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

So I have 30 seconds before I go to read something important and I click on a random point in the video after the midpoint of the linked video. What pops up but humor.

"The whole of the 5 Platonic solids form the basis for the geometry of creation."

Isn't that what caused Kepler to lose years of time? He tried to force his data to fit such a scheme and it failed. Had he followed the data he would have been years ahead.

Then they link the 5 platonic solids to earth, wind, fire, water, aether. 23:19 Why? No reason. It's fairy tale land.

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
The follow up video to "God-Code Matrix of 188" out finally!

=============================================================

Is the 188-day cycle based on the RE-emerging and the lost Ancient Science of SACRED GEOMETRY?

And is it possible nearly EVERY, if not ALL major, historic and/or Mega-Quakes are connected to these LEY-LINES?

The evidence supporting this "theory" is both intriguing & compelling IMO.

Some excellent material that might even surprise one of the true modern pioneers of Sacred Geometry... Nassim Haramein

and this forums very own member "Izkaware" gets mad props in the video for his work in the FIRST thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.facebook.com...

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

Very interesting, thanks!

The next part random of this idiotic video I viewed was around 11 min. This is the part where the misses are construed to be future events.

That is typical ridiculousness. Failures are not failures. They are simply happening in another time or timeline.

This video is absolutely bad. Was this video constructed to make RV look respectable?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

NO its not.

they might have similarities, but they are not the same.

If anything, numerology is based ON Sacred Geometry... not vice versa.

Numerology is doing arithmetic operations for no apparent reason and claiming that the results are important. The dual in drawing is claiming importance to the shapes drawn although their constructions are as unreasoned as the arithmetic operations of numerology.

That they are beyond idiotic is nothing more than your OPINION that is itself, beyond ignorant on this subject.

It is hard to believe anyone would find your OPINION and criticism as it relates to these ley lines and video's,
anything more than worthless in determining their merit.

Quite correct. They are my opinions. They are based on a vast amount of knowledge showing how idiotic the claims are.

which is why most who HAVE seen them, realize the opinions and criticism by those who haven't, are meaningless.

I did watch the first few minutes of the video which just galvanized my position that videos stink and this one is a big stinker.

then you really HAVEN'T looked into SG if thats what you believe.

but since you offer no argument or evidence to support your claims, I think its only fair to say the same thing about your comments; Rubbish.

So you take this rubbish hook, line and sinker and I call it rubbish.

edit on 11-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

typical meaningless commentary and gibberish from someone who claims to apparently only have made it 3 minutes into a 58 minute video... then add another 23 minutes of context you're clueless about in the one before, and everyone now knows why your opinion about these video's, is beyond worthless and rubbish.

So where is......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Didn't bother reading past your first 3 words.

So where is there any content in your OPINION and criticism? At 3 words there wasn't any sufficient substance to cause anyone to spend more than 10 seconds reading further. Posts such as yours contain
virtually zero logic and substance to merit anyone agreeing or finding your opinion worthy of recognition in measuring truth and such video's that exceed your intellectual capacity to comprehend. Such is the nature of a certain higher FREQUENCY needed to resonate with subject matter of this caliber.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

i didnt watch the video,,, but i saw you commented about how geometry is stupid,,, and i disagree, i think its pretty nifty,.,.., geometry helps to form physical reality.,,,. balanced and symmetrical, 3 dimensional shapes are interesting!!

I've done a fair amount of geometry. Geometry is nifty. SG is not.

The ultimate example of an Oxymoron in the most IRONIC of contexts!

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

which is nothing more than your OPINION.
Here is an easy challenge for you. Please show that there was any content by 1 min and 30 secs.

No problem...... introductory "content" began at :05 seconds and lasted up to the next frames of credits that then began the primary INTRODUCTION laying a foundation for presenting the primary introductory content.

but then at 1:30 seconds, the initial credits and intro have barely finished. So why would you expect to understand the actual CONTENT of the video without having any CONTEXT?
You also glossed over the pointless jabber in that same time period. Why would anyone need to waste so much time in a video?

you seem to have the only opinion that anything in the video was a waste... especially the TIME & INTRO.

now why would that be?

This is why I hate skeptics who have nothing of substance to offer supporting their criticism these video's are rubbish and junk.

So where is there any content in that stupid video? Where is it?

What would be the point of answering your question when you refuse to watch past the opening credits or introduction?

if you feel its been a waste, then obviously the video is on too high of a frequency for you to grasp.

Where is the content of the video? As far as I saw it was pointless.

how would you know that if you refuse to watch past the opening credits or introduction?

Tell me where the relevant material is and I can check it out. I am not going to waste an hour watching some dim witted video.

If I were to do that, I'd probably gloss over important context that you'd be asking questions about or complaining makes no sense. So what would the point be to debate material out of context? There are many ideas, issues, ample evidence and data presented throughout the videoS that are linked at different intervals as well... So how does one choose/decide which is in your field of interest?

I thought Mr Stereologist was the CHAMPION & Master Debater of the ATS skeptic brigade? Which should mean such a debater would understand the essential elements involved in objective intelligent discourse & debate. Otherwise, what would be the point of entering a thread to DEBATE or CRITICIZE something expecting someone else to do anothers research give an out of context summary which would be unfair to the video and one of its primary disclaimers regarding context and framework?

