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: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Pretending my statement was evasive in anyway I take to be another falsehood on your part.


No, I read the article and I've explained below and above the point which is obviously still going way over your head.

Obviously you did not understand what is meant by being indistinguishable from randomness.

As you say it, it was over your head.


I've already addressed that question. Its getting old buddy.

No you haven't. You called the term a technical term long after I showed it was not.



NO, I'm calling out your flawed logic and argument that you've set yourself up for looking foolish to show everyone why its IDIOTIC and misleading and not what you claim/imply or would like gullible people to believe.

So then, now that you've attempted to remove a method of defining or differentiating quake types/mag/size etc, Please respond to my request and challenge. THANKS

talk about BACKFIRING

You attempted to move the goal posts after you realized how you were completely wrong. Sorry. You fail.


that doesn't adequately or fully answer my question. Let see how your response progresses below... /quote]
Do I need to be so explicit how I know and how anyone with a few seconds of thinking can figure out that the 200 years of data claim is a bald-faced lie? You figure it out. It will be a good starting point for you to learn how to deal with idiotic videos such as this one.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



answer and whole point.... YOU REALLY CAN'T using CONVENTIONAL science since conventional science doesn't have a proper method or SYSTEM... yet you want to use general statistics that have no defined parameters which suggests you think M7.0's are as common as 7.9's!

Lying again. I never said such a thing.

Conventional science works whereas ley lines do not.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



and thats supposed to prove what exactly?/quote]
You asked for a peer reviewed article. What's the matter, not in video form?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




After reviewing some data and doing some research myself... Yes, I claim what the video claims, is correct and think you're the one thats lying.

So show us the data. My opinion is that you are lying. That is my opinion. You have shown yourself not to be truthful. Go ahead show us the data so I can apologize.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



I've already addressed this issue repeatedly and presented an argument that contradicts your premise.

You are lying. You have shown nothing. All you have done so far is finally admit it was stated in the video.

I really don't care where you heard it. Where is the data? Show it.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
I am no mathematician but you precented those ley lines curving over the Earth. But earthquakes come from the inside of the Earth.


but how do you know what the actual MECHANICS and processes are for sure?


Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
Is it possible to assume that there are ley lines connecting to eachother inside the earth which also have the 188 cycle in them?


uhhh, thats exactly what part of the video discusses! lol.

did you not see or understand what was explained and shown?



You mean the piramyds inside the earth, yes i understand that part. But I meant the leylines aren't running as straight lines and are in fact quit wobbly on the crust itself and thus also deeper insde the earth. In my opinion there must be another factor playing here with the eartquakes but I can't pinpoint it out for you.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Nah, just pointing out why your arguments are idiotic and have no logical basis to stand on other than opinions and false claims.

its priceless comedy I'm thoroughly enjoying today. Gonna go get some lunch and hit the beach here soon, so I'll check back later when I'm done enjoying a life outside of this forum which obviously you've rented a room in. Lol



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.


Now let me give you a hint... you're really digging a hole deeper than Alice has ever fallen. LOL


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

Now you are weaseling and whining since you realize you are wrong.


Actually, I'm ROTFLMFAO because your hole has now made it all the way to China.


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.


Lets see if you can figure out why I'm Rotflmao.

Hehe


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



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




Nah, just pointing out why your arguments are idiotic and have no logical basis to stand on other than opinions and false claims.

its priceless comedy I'm thoroughly enjoying today. Gonna go get some lunch and hit the beach here soon, so I'll check back later when I'm done enjoying a life outside of this forum which obviously you've rented a room in. Lol

Show us the 200 years of data you stated exists to support the video.

You've shown nothing at all other than the ability to be an inept scoffer.


Now let me give you a hint... you're really digging a hole deeper than Alice has ever fallen. LOL

Sorry you are unable to understand the lie of the 200 years of data. It must be awful having such a terribly closed mind.


Lets see if you can figure out why I'm Rotflmao./quote]
Your childishness can be fixed through education. Begin with learning how 300+300=600.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
At this point it is evident that truthseekr1111 lied about the 200 years of data. Their claim is that they repeated the lie from the video.

