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.

 

CREATION MATRIX of 188 **PART 3** Ley-Lines connected to SACRED GEOMETRY & ALL Historic Quakes!?!? (

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

Not at all... you haven't proven the ley lines are wrong or any of the evidence of the pattern is wrong... nor have you even addressed the evidence presented.
So far the only thing you have claimed is the existence of 200 years of quake data.


No, actually, I believe what the video has claimed (and I'm paraphrasing) and has shown is how the pattern can be traced back 200 years to major/mega-quakes/great quakes. So in that context, YES there would be quakes (data) that can be shown to correlate to the pattern.



At this point I say that is a bald faced lie. Such data does NOT exist.


"quake data" doesn't exist, or the quake data of quakes that occurred and can be correlated to the pattern?


the video made the claim... I'm pointing out ONE of the claims for you which I thought you'd be happy about... but the fact the video has already presented several examples of data going back two hundred years and will be posting the first 50 years of that data in the upcoming video, that more than addresses the issue right now.

So you admit you took the ridiculous claims of the idiotic video hook, line and sinker. There is no such list. There are many reasons no such list exists. Had you thought for even a few seconds about it you would have realized such a list does not exist.


What do you mean THERE'S NO SUCH LIST?

The first video already presented examples of several unique MAJOR quakes that occurred as far back as 200 years which were the LARGEST and most POWERFUL on RECORD. If you're unable to understand the significance and implications in context of the TYPES of quakes that can be correlated over and over again which are RARE and do not happen all the time, then you perhaps you're not as educated on the statistics let alone number probability.


So once again, to clarify, your assertion and claim is that there is no quake data going back 200 years, correct?

Don't try to move the goal posts. The claim YOU made which you now claim comes from that idiotic video is:
there's 365 days a year... for a quake over 7 mag, especially those 7.3 to 8+ (which don't happen all the time), to hit on or around this cycle/pattern 5 times in a row let alone going back 200 years, contradicts your argument.


NO, what I SAID above is a correct statement thats based on the video AND common knowledge of quake stats in general.

So this has nothing to do with moving goal posts even though you'd like to twist things that way to imply there's something misleading and false about what I've said or the video has said which btw, you haven't even really watched!




Where is the 200 years of quake data supporting the claims of the idiotic video?


see above



edit on 29-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



but unfortunately, your claim that its strong evidence the ley line concept is wrong, is nothing more than an opinion.

Apparently the idea that indistinguishable from randomness is a concept way over your head.

It is not opinion, but well established as shown in the article.


that its way over my head, is also YOUR OPINION.

the article and issue of randomness in the context used, has no bearing on the merit of the data, evidence, ideas and theories presented.

and I highly doubt there's anyone else that agrees with you or even understands what you think you do, as to how it disproves the videos in the context I've just explained.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
To summarize what has been established so far:
1. Ley lines are meaningless - been established since the 1920s


In your OPINION perhaps, but not in context of the videos and all thats been presented about these particular energy/ley lines.



2. Human constructed ley lines are indistinguishable from randomly constructed ley lines


see above



3. Platonic solids as being the bass for everything has been shown to be wrong - been established for 400+ years


a claim some make based solely on OPINIONS.



4. Scientists do not consider lower intensity M7 quakes as being mega-quakes


AH, so glad you finally agree with the point I was trying to make earlier!

We are pretty closely now in agreement.. but again, you asked for me to post where mega quake is being used for M7's. I would agree not every type of M7 should be classified as a megaquake... but then the overall point is that there is technically no OFFICIAL SCALE or globally accepted standard all seismologists use.



5. M7 and up quakes happen more frequently than every month on average


Please show evidence to support that specific claim. Which would also include showing how ALL M7's fit that parameter/stat.



6. There is no 200 years of quake data supporting a 188 day cycle


I've already explained and addressed that inaccurate claim which is out of context



7. Not a single thing in the video has ever been singled out as being worth watching


which has no bearing on the merit of the videos, nor does it prove they aren't worth watching.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Now let's examine this image. It was posted by truthseekr1111.

Do you agree that this is from the video in question and that it shows the ley lines and that all M7 or better quakes have landed on these ley lines?
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Please correct me if this is not the case.
1. You posted the image
2. It shows ley lines discussed in the video
3. All M7 or better quakes have landed on the ley lines


The video claims (I believe this is very close to what was stated), that according to his research so far, it appears that most, if not every/all MAJOR/MEGAquakes/Great Quakes etc (which as I've said appears is still not defined fully), have hit on or around the ley lines within 300 miles (might be less not sure the exact statement thats been made in other thread/forums).

and the video creator has also posted detailed explanations and measurements of the ley lines in response to those who have asked and needed more clarification.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

and there's HUNDREDS of others that disagree and say the videos are extremely well made and present compelling evidence to support the theory and claims.
An appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy.