Originally posted by stereologist
The next part random of this idiotic video I viewed was around 11 min. This is the part where the misses are construed to be future events.

That is typical ridiculousness. Failures are not failures. They are simply happening in another time or timeline.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But then, thats not much of a surprise considering your criticism, comments and opinions have been
formulated based on having viewed the videos out of context.

Originally posted by stereologist
This video is absolutely bad. Was this video constructed to make RV look respectable?

The fact you think and assume RV was involved or had anything to do with this video and discovery, makes you look beyond absolutely bad as a rational skeptic or academic mind.

Originally posted by stereologist
So I have 30 seconds before I go to read something important and I click on a random point in the video after the midpoint of the linked video. What pops up but humor.

so you object to HUMOR now and imply that somehow invalidates the video? LOL

Originally posted by stereologist
"The whole of the 5 Platonic solids form the basis for the geometry of creation."

Isn't that what caused Kepler to lose years of time? He tried to force his data to fit such a scheme and it failed. Had he followed the data he would have been years ahead.

Whether or not his "scheme" failed, doesn't negate or disprove Sacred Geometry.

Originally posted by stereologist
Then they link the 5 platonic solids to earth, wind, fire, water, aether. 23:19 Why? No reason. It's fairy tale land.
keplersdiscovery.com/Harmonies.html

Well, not sure what your point is or how exactly your point pertains to the issues presented, but since you want to venture off on a tangent, as its been explained... Plato is credited with discovering that only five three-dimensional, convex solids can be formed using regular convex polygons. When a sphere is circumscribed around each shape touching all its corners, the vertices mark off spherical polygons that define the only possible equal divisions of the sphere's surface area.

Earlier, in the 1597 Mysterium Cosmographicum Kepler proposed that a nested arrangement of the Platonic Solids determines the spacing between the planetary orbits. Kepler discovered, he believed, that harmonic relationships structure the characteristics of the planetary orbits individually, and their relationship to one another.

The gap in Kepler's theory of the harmonic theory of the planetary orbits represented by the asteroid belt seems to indicate that he had discovered something consequential about the ordering of our Solar System.

From his earliest investigations Kepler knew that the speed of the planets decreases with increasing distance from the Sun, and he sought some rule or principle that connected speed and distance. Believing as he did that the same immaterial species of universal gravitation produced all planetary motion, he was convinced that a regular relationship must exist.

Thus, in the course of his concluding investigations into the harmonic structure of the cosmos, Kepler discovered that the ratio of the square of a planet's period to the cube of its semi-major axis (see below) is constant for all orbits.

Today, we know this relationship as Kepler's Third Law. Many consider it to be one of the most elegant results in all of astronomy.

Thread needs to be closed and reopened. All you guys are doing is bickering.

What a waste of space. Nobody will read this with the front page looking like that.

Now, here is REAL sacred geometry that derives superstring theory, the human skeleton, DNA and other "scientific" phenomena and proves that the Otz Chiim, Sri Yantra and other sacred geometries are equivalent representations of the same mathematical pattern underlying holistic systems:
smphillips.8m.com...
Perhaps it will make some of you skeptics, who correctly reject so much of the useless junk on the intenet that calls itself "sacred geometry", revise your opinions.

reply to post by truthseekr1111


Shouting does not make your false claims any more truthful.

The problem here is that this entire claim is based on appealing to the ignorant and those want to remain ignorant.

There has been no effort made to point out anything important in the video. What I did see int he first few minutes was junk and 2 random stabs at finding something (since no one seems able to point to anything) found completely laughable statements.

If all of the text in the video were placed into one spot I doubt there would be more than 3 paragraphs which could be read in a minute. The point of this video is to drag out the lunacy into a painfully long time span. The same is true of many videos on youtube

reply to post by truthseekr1111

Didn't bother reading past your first 3 words.

Don't expect me to reply with a video.

Where is there substance in the video? Please tell us all where in that silly video is there any content.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

The ultimate example of an Oxymoron in the most IRONIC of contexts!

A post without content. This reminds me of the video.

So where is there any content in the video?

reply to post by truthseekr1111

No problem...... introductory "content" began at :05 seconds and lasted up to the next frames of credits that then began the primary INTRODUCTION laying a foundation for presenting the primary introductory content.

There was nothing in that first part of the video except for some junk about the bad music and that there was no narration.

you seem to have the only opinion that anything in the video was a waste... especially the TIME & INTRO.

That is a fallacy. You have no way of knowing that. Then again if you think there is content in the video I am not surprised by this illogical conclusion.

What would be the point of answering your question when you refuse to watch past the opening credits or introduction?

I stopped watching the video because I consider my time valuable. If there were any content you could say something like at mm:ss the folloowing is described.

how would you know that if you refuse to watch past the opening credits or introduction?

Why are you unable to point out any content to a video? Not everyone has high speed internet. Not everyone can wait an hour or more for the video to download. Some people have to pay by megs downloaded. The video may be too pricey to do on