That was obvious from the moment it was posted. I'm sure that everyone else knows why that claim is an inept bald-faced lie.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The next issue that has been presented from several different articles is that ley lines are no better or in more correct terms indistinguishable from random data.

So the video suggests that the ley lines as chosen are so poorly selected, that a 300 mile slop factor must be used. Would randomly chosen ley lines fair as poorly?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

It is very on point.

You are using another form of fallacy called arguing from ignorance. You are being a naysayer because you do not understand what this is about. That is okay not to know. I did provide a link trying to give you some incite into why it is very relevant. I realize it wasn't in the form of a deadbeat video like the one in the OP. At some point in time reading is essential.

To restate the issue in vulgar terms, ley lines are no different than something plucked out of someone's @$$. Mathematically they are the same. In math when the difference between 2 things is 0, then they are the same. This means ley lines are not special since they have the same behavior as random crap. Thus ley lines are random crap.


Lol

the Ley Lines are only crap to those who use and rely only off of PRIMITIVE CONVENTIONAL science to measure it. There's far more being presented in the videos than the narrow context of the ley lines and GAUGE you're attempting to use to measure them with especially the article which is also based on conventional science or methods. Its akin to primitive humans trying to understand what an eclipse was or even measure the processes involved.


me thinks you need to shave off some of that over-grown scientific hair and realize how much you really don't know about the Universe let alone your own planet.

But you can claim the ley lines are random crap all you want even when the videos and I have presented intelligent arguments that contradict your CLAIMS and OPINIONS.

I and many others have seen your commentary in various threads for a long time and many have presented some great responses that show why having a masters degree, academic background, certain scientific knowledge and/or a big vocabulary and certain vernacular (lol), doesn't necessarily make you an authority on everything, or right. If you think you can use conventional physical science to measure or understand a far more advanced lost but re-emerging science which includes the concept of Ley lines based on concepts of Energy Lines and Grids that cannot be fully measured yet by current technology, thats fine and we can agree to disagree. But clearly the concepts the video presents is way over your head and this thread is a great testament showing a whole other side to an argument and issue you've tried and failed miserably to disprove and make gullible people believe conventional science has all the answers and if it doesn't conform to such out-moded science, then its all CRAP which shows how closed-minded conventional science is including those who rely on it to explain the Universe and what we can SEE using our 5 senses. Those who arrogantly buy into that "SYSTEM", and call Sacred Geometry or Ley Lines Crap, are among the most ignorant of all humans and responsible for the mind-set that has kept conventional science in its primitive stagnant state for hundreds of years, if not millennia. I'm sure you're also of the group that believes 9/11 was committed by muslim terrorists, or even that humans are the only, or most intelligent beings in the Universe. Anyways, just wanted to interject a side-note to put your argument in a different context since you seem to think it proves or disproves anything as it relates to the context of the videos and issue we're debating.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


you can keep ignoring my responses that refute your claims if you wish. Fine. It is what it is indeed.
I do not pay attention to the pointless unsubstantiated commentary - that is true.

You have made no effort to address any of the issues including providing the 200 years of data.


and now you are LYING. But not a surprise since your attempts to disprove the ley lines and videos have failed miserably. However, it is what it is and I think most will be able to recognize your game by now.



The video has been very clear that most of the concepts and evidence to support the ideas and claims, DOESN'T conform to CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE because the concepts being presented, are based on a far more advanced lost science of Sacred Geometry that current science is too primitive to fully understand yet.

Now that tops the idiotic comment made about the existence of 200 years of data.


Nothing can top your idiotic comments that there is no quake data going back 200 years.

hilarious. But enjoying the comedy immensely.



Here is some bumpkin with obvious little understanding of anything who claims they have access to something better than models that don't resort to errors of 300 miles.


so your vague claim about the video not being "scientific" in that context, somehow means the video is idiotic and appeals to gullible people implying its not credible, is a FALLACY. Thanks for that gem though! lol

OMG, thanks for filling me in on more lunacy from that idiotic video.


yet another example of a concept that go way over your head. lol But I'll let you enjoy your fantasy.


But since you want to play semantics about quake types/category etc, you're gonna need to provide specific statistical data for various sizes in the 7 and 8 range for better context and parameters in which to measure and gauge frequency since there's a BIG difference between a 7.0 and a 7.4 or 7.9 etc.