If what I said is a fallacy, then the statement I'm responding to is also a fallacy in terms of whats being suggested.



Then again there are lots of gullible people.


which is technically also a fallacy in the context of the remark and whats being implied.


But then, that the video is poorly made is nothing more than your OPINION.. and since I've already PROVEN line by line how exactly your OPINIONS, commentary, and criticism are wrong and ignorant of the facts, your OPINION has no credibility in measuring the truth and accuracy of the videos.

Now you are getting to the meat of the matter. What we have established up t now is that the concept of ley lines is a wrong idea. It has been shown to be wrong for over 80 years. Of course that does not stop wackos from parading around a wrong idea.


it definitely doesn't stop those claiming to be intellectuals, from parading around claims that something is the wrong idea based on opinions.


but when someone using critical thinking skills actually watches the video and checks the FACTS, they'll realize how disingenuous, erroneous and deceptive your OPINION is which is becoming more and more obvious that it there must be more of an agenda to be so willfully ignorant of the facts aside from what appears to be an attempt to perpetuate disinformation.
I'm glad though, that I'm able to present the other side of the argument with facts for readers to make their own conclusions

Laughable. Please provide the 200 years of quake data you claim exists and is mentioned in the video.


Yes, laughable that you keep repeating something thats already been addressed ad-naseum.


show exactly where and how ANY of the data/evidence and arguments presented, are wrong with a counter-argument and perhaps your OPINION might mean something. But so far, ALL YOUR CLAIMS are false and you have ZERO evidence and facts other than opinions, to support them.

Actually the false ideas all come from the video.


so you claim without any proof whatsoever.


The graphic in 3D shows the quake was within 60 miles of the LINE.

That pathetic, a 60 mile miss. That in and of itself shows how worthless ley lines are.


Hardly a miss... 60 miles given the size of Earth, parameters of the lines and unique array of the grid, is quite amazing.


Only a fool would try to argue that a rare and MAJOR quake hitting 1 day from the exact target date/window, is a miss, not accurate and nothing special. But then again, thats irrelevant anyways because the exact date predicted and explained for the quake, in fact appeared and happened.

M7 quakes are not rare. They happen on average 17 times a year or better than once a month.


M7.4 and readings it had up to an 8.2 IS RARE and does not happen all the time or always better than once a month.

and when you consider there's 365 days in a year, for an M7.4 to hit on the exact date of a cycle or date/window that only occurs twice a year, makes the pattern and quakes that have occurred, that much more remarkable.

Too bad the significance and implications are over your head.


I know its upsetting to skeptics to have to confront the shock that this quake not only hit the date warned of, but also hit directly on key line of a unique grid which was all explained and predicted in advance. Thats probably one reason why the video had over 100,000 hits in just a few days.

The number of hits has nothing to do with anything. It simply means that the gullible will latch onto anything no matter how inane.


actually it does show a unique interest for the video. Does it necessarily prove anything? Not really in that context of needing to be proven, but to claim the interest was due to people being gullible is a FALLACY in the context of your claim since whether anyones gullible doesn't disprove the video as you're suggesting not to mention that people are gullible, is nothing more than your opinion which has so far been pretty much worthless. oh well.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



So far the only thing you have claimed is the existence of 200 years of quake data.

No, actually, I believe what the video has claimed (and I'm paraphrasing) and has shown is how the pattern can be traced back 200 years to major/mega-quakes/great quakes. So in that context, YES there would be quakes (data) that can be shown to correlate to the pattern.


No. I have stated that there is no such data going back 200 years. Think for even a few seconds and you will realize why the video has told a big fat lie.


"quake data" doesn't exist, or the quake data of quakes that occurred and can be correlated to the pattern?

Think and you will quickly realize why such data cannot exist.


The first video already presented examples of several unique MAJOR quakes that occurred as far back as 200 years which were the LARGEST and most POWERFUL on RECORD. If you're unable to understand the significance and implications in context of the TYPES of quakes that can be correlated over and over again which are RARE and do not happen all the time, then you perhaps you're not as educated on the statistics let alone number probability.

You've fallen for the lie. Think. Think, and the reason it is a lie will quickly be evident.


