8.9 Sumatra Mega-Quake Validates 188-day cycle and Ley Lines AGAIN!

Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by stereologist

 

No, but you're forgetting this is fear-mongering math.

You have to allow a +/- of anywhere from 1 to 365 days.

I don't agree with you much, but that had me laughing out loud!

reply to post by truthseekr1111


Well... I'll give you a nod of respect because yes, thinking back and now looking back...It sure is close enough to call a possibility. Certainly enough of one for consideration on ATS.

I'd note though... I'd feel a little happier for you being right if you didn't seem quite so happy about it yourself. I don't mean that sharply.... but one of your red arrows now deserves a couple 6's on it and the one to it's right may as well cross over top of my house.

I'm certainly aware of how I've been feeling and the bone pains my wife has been having for about 8 days now. Maybe nothing... Her health isn't stellar at the best of times..but this is getting progressive in a dull, achy way like people talk about with old injuries and severe weather. Lets just say I hope the extent you may be correct skips a few cycles because I can't help but notice one of the only lines with nothing is, in fact, pointing right at Missouri like a big finger.

Note: I thought it helpful to add...just to clarify... possible isn't agreement. Just interesting and an S/F while watching for more 'pattern' to confirm or question... Hmmm.

I believe that the 188 day cycle is something to use from now on. The rest of you are just begin ignorant.

reply to post by princeguy


So how is this non-working claim to be used? Please tell us, whom you called ignorant, how this non-working thingy is used?

reply to post by gwydionblack


Hi there.

Why does the Haiti quake continually get ignored by your lot?

Very disingenuous to ignore events that contradict a theory...

I do not think that the recent Sumatra earthquakes validated any so called 188 day cycle and to throw in Ley lines as if they matter to this 188 day cycle is in my honest opinion a complete ruse to continue such media attention on 188 day cycles and or even the Ley lines that are now being associated with such a 188 day cycle.

While most know I have been adamant and consistent with all my previous postings stating that such a 188 day cycle is completely wrong, I know that I alone must be the only one who has been willing to explain it let alone has once again stated repeatedly in videos and in postings that when Terrel and his 188 day cycle was looking at 03-11-12 and then again on 03-22-12 for proof positive of such a theory, these types clung to any earthquake that occurred to claim that their theory was correct when it was not.

Well, anyone claiming a 188 day cycle is wrong and while the addition of Ley lines into this drama only confuses matters more than I can bare, I have elected today to once again state what I have been stating for some time now that others seem to want to ignore for its accuracy.

I stated long before during and after the Terrel 188 alert that nothing would happen on these March declared dates, because I knew from personal research that according to ritual elements, that it would be exactly 13 months from Japan Fukushima which was on 03-11-11 and that exactly 13 months later would then end on 04-11-12.

I stated this finding over and over, but with so many 188 day cycle zombies, no amount of evidence could convince those with other motivations for proving a 188 day cycle and what it might imply.

I stated it would be exactly 13 months or 1 year and 1 day from Japan Fukushima because what we witnessed was a ritual opening in the Japan Fukushima disaster that continued through out the remainder of 2011.

This ritual finding has been proven 100% accurate, because I did not say maybe the 9th 10th or the 11th, I stated clearly over and over that it would be on 04-11-12 when we would see some type of disasters on this date. Well, it seems I was correct.

Since I truly know what I am talking about, please consider that you dont know all there is to this 188 day cycle or to those Ley lines that are now added to this subject matter.

Those Ley lines are very important, but not in the manner described or explained. The Ley Lines are used by the ritualist to allow the demons raised in the ritual to use those Ley Lines to travel around the globe or to specified areas of ritual interest.

These Ley lines may at one time have been used for good, but today, these ancient Ley Lines are being used by those that have maintained a mega ritual for thousands of years and use those Ley Lines to provide mobility to the demons summoned.

Now, you can believe what you want about any 188 day cycle and or Ley Lines, but since I am not selling anything let alone trying to embellish my accuracy with 04-11-12, you can take my information with a grain of salt, because I know you will.

April 11 marked the ritual that began on 03-11-11 and what allowed me to know this is the fact that the code of 13 allowed me to see that by adhering to ritualistic dates and numbers, only then can one begin to see that certain dates and events as the ritual elements that they represent.

We have once again begun the formal "RITUAL" for this year with the Sumatra earthquakes and now as events build, new events will come forth to support what events have already come before because there are many rituals.