If you are interested in that information go find it for yourself. I'm not your researcher.


lol BIG evasion noted. Hehe


and maybe once you start digging into the stats, you'll realize why the 188 DAY CYCLE/PATTERN and the quakes hitting on it, do not happen all the time and is far more significant than you're willing to admit.

Your argument from ignorance is loud and clear.You have no idea what the stats on quakes are. You have no idea about short term patterns. You have no idea what the probabilities involved are. You are simply arguing that these issues are too much for you.


NO, YOU DON'T have any idea what the stats and probabilities are or concepts of real patterns. This has gone way way over your head.


100,000 + people feel differently
but then, since its only your opinion and your opinion doesn't prove or disprove anything, WHO CARES that you think its not worth watching.
As quakes keep hitting the 188 day cycle and ley lines, your OPINION will continue to be that much more foolish.

With a world of millions there are 100,000 gullible? Is that all?


In a world of BILLIONS in a state of ignorance and most would never normally even know that such a video exists...YET, 100k views in 3 days is pretty amazing and speaks volumes about its potential as more find out about it in world where the concepts are far advanced for this time period and conventional science to measure which is perpetuated by those such as yourself that keep it in its PRIMITIVE STATE... but when one with real critical thinking skills actually watches the videos and educates themselves on the facts and data that you or anyone has yet to disprove, or science advances in the future, only then will the true genius of these videos be recognized and considered more seriously by mainstream science which again, isn't advanced enough yet to comprehend.



Videos appeal to those that have closed minds and won't look into what is stated.


these words have to mean something by now ... POT KETTLE BLACK



you win the award for the most hypocritical closed-minded statement in this thread, and perhaps the entire ATS forum yet.

congratulations.



Quakes are not hitting this cycle.


Yes they are.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Yes, the data and evidence presented in the video is factual and I have yet to see any prove there's any false or inaccurate data and claims being made.

So if the video contains facts supported by evidence, how is that an OPINION?

and if its not an opinion, then how am I or anyone gullible if the claims and evidence can be verified as factual?

The video lied about 200 years of quake data.


No it didn't.



The video lied about platonic solids being at the basis of everything.


No it didn't.



Sounds like a lot of lies. Not evidence. Not opinion. A lot of lies.
The statement in the video are unsubstantiated. They are not evidence.


Yes they are.

But again, I've already addressed that issue in depth and context... something that you're hiding and twisting out of context to give the impression you've proven or disprove anything.

two words for you on that........EPIC FAIL



That's right you do not have the data you claim exists. It's a lie. You posted a lie.


I've already addressed that lie and proven otherwise.


The fact you THINK 60 miles is pathetic and not an extremely narrow parameter given the size of earth and whats been presented about the lines etc, is BEYOND PATHETIC and whats really laughable.
It is pathetic. Anyone that thinks 60 miles is accurate is foolish.


anyone that thinks 60 miles isn't accurate based on everything thats explained, is brain-dead


And how is 1 degree of width 300 miles?

Never stated that. Go back and read. Not the first time you have made a mistake of this nature.


Yes, that was the inference.

and its just plain dumb.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


whats stupid, is anyone that makes claims its stupid without first educating themselves on whats been presented and explained before criticizing... otherwise you run the risk of looking foolish and ignorant.

Watching that video is not education - it is a lesson in becoming a close minded fool. No wonder you didn't want to reveal the contents of the video. Every comment about the video is about idiocy from 200 years of data which you still have not presented to moronic claims of ancient advanced knowledge.


which is why your opinions and claims are worthless and have no logic or evidence to prove or disprove anything other than how incredibly ignorant you are on what you're criticizing and claim to be knowledgeable about.

the more you deny and lie, the more you validate the videos and help keep this thread BUMPED! he he

an excellent archive for casual readers using critical thinking skills to see stereo get schooled and spanked by Sacred Geometry and the Ley Lines of 188.

LOL



The ley lines width is stated to be approx 70 to 100 miles tops as I understand it.

So where does the 300 mile limit come into play?


and now we have confirmation that this is way over your head.


A Large or Major Quake has an affected area/radius ranging between 50 to 200 miles and up to 300 miles depending on the size.