NO, what I SAID above is a correct statement thats based on the video AND common knowledge of quake stats in general.

So this has nothing to do with moving goal posts even though you'd like to twist things that way to imply there's something misleading and false about what I've said or the video has said which btw, you haven't even really watched!

Think. You are capable of quickly recognizing why it is a lie.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



that its way over my head, is also YOUR OPINION.

the article and issue of randomness in the context used, has no bearing on the merit of the data, evidence, ideas and theories presented.

and I highly doubt there's anyone else that agrees with you or even understands what you think you do, as to how it disproves the videos in the context I've just explained.

Obviously you don't understand it and that is ok. A few course in basic math and stats and you can.

The issue of being distinguishable from random is an important issue which you can at some point understand. I have faith in you.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
The claim of 200 years of quake data supporting the idiotic video is a failure.


what I've explained and the evidence I've seen, proves otherwise. But thanks for your opinion which has so far been what can only be called an EPIC failure.



It is not only that you won't produce the data you so arrogantly claimed existed, but that you can't. There are very good reasons that you can't and anyone thinking for even a few moments would realize why.


and I've already addressed and debunked that assumption and assertion.

you can keep ignoring what I've explained and questions I've asked that I was waiting for answers to if you want, but it won't make what you're trying to claim, any more true.



So now we are left with an important issue. To repeat.
Now let's examine this image. It was posted by truthseekr1111.
Do you agree that this is from the video in question and that it shows the ley lines and that all M7 or better quakes have landed on these ley lines?
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Please correct me if this is not the case.
1. You posted the image
2. It shows ley lines discussed in the video
3. All M7 or better quakes have landed on the ley lines


already addressed.. please see previous responses. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



To summarize what has been established so far:
1. Ley lines are meaningless - been established since the 1920s
2. Human constructed ley lines are indistinguishable from randomly constructed ley lines
3. Platonic solids as being the bass for everything has been shown to be wrong - been established for 400+ years
4. Scientists do not consider lower intensity M7 quakes as being mega-quakes
5. M7 and up quakes happen more frequently than every month on average
6. There is no 200 years of quake data supporting a 188 day cycle
7. Not a single thing in the video has ever been singled out as being worth watching


Every time you claim it is my opinion you lie.
The reason it is a lie is that I have shown material establishing each of the issues.

It is likely that the reasoning was over your head. Fine. It is what it is.


AH, so glad you finally agree with the point I was trying to make earlier!

We are pretty closely now in agreement.. but again, you asked for me to post where mega quake is being used for M7's. I would agree not every type of M7 should be classified as a megaquake... but then the overall point is that there is technically no OFFICIAL SCALE or globally accepted standard all seismologists use.

Thus the video is not scientific. It is an idiotic exercise intended to appeal to the gullible.


Please show evidence to support that specific claim. Which would also include showing how ALL M7's fit that parameter/stat.

I have already posted the link. Obviously, you are not reading anything I posted. There are on average 17 M7s a year. That is much higher than 1 a month.


I've already explained and addressed that inaccurate claim which is out of context /quote]
No. You have repeatedly referred to this lie that the data exists.


which has no bearing on the merit of the videos, nor does it prove they aren't worth watching.

Yawn.

Nothing has been shown to be worth watching.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



The video claims (I believe this is very close to what was stated), that according to his research so far, it appears that most, if not every/all MAJOR/MEGAquakes/Great Quakes etc (which as I've said appears is still not defined fully), have hit on or around the ley lines within 300 miles (might be less not sure the exact statement thats been made in other thread/forums).

and the video creator has also posted detailed explanations and measurements of the ley lines in response to those who have asked and needed more clarification.

That's a pretty stupid situation isn't it?

A 300 mile swath each side of a line means that the line is 600 miles across.

How stupid is that?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



If what I said is a fallacy, then the statement I'm responding to is also a fallacy in terms of whats being suggested.

Add a course in logic to the need for info on basic math and stats.


which is technically also a fallacy in the context of the remark and whats being implied.

Not the same.


it definitely doesn't stop those claiming to be intellectuals, from parading around claims that something is the wrong idea based on opinions.

I am basing it on evidence. You are using opinion. Your opinion is that the video is factual. That is pretty gullible don't you think?

Again, provide the 200 years of quake data supporting this idiotic video.


Hardly a miss... 60 miles given the size of Earth, parameters of the lines and unique array of the grid, is quite amazing.