As I posted earlier today, the 13 day window that encompasses April 19 through May 1 is a time frame this year that clearly is broadcast in ritual terms to be a serious time frame to watch.

Bare in mind that no single event represents this mega ritual and that the 13 segment of the ritual we are currently observing will be closed when the 7 portion of this mega ritual begins.

August 12, 2012, exactly 7 minutes after sunset is when the 13 portion closes and the 7 portion begins. It is during the closing ceremony of the Summer London Olympics that I have shown in numerous videos that the Olympic stadium is the sacrificial killing grounds that will be used to kill thousands during that closing ceremony as part of a mega human sacrifice honoring the closing and opening of 13 and 7.

Now, if you had mentioned that these ancient node of multiple Ley Lines crosses directly over the Olympic stadium, it forces those with the ability to think that such a site was chosen and selected for reasons that have been kept secret from the public.

We must begin to see disaster events not as any singular ritual event, but as a series of events that build on each other based on key dates, astrological alignments and even lunar and solar alignments.

While I did not mention Planet X or a Nibiru type object, such an object is also part of this ritual and that is why it is important to keep 188 days, Ley Lines and Rituals separate to Planet X.

I picked up on something VERY interesting but kind of far fetched here, but it may just be something.

If you go by your pattern here 188 days after the Sumatra quake lands on September 24th.

Now, continuing on your pattern, 23 days after September 24th happens to be the day before the big "shake out" on the west coast, which actually is 24 days after (October 18th at 10:18 a.m. EXACTLY) Over 2 million Americans have signed up for this Earthquake preperation thingy-ma-bob.

Could this not really just be a "practice" but a warning like the Mexico quake?

I do not live on the West Coast, but I am worried for those who do live there!!

www.shakeout.org...

Just saw this ATS'ers post and thought I'd throw it in because it has to do with the "shakeout".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Coincidence that it fits into this pattern that may or may not exist? I'm still on the edge about this 188 day thing, but the coincidences are nutso

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Seriously so many people on ATS are ignorant fools.


The fourths increments that the OP speaks of (4, 8, 11, 15, 19, 23 days following the initial 188 days) were all accounted for in the original theory and were all mentioned as potential dates for followup quakes and even larger quakes. No data has been doctored, no data has been cherry picked, it just FITS, plain and simple.

If the math is off then how is anyone saying it is wrong an ignorant fool....you just stated the above. Tell me how the numbers you present run in "fourths" as 11 - 8 = 3. The calculations are intentionally skewed to fit the theory, not the other way around. Even the "fourths" aren't "fourths".......

*Laughing heartily at the math some apply to their theories to make them work*

So I went back seven 188 day cycles from 11 Apr 2012 and not a single 7.0 or greater even close on all 7 cycles. I also read that a guy took a random 243 day cycle and got more hits. He pulled 243 out of his butt, and he knew that 7.0 or greater hit on an average every 19 days or so.

I saw from the 9.0 quake that two 188 cycles in front of it were within +1 and two cycles behind it were also +1, so I went back 20 more cycles and only found one +-0, three +-1 and one +-2...can't say that is anything more than making the odds with the 188 cycle.

reply to post by stereologist


No. I will not. Because the original theory already has. Go back, read it yourself, and stop jumping to conclusions.

The original theory was very expansive and encompassing. It was not exact and it accounted for a LARGE margin of error. I'm not saying it didn't But people are not given it enough credit.

Saying the theory is wrong is one thing. Go ahead, provide evidence and state your claim. But stating that something doesn't fit with the theory without even understand the theory yourselves is just ridiculous.



reply to post by redneck13


Clearly you haven't read the theory thoroughly. It never states to be able to predict precisely when and where a quake will happen, but within a reasonable margin of error (the fourths cycles) and within the 188 days.





reply to post by Chadwickus


Tell me. What exactly about the Haiti quake is ignored?




reply to post by Vasa Croe



No, they aren't in "fourths". I have no idea why the original poster labeled them as such, but the numbers are important. Blame him, not me.

It isn't the "math" that anyone is doing. It is the fact that the dates coincide with the numbers given. Maybe if people are looking that hard into it, but I certainly am not.







People need to go back, watch the original video, and realize that the original theorist stated, QUITE CLEARLY - a few things to keep in mind.