Please explain what affected means here. Is that known a building down? Is it human felt? Is it detectable by modern instruments? What do you mean?


FELT
DAMAGE
etc

Certain magnitudes have a distance that they are felt and damage that occurs depending on depth etc.


So for such a quake to hit on and/or within proximity of that 70 mile line of 100 to 200 miles makes the
approx range 300 miles tops but usually an average of 100 to 200 tops which totally contradicts your claim of 600 miles.

Sorry. Thought you had passed math class. Here in second grade the kids learn that if you move up to 300 miles to the left of a line or up to 300 miles to the right of a line, then the range of places you can move to is 600 miles across or 300+300=600.


except in modern math class they aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the concepts of or teach about LEY LINES and that the context has to do with 1 side separately. Perhaps one day they'll begin teaching this and realize conventional science cannot explain or measure it properly... and 1st graders will look at comments like yours and laugh hysterically like I am right now.


and given the size of Earth, these parameters/measurements are quite specific and narrow which only further validates or at least is compelling evidence supporting the concept of these ley lines and theorem.

A 600 mile swath is hardly narrow. In science it would be considered too vague a measure to be useful.


except its not 600.


In which case, the significance and implications are incredible if not something worth of a nobel prize when primitive modern science advances enough to understand and measure what these videos present.

Maybe the video maker wanted to see how easy it is to dupe people.


Maybe you actually believe your claims and opinions aren't worthless and gullible people as lazy as you, will just believe what you say without actually THINKING for themselves using real critical thinking skills which you clearly lack.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
It's perfectly on topic - pointing out how you can make geometric shapes out of any dataset


not even remotely similar to anything the videos present nor what the ley lines are about.

nice try though.

not.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
except in modern math class they aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the concepts of or teach about LEY LINES and that the context has to do with 1 side separately.




Okay, I'm guessing that by ley line you don't actually know what a ley line is and haven't even read Waktin's book The Old Straight Track?

But if you have, pray tell us why it should be taught in maths lessons? Maybe they should teach about Tom Lethbridges theories on ghosts in high school maths lessons as well?


And back to my first post in this thread: any data can be used to make 'significant' patterns. Why is your data different?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



the Ley Lines are only crap to those who use and rely only off of PRIMITIVE CONVENTIONAL science to measure it. There's far more being presented in the videos than the narrow context of the ley lines and GAUGE you're attempting to use to measure them with especially the article which is also based on conventional science or methods. Its akin to primitive humans trying to understand what an eclipse was or even measure the processes involved.

So only the foolish that are gullible should believe in ley lines.

Conventional science is actually just science. This idiotic pseudoscience malarkey is so ridiculous that it lashes out at science. Pretending that the contents of the video is anything but nonsense is pretty funny.

Unlike the lies in the video science does not.

The funniest part is that the numbskull video relies on science for its basis.



But you can claim the ley lines are random crap all you want even when the videos and I have presented intelligent arguments that contradict your CLAIMS and OPINIONS.

Actually you have spent a good deal of your time posting lies.

You have also been unable to refute the randomness issue since you do not understand what that is about.


I and many others have seen your commentary in various threads for a long time and many have presented some great responses that show why having a masters degree, academic background, certain scientific knowledge and/or a big vocabulary and certain vernacular (lol), doesn't necessarily make you an authority on everything, or right. If you think you can use conventional physical science to measure or understand a far more advanced lost but re-emerging science which includes the concept of Ley lines based on concepts of Energy Lines and Grids that cannot be fully measured yet by current technology, thats fine and we can agree to disagree. But clearly the concepts the video presents is way over your head and this thread is a great testament showing a whole other side to an argument and issue you've tried and failed miserably to disprove and make gullible people believe conventional science has all the answers and if it doesn't conform to such out-moded science, then its all CRAP which shows how closed-minded conventional science is including those who rely on it to explain the Universe and what we can SEE using our 5 senses. Those who arrogantly buy into that "SYSTEM", and call Sacred Geometry or Ley Lines Crap, are among the most ignorant of all humans and responsible for the mind-set that has kept conventional science in its primitive stagnant state for hundreds of years, if not millennia. I'm sure you're also of the group that believes 9/11 was committed by muslim terrorists, or even that humans are the only, or most intelligent beings in the Universe. Anyways, just wanted to interject a side-note to put your argument in a different context since you seem to think it proves or disproves anything as it relates to the context of the videos and issue we're debating.