A 60 mile miss is pathetic. Real science can locate fault zones, something that actually exists, with a tiny fraction of that. 60 miles is pathetic and you have enlarged that to 300 miles.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



M7.4 and readings it had up to an 8.2 IS RARE and does not happen all the time or always better than once a month.

M7s are common. They happen more often than once a month.


and when you consider there's 365 days in a year, for an M7.4 to hit on the exact date of a cycle or date/window that only occurs twice a year, makes the pattern and quakes that have occurred, that much more remarkable.

Too bad the significance and implications are over your head.

Obviously you know nothing about stats and random distributions. All that is here is a short term pattern with a probability of occurrence that is reasonable. The claim of it being a longer pattern is a lie.


actually it does show a unique interest for the video. Does it necessarily prove anything? Not really in that context of needing to be proven, but to claim the interest was due to people being gullible is a FALLACY in the context of your claim since whether anyones gullible doesn't disprove the video as you're suggesting not to mention that people are gullible, is nothing more than your opinion which has so far been pretty much worthless. oh well.

The gullible simply accept the nitwit comments such as there being 200 years of data supporting the claim. The gullible never think to check if that makes sense. Being gullible is a lot easier than checking things out and being able to differentiate obvious nonsense from the plausible.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


so please show me where the article from USGS is "peer" reviewed... what makes that article peer reviewed in the context we're discussing? and also as a side note, I always hear the "peer reviewed" argument which is essentially somewhat technically, a logical fallacy which I would also add depends on the context of the issue.

To call asking for a peer reviewed article a logical fallacy is a fallacy. Apparently even this idea is over your head. Please look up what peer reviewed means.


I have. seems the word "somewhat" and part I added about depends on the context of the issue, went over your head as well as my question to you... lets see if you can figure it out and why I'm asking.


I don't interpret the context of what the article says to be saying M7's are not megaquakes. The context actually appears to simply agree that certain M7's can be classified in the category of a megaquake.

I did not realize English is a second language for you. The quote specifically states that the rarity of mega-quakes forced the researchers to include non-mega quake events including M7 quakes.


I think the article was unclear in fully clarifying that if thats what this particular set of scientists are saying and I think there would be many others who agree.

but then I've also asked you to provide more than just ONE agency that says this... What other Geological societies and seismic agencies around the world agree with THIS article? Where's a consensus or official scale defining quake categories etc? Why do you single out this article as an AUTHORITY on this issue?

Seems there's far more context to understanding this issue than only what this article states.



But then again, you still have yet to show any technical scale/definition for Quake Categories and sizes such as what a MAJOR quake is versus a LARGE QUAKE or GREAT QUAKE etc.

Scientists do not use nebulous terms such as that. They use a numerical system.


well then using your argument, if you're going to use statistics, you can't equate an M7 to an M7.4

so I guess that means you've got some numbers to crunch and data to compile eh big boy? better get to it!


If you want to play semantics over vague terminology that hasn't even been fully defined and agreed upon by all "peers", then thats your prerogative, but it still doesn't change the essential point that the quake that struck was a quake that DOESN'T happen all the time and was in fact a RARE size and MAJOR quake which validated the warning and prediction.

Scientists are never going to use vague terms such as mega-quake when they have a superior system in place.


and what is that SYSTEM?

please present a link or peer-reviewed explanation that defines the parameters and/or criterion for this SYSTEM you're talking about. Thanks

edit on 29-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Stop avoiding the important issues. I repeat yet again.

The claim of 200 years of quake data supporting the idiotic video is a failure. It is not only that you won't produce the data you so arrogantly claimed existed, but that you can't. There are very good reasons that you can't and anyone thinking for even a few moments would realize why.

Do you agree that this is from the video in question and that it shows the ley lines and that all M7 or better quakes have landed on these ley lines?
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Please correct me if this is not the case.
1. You posted the image
2. It shows ley lines discussed in the video
3. All M7 or better quakes have landed on the ley lines
edit on 29-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)


why do you keep repeating questions that I've already addressed and answered?




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
It is established that 200 years of quake data supporting the claims of the video does not exist.

It is simply wishful thinking by the gullible that it exists.

What is clear to anyone taking a few seconds to think about it that no such data can exist.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

So far the only thing you have claimed is the existence of 200 years of quake data.

No, actually, I believe what the video has claimed (and I'm paraphrasing) and has shown is how the pattern can be traced back 200 years to major/mega-quakes/great quakes. So in that context, YES there would be quakes (data) that can be shown to correlate to the pattern.