1. The 188-day theory does not account for ALL quakes whether they are 7+ or not. It accounts for the particular quakes that occur during that time. The point of the theory in this regard is to show that every 188 days, and in the occurrence of the other proceeding days, there is some common factor that is causing these quakes to happen.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY QUAKE IS CAUSED BY THAT SAME FACTOR. Quakes are caused by MANY underlying things - the 188-day quakes are only listing the caused by one common denominator, a denominator that as of right now is unknown.

2. The original theory stated that though the quake usually happens +-24 hours off 188 days, the real big quakes and other quakes may occur on intervals off of the 188 day mark. These intervals could be BEFORE or AFTER the 188 day mark.

These intervals, that the OP clearly stated, were 4, 8, 11, 15, 19, and 23. Which means that 4 days before and after the 188 days, there is the possibility of increased activity. 8 days before and after, 11 days before and after, and so on and so forth all the way down to the 23 days. In short, there is a 46 day window in which an Earth shaking earthquake will hit the earth - the kicker is that is ALWAYS occurs on one of the EXACT interval days and on one of the EXACT lay lines provided in the first video.


As the OP stated, the Sumatra quake occurred 19 days after the 188 day cycle, on a lay line, which puts it still in the bounds of that theory and fits perfectly with the original theory. The next major quake to expect within the theory, if at all - April 15th. The 23 day after the last 188 day cycle date, and the last day of the cycle.


This has been a lesson, and hopefully you all can be a little more enlightened as to what you are talking about. Even I do not buy into the theory 100% just yet, but I will at least not go to great lengths to degrade it without first understanding it completely. It is vague and it is expansive and yes, it could be all dumb luck and statistically bound to happen. But I would rather wait to hold judgement than to assume and make an arse out of myself like some people continue to do on here.

Thank you.

reply to post by gwydionblack

No. I will not. Because the original theory already has. Go back, read it yourself, and stop jumping to conclusions.

So basically you are bluffing. I figured that before I asked.

The original theory was very expansive and encompassing. It was not exact and it accounted for a LARGE margin of error. I'm not saying it didn't But people are not given it enough credit.

There you go admitting this so-called theory is crap.

Saying the theory is wrong is one thing. Go ahead, provide evidence and state your claim.

Sorry, the onus is on those trying to prop up this dead beast.

But stating that something doesn't fit with the theory without even understand the theory yourselves is just ridiculous.

I've pointed out many times how the dates don't work but then in comes the fudge factors which are the excuses for the failure.

Later on you've listed the main points of this sham
1. Only pick quakes that might meet the requirements of this hoax.
2. Use a large enough fudge factor in case a big enough quake happening ever other day on average does not happen. Then use really big fudge factors

This sham is suited for the gullible, and the gullible certainly do love it.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Well it was a significant event over magnitude 7.0 that occurred well and truly outside the 188 day cycle.

reply to post by stereologist


Your problem is that you like to make crap up and tout it as proof. You make belief that whatever is in your mind is the truth and everything that goes against such logic needs to disprove whatever skewed belief you already have implanted in your mind.

So basically you are bluffing. I figured that before I asked.

And basically you are a troll trying to derail a topic. That isn't the purpose of this topic. The other topic has many pages of discussion and three 11 minute videos on the theory. It isn't my theory. I have no reason to try to explain it to one ignorant person who doesn't want to take the time of day to understand it themselves. If you choose to ignore how algebra works are you going to deny the theorems and require I teach you that too? Stop being lazy and do some work yourself. I have done mine.

There you go admitting this so-called theory is crap.

There YOU go putting words in my mouth. This theory is not crap. In fact, since the theory has come to light, it has stood all tests placed against it. The only things that are repeated over and over are the same boring arguments that people like you regurgitate in topics over and over again even though people explain it too you quite clearly.

I said the theory is not perfect. There are a few imperfections in the past that have yet to be accounted for. So far, however, the theory has stood its ground since it has been brought to peoples attentions. PROVE ME WRONG.

I'm not even going to touch on your numbered points because, ONCE AGAIN, you are showing your ignorance to the original theory and the points I already stated. OF COURSE THE DAMN QUAKES ARE CHERRY PICKED - THE DAMN THEORY IS NOT ACCOUNTING FOR ALL QUAKES.

HOW HARD IS THIS FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND?!

