may be taking part in what you accuse 2012ers of. That is all I'm trying to make you understand. I can't spell it any clearer either. Please let me know if I have failed you again. I will try to make it even more clear for you.

reply to post by superman2012

Yes, most of those are false, however, you don't know 100% that the 2012 theory is false. Without knowing you may be taking part in what you accuse 2012ers of. That is all I'm trying to make you understand. I can't spell it any clearer either. Please let me know if I have failed you again. I will try to make it even more clear for you.

The origin of 2012 claims is based on the Mayan long count calendar as pointed out by Xcalibur254.

2012 is a heap of junk that even includes the kitchen sink. With such a large range of claims it is hard to state that all of it is a failure. The fact is that the vast majority of the claims are nonsense. The rest is very questionable. 2012 is not a theory. There is nothing about 2012 that makes it a theory.

I do not do the 2012 believe baloney. I know what is testable and what is not. If I do not know of a test, then I consider it not testable.

At the moment I am hard pressed to think of anything that has any chance of being right. Can you suggest anything?

Some other wild tales that have 0% of being right:
1. Our DNA is changing
2. Time is speeding up
3. TWZ

Originally posted by stereologist1. Our DNA is changing

That's a big claim, are you suggesting evolution isn't happening anymore?

I know you are talking about the triple helix claims, but I couldn't resist biting at that one

Originally posted by stereologistWhat I see is:
1. OP makes a post saying X will happen without evidence
2. A post is made to contest the claims of X
3. No evidence is ever offered to support X
4. Overwhelming evidence is offered against X
5. People continue to believe in X and attack the skeptics as being agents of fictional groups

The CIA aren't a fictional group, but I accept your point

My point is that it happens both ways.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254It is a fact that the Long Count does not end or repeat on December 21, 2012......Yet this claim has become the core of all 2012 claims.

Not all of them, only the negative end of the world type claims. The positive ideas are all about entering into a new cycle/new era/positive changes occurring on the earth. The idea of a new cycle is supported by the Mayan calendar whether or not the Mayans specifically said anything about what would happen - since the cycle ends and a new one starts.

reply to post by Cecilofs


Not true. There is no evidence that the Long Count end or repeats (i.e. entering a new era) on 13.0.0.0.0. The claim that it starts a marks the start of a new age comes from one of two places. The first is the Popol Vuh which was a collection of myths from the K'iche Maya. It describes the creation of Man and the three creations that came before Man. However, there is no indication that there would be a fifth creation and even if it did it comes from a time where the Long Count was no longer used and as such makes no reference to 13.0.0.0.0.

The second potential source is the Five Suns prophecy. This states that we are currently in the fourth incarnation of the Sun and a fifth incarnation will occur at some point. However, this prophecy is Aztec in origin and on top of that the Aztecs did not use the Long Count.

Of course despite these facts the ascensions/New Age theories still rely on the claim that the Long Count ends/repeats after 13.0.0.0.0. So far no one has been able to provide evidence that this claim is even true. In fact if you know why the Long Count was used it becomes absurd to believe that it ends/repeats.

Originally posted by GLontra
You can call it the way you want to call.


But you can't deny the record high temperatures for the month of March in cities like Chicago or Toronto. In wich year? Well, the year is 2012...

Whenever I see these "wow weird weather" posts I know one of two things is going on in the mind of the poster. He is either new to the [2012] meme or new to forums. Or both.

Having participated in Usenet and pre-Usenet mailing lists back in the 80s, every year there is a new wave of "weirder and weirder weather" proclamations. By now, we should be rising with the moon in Sahara desert heat and calling it a day when the flood comes.

Every day, weirder and weirder.

Ostension is back in full force in the 2012 forum as people make all sorts of claims about a Planet X again.

It's back with the show Ancient Aliens, wacky claims from ZetaTalk, animal die offs, and the ever present talk about quakes and volcanoes increasing in amazing frequency.

One of the more interesting notions is that somehow Nancy Lieder is more correct because of her 2003 failure. Ostension is seen as people rally behind ZetaTalk as a place for scientific information.

Originally posted by nirvi
reply to post by stereologist

 

But i guess it goes both ways, doesn't it ?
means if one doesn't want to believe it will find all the evidence supporting that and thus under Ostension again.

Very good point. Both sides are equally biased, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

/thread

reply to post by Xaphan


Ostension is not bias. The issue is that 2012 makes use of fake data that becomes real data in the minds of the 2012 believers. Ostension is about things such as the belief that in 1984 NASA observed Planet X. Ostension is about the 2012 belief that Sitchin states that Nibiru comes around in 2012. Sitchin himself stated that was false, but that does not stop the belief. Ostension is seen in people telling others that they have begun to ascend into the 5th dimension.

I'm sorry stereologist but if you want to debunk something as complex as the 2012 drama you will have to step up your game just a tad. You can't just write a couple of lines as you did here and expect everyone to change their minds. The problem is that you are writing from the point of view of "I know this whole thing is a scam and it's so obvious I shouldn't have to go very deep for the rest to understand it". If you want to fight the good fight then create a well thought out thread in which you go into detail about all the points you are trying to raise. Such as: if you think the number of earthquakes is not greater than it was before, then quote different sources to show you are right. Same with animal die offs, weather change and whatever you want to debunk.

Also, ostension is not "believing false data". In general, it's used to convey a message by an example (giving you a pack of cigarettes instead of asking you if you want a smoke), and in folklore is used when the legend itself somehow affects people's lifes. For instance when a crime is commited echoing a crime from an urban legend or when a person modifies his/her sexual behaviour because of some HIV tale they once heard. Quasi-ostension is used when someone interprets an event for which they have not complete knowledge as something supernatural, and pseudo-ostension is used when someone replicates an action from an urban legend knowing full well what they're doing.

I don't believe in all this 2012 hype but as someone who enjoys listening to Terence McKenna I sometimes lurk this forum, and it's interesting to me seing you in just about every single thread in this subforum trying to debunk it. And everytime I read your posts you seem somehow (sorry if this sounds rude as it's not the intention) extremely close-minded and your debunking efforts usually come across as extremely flaky because they are more about the way you choose to express yourself instead of what you are actually trying to say.

My point is that there are several ways to present information, and if you are trying to change anyone's mind or at least make them think (and I'm assuming you do based on your insistive posting on the 2012 forum) you should try to make something a little more academic and actually explain your points with sources and extensive investigation instead of just assuming you're right and as such you don't need to go into great detail.

reply to post by Radiobuzz


Thanks for the input. I feel there is no reason to provide a detailed response as you suggest.

I also understand ostension. What is interesting here is how ostension in these circumstances makes people believe in fake data.