No. I have stated that there is no such data going back 200 years. Think for even a few seconds and you will realize why the video has told a big fat lie.


And I have already addressed that question repeatedly. Think for a few seconds and you will realize why the your assertion and claim that the video has told a big fat lie, IS A BIG FAT LIE.


"quake data" doesn't exist, or the quake data of quakes that occurred and can be correlated to the pattern?

Think and you will quickly realize why such data cannot exist.


there's different ways to interpret the context... So please explain what you mean so we're clear and I can respond.


The first video already presented examples of several unique MAJOR quakes that occurred as far back as 200 years which were the LARGEST and most POWERFUL on RECORD. If you're unable to understand the significance and implications in context of the TYPES of quakes that can be correlated over and over again which are RARE and do not happen all the time, then you perhaps you're not as educated on the statistics let alone number probability.

You've fallen for the lie. Think. Think, and the reason it is a lie will quickly be evident.


Let me know when you have more evidence for your argument that the video is a lie or anyones fallen for a lie that you haven't remotely shown evidence for.


NO, what I SAID above is a correct statement thats based on the video AND common knowledge of quake stats in general.So this has nothing to do with moving goal posts even though you'd like to twist things that way to imply there's something misleading and false about what I've said or the video has said which btw, you haven't even really watched!

Think. You are capable of quickly recognizing why it is a lie.


the issue seems to be unclear and I'm starting to think even you're having trouble understanding now what you're arguing.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




I have. seems the word "somewhat" and part I added about depends on the context of the issue, went over your head as well as my question to you... lets see if you can figure it out and why I'm asking.

yawn



I think the article was unclear in fully clarifying that if thats what this particular set of scientists are saying and I think there would be many others who agree.

That is false. You are trying to cover up for the fact that you did not read the article and were dead wrong - again!


but then I've also asked you to provide more than just ONE agency that says this... What other Geological societies and seismic agencies around the world agree with THIS article? Where's a consensus or official scale defining quake categories etc? Why do you single out this article as an AUTHORITY on this issue?

Instead of whining that common parlance is not a technical term why not supply some real evidence such as the 200 year data.


well then using your argument, if you're going to use statistics, you can't equate an M7 to an M7.4

So now you want to move the goal posts because you were wrong.

M7s or better happen on average 18 times a year.


and what is that SYSTEM?

The Richter and the newer MMS.


please present a link or peer-reviewed explanation that defines the parameters and/or criterion for this SYSTEM you're talking about. Thanks

Everyone knows that this won't be in a peer reviewed journal. It is a definition and thus selected by a scientific society.

But if you want a journal article have at it.
bssa.geoscienceworld.org...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



why do you keep repeating questions that I've already addressed and answered?

I ask when you evade the question. The question in this case was based on your statement which is a known lie. There is no 200 years of quake data such as you claim.

Claiming that the video made the claim simply shows you were gullible in accepting that claim. I don't care what "friend of a friend of a friend source" you used. I want to see the data.

It seems that it does not exist. You repeated the lie from the video.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

that its way over my head, is also YOUR OPINION.
the article and issue of randomness in the context used, has no bearing on the merit of the data, evidence, ideas and theories presented.
and I highly doubt there's anyone else that agrees with you or even understands what you think you do, as to how it disproves the videos in the context I've just explained.

Obviously you don't understand it and that is ok. A few course in basic math and stats and you can.

The issue of being distinguishable from random is an important issue which you can at some point understand. I have faith in you.


And perhaps one day you'll realize it has no bearing on the context of the videos merit in conventional terms.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



And I have already addressed that question repeatedly. Think for a few seconds and you will realize why the your assertion and claim that the video has told a big fat lie, IS A BIG FAT LIE.

No. You repeated the lie.

You are so testy and defensive over this idiotic video it is really funny.

It seems you are so invested in this stupid video that you are unable to think. Allow me to give you a hint.

Hint: When was the current earthquake measuring system invented? It's not the Richter scale to give you another hint.


there's different ways to interpret the context... So please explain what you mean so we're clear and I can respond. /quote]
Now you are weaseling and whining since you realize you are wrong.


Let me know when you have more evidence for your argument that the video is a lie or anyones fallen for a lie that you haven't remotely shown evidence for.

Between the overwhelming evidence that ley lines are wrong and the centuries of understanding that platonic solids are not the basis of everything we have the big fat lie that there are 200 years of quake data.

Think and you can figure out why there is not 200 years of quake data. Think. I have confidence in you.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join