And damn it, there is no "fudge" factor. There is a matrix set of numbers. It is always THOSE NUMBERS. Allow me to repeat them again for your consideration since this seems incredible difficult for you to grasp: 4 days. 8 days. 11 days. 15 days. 19 days. 23 days. Not a range of those numbers. NOT 4 TO 23. Those EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS. Not more, not less. This is what people in science call a "data set". This is a set of days in which events in the pasts have been shown to occurs, nearly ALWAYS, in those intervals.





reply to post by Chadwickus



I honestly don't know how many times anyone has to explain this, or when they do, it is so hard for people to grasp. As I said in my post above:

1. The 188-day theory does not account for ALL quakes whether they are 7+ or not. It accounts for the particular quakes that occur during that time. The point of the theory in this regard is to show that every 188 days, and in the occurrence of the other proceeding days, there is some common factor that is causing these quakes to happen.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY QUAKE IS CAUSED BY THAT SAME FACTOR. Quakes are caused by MANY underlying things - the 188-day quakes are only listing the caused by one common denominator, a denominator that as of right now is unknown.

Allow me to paint this picture for you, since you also seem to be one who seems to be unable to grasp this concept. Maybe you can share it with all your friends.

A. We can all agree that earthquakes are caused by many things, yes?
B. Certain things happen at certain times, correct?
C. So we can assume that certain things occur, at certain times, that cause earthquakes, right.

OK, now taking this information - every 188 days, or 24 hour cycle periods, something occurs that causes a large earthquake. In fact, this something occurs leading up to that day and leading away from that day for a 46 day period.

So what about all the other earthquakes you ask that are unaccounted for? Well here is the real KICKER - THEY ARE CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

Just like all the birds that die in the world don't die of old age, some get diseases, some are shot, some hit bad weather, and an infinite number of causes. The same, as far as we know, is for earthquakes. The ONLY thing the 188-day theory is trying to say, and so far proving, is that in the time frame there is a common causing factor that is causing STRONG earthquakes at that time.


That's it. That is that. Everyone who is regurgitating the same baseless points of "you didn't included this and that powerful quake at some other time" or "you are just picking random dates" it making themselves look like fools who never read or understood the theory to begin with.

Read, understand, ask questions, and then make judgement. Most of all, deny ignorance. It is a quickly spreading disease on here.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Yeah I know all about it.

It's very convenient for you, since earthquakes occur daily and larger earthquakes, although not daily, still happen on a regular basis.

You will find cycles everywhere...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by gwydionblack

Your problem is that you like to make crap up and tout it as proof. You make belief that whatever is in your mind is the truth and everything that goes against such logic needs to disprove whatever skewed belief you already have implanted in your mind.

That is exactly what you do.Pretending it is other people making up garbage is so typical of people promoting nonsense.

This theory is not crap. In fact, since the theory has come to light, it has stood all tests placed against it.

It is a failure and continues to fail. The use of large fudge factors make this so-called theory rather useless. Being ignorant of the probabilities associated with independent random events allows the promoter of the hoax to hoodwink people into thinking that there is something here. There isn't.

PROVE ME WRONG.

I have. Go read the thread.

OF COURSE THE DAMN QUAKES ARE CHERRY PICKED - THE DAMN THEORY IS NOT ACCOUNTING FOR ALL QUAKES.

THE DAMN THEORY AS YOU CALL IT IS USELESS. LARGE FUDGE FACTORS AND EXCLUDING FAILURES IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

And damn it, there is no "fudge" factor. There is a matrix set of numbers.

You've got it. The "matrix set of numbers" as you call it are the fudge factors. BTW, they are not a matrix.

Those EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS. Not more, not less. This is what people in science call a "data set".

No. These are numerological values produced for no apparent reason other than to use as fudge factors.

This is a set of days in which events in the pasts have been shown to occurs, nearly ALWAYS, in those intervals.

There you go defining a fudge factor.

Understanding that these are fudge factors may be a hard concept to grasp but I have confidence you'll figure it out. Understanding that this theory is based on sampling independent events from a sufficiently dense set may be a hard concept to grasp, but again I have confidence.

It would probably be useful at this point in time to show how inane this so-called theory is. Here is what is needed to set up an analogous situation.

1. Need a set of independent events that are sufficiently common to produce enough data to sample
2. Need to pick a sampling rate of long enough duration to avoid people seeing an immediate failure

Consider transportation crashes
I claim that there will be a transportation crash every 27 days. Now I'm not claiming I will predict every crash, but crashes happen every 27 days.

Consider fires
I claim that there will be a big fire every 81 days. Now I'm not claiming I will predict every fire, but a major (whatever that means) fire will happen on an 81 day cycle. There will be 2, 5, and 11 intervals of increased fires.