Totally off topic yawn complaint from someone that posts lies.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



and now you are LYING. But not a surprise since your attempts to disprove the ley lines and videos have failed miserably. However, it is what it is and I think most will be able to recognize your game by now.

You have repeatedly lied. You have not produced anything at all.

Where is the 200 years of data you claimed exist?


Nothing can top your idiotic comments that there is no quake data going back 200 years.

I have challenged you already to produce the data. I have even offered an apology if you do.

So where is it?


yet another example of a concept that go way over your head. lol But I'll let you enjoy your fantasy.

I truly feel sorry for people that cannot do and understand what I see second graders in my area handle.


NO, YOU DON'T have any idea what the stats and probabilities are or concepts of real patterns. This has gone way way over your head.

Actually I do. It is you who have no understanding as you have so abundantly shown time and time again. Maybe you are completely unaware of how foolish your comments on the subject have been.



In a world of BILLIONS in a state of ignorance and most would never normally even know that such a video exists...YET, 100k views in 3 days is pretty amazing and speaks volumes about its potential as more find out about it in world where the concepts are far advanced for this time period and conventional science to measure which is perpetuated by those such as yourself that keep it in its PRIMITIVE STATE... but when one with real critical thinking skills actually watches the videos and educates themselves on the facts and data that you or anyone has yet to disprove, or science advances in the future, only then will the true genius of these videos be recognized and considered more seriously by mainstream science which again, isn't advanced enough yet to comprehend.

yawn
Finally, no quakes are not hitting this fake cycle. If you checked the data yourself instead of being closed minded and accepting the dimwitted video you'd know.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Yes the video lied about the data. I have already provided a hint as to why. I even had to answer the hint for the incompetent. sheesh

The video lied about the platonic solids. Only fools fell for that claim.


But again, I've already addressed that issue in depth and context... something that you're hiding and twisting out of context to give the impression you've proven or disprove anything.

The only thing you have stated is to watch that idiotic video. You have provided nothing. You could, but you don't.


I've already addressed that lie and proven otherwise.

You lie again. Is there no shame in you?

Where is the data?


anyone that thinks 60 miles isn't accurate based on everything that's explained, is brain-dead

Anyone that thinks 60miles is accurate is a troll.


Yes, that was the inference.

and its just plain dumb.

This must be an ESL moment.
edit on 29-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



which is why your opinions and claims are worthless and have no logic or evidence to prove or disprove anything other than how incredibly ignorant you are on what you're criticizing and claim to be knowledgeable about.

the more you deny and lie, the more you validate the videos and help keep this thread BUMPED! he he

an excellent archive for casual readers using critical thinking skills to see stereo get schooled and spanked by Sacred Geometry and the Ley Lines of 188.

You've gone way beyond the risk of looking foolish.

You provide nothing except a stupid video.
I provided a number of articles showing how ley lines are wrong, how ley lines are indistinguishable from random data, how quakes are much more frequent than you knew, how scientists do not use descripitive terms such as mega-quake.

There are fools that fall for silly ideas like sacred geometry and pretend that there was a once great and gone knowledge. It is just fairy tales for children.



and now we have confirmation that this is way over your head.

You keep moving the goal posts.


FELT
DAMAGE
etc

Certain magnitudes have a distance that they are felt and damage that occurs depending on depth etc.

So instead of being a useful measure this is a measure of human determination of an event?

The recent Mineral, VA quake was not felt in places only 50 miles from the epicenter. On the other hand it was felt beyond New York City.


except in modern math class they aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the concepts of or teach about LEY LINES and that the context has to do with 1 side separately. Perhaps one day they'll begin teaching this and realize conventional science cannot explain or measure it properly... and 1st graders will look at comments like yours and laugh hysterically like I am right now.

So now you want to move the goal post.
If you had any basic knowledge of math then you would know that there is math covers what you mention.

First graders would not because they could not read the comments and comprehends the vocabulary. What children can do is the math which you seem unable to do.
edit on 29-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
7
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join