Crashes, fires, storms, riots/insurrections, company failures, floods, shootings, animal die offs, solar events, etc. happen often enough to produce a data set that can be sampled to get some sort of idiotic so-called theory going.

It will grab the attention of the gullible. Some of the gullible will even rant about it.

reply to post by stereologist


The only problem with your example is that fires and motor vehicle accidents do indeed happen every day. Not only that, but none of them have many variables between them.

You can say a accident will happen in a 27 day range, but once again - the theory is not a damn RANGE. It is a single DAY with single day intervals. It you say that a massive vehicle accident will happen every 27 days, and then another 6, 12, and 15 days after that - then MAYBE you would have a leg to stand on in comparison with this theory, but once again you are showing you ignorance by claiming that the theory is claiming a data RANGE when it is claiming a data SET, a few choice set DAYS and not the range of days in which they encompass.

But it is clear you choose to ignore this. It is your sole purpose to completely ignore this and do everything in your power to make sure everyone else ignores this common fact as well. I have painted the picture clearly. Many others have painted it clearly. I understand the theory. YOU DO NOT.

You do not have a say in this. You asinine comparative theories are ridiculous, hold no data records, and have no basis in fact, whereas the 188-day theory can be taken back and shown with relative certainty to have a pattern about it. The Mexico quake shows it. This Sumatra quake shows the outliers as well in the theory.

But yes, I understand that this is STILL not enough to prove this theory. Not even for me. But according to you, it is something we should bury and never speak of again. That is how progress of thought is hindered my friend. These things need to be discussed, progressed upon, and looked at for more insightful meaning, and most of all, for perfection in the theories.

Whether you agree with it or not, you can not change the FACTS. There are two simple facts that have emerged since the theory came onto ATS.

There has been a big quake direct on the 188 day mark.
There has been a big quake direct on a 188 day mark outliers.


That is all we know. This neither proves nor disproves this theory, but I daresay, it gives you no further data you base your opinions of disapproval on. You instead continue make yourself look like an arrogant know-it-all by saying "I'm right, the the is wrong" just "BECAUSE" without letting anything pan out. Face it - the damn 188 day quake happened. IT HAPPENED. In whatever world you were living that it did not happen - YOU WERE WRONG.

Time to get over it, change into your big boy pants, move on, and wait until this theory disproves itself instead of digging a hole deeper for yourself into information that you clearly haven't taken the time to understand yourself..

reply to post by gwydionblack


As I said in my post earlier that since a 7.0 happen every 19 days on an average people have picked other cycles that are even better. The odds are there..As I said, if you do 188 day cycle off the 9.0 quake you get two +1 day hits before it and after it, so I guess that is where he came up with the 188 days. I went back 20 more 188 days cycles and only 4 were within one day. There were many more that were 10 days or more.

This latest quake I went back seven 188 day cycles and not a single 7.0+ hit of anything close to +1. I just do not see the theory when all he is doing is finding a random cycle by looking to the past to see which cycle gets the most hits then calls it a theory.

One thing with his 188 day cycle is it is close to 182 (half a year) and so as you look back it stays within two months for a good while as it only changes 6 days every cycle. One would think that while the cycle is in those two months it would show a lot more activity and it doesn't.

In the end humans love to find patterns in random events and with enough random events there will be patterns. He could not say 8.0+ or even 7.5+ because he needed enough random events to find a pattern, and 7.0 gives him that.

reply to post by gwydionblack


It sounds like you are the mistaken notion that quakes are rare. There are 1.3M a year with a M6 or better happening every other day on average.

No variables between them? Guess that makes it the same as quakes.

I understand the theory. YOU DO NOT.

To be correct you have fallen for this hoax and I have not.

You do not have a say in this. You asinine comparative theories are ridiculous, hold no data records, and have no basis in fact, whereas the 188-day theory can be taken back and shown with relative certainty to have a pattern about it.

Actually this rather stupid claim about quakes is so laughable I can't believe anyone fell for it. My comparisons were not theories just as this 188 day thingy is not a theory. False patterns can be found in any data set of random data by selective sampling of short intervals.

But according to you, it is something we should bury and never speak of again.

Not at all. What we should learn from this is an important lesson: don't fall for such false claims. Check the data and see that it fails quickly.

Read Xtrozero post so you can see that this hoax fails.

Originally posted by MaxBlack
As I posted earlier today, the 13 day window that encompasses April 19 through May 1 is a time frame this year that clearly is broadcast in ritual terms to be a serious time frame to watch.

Time's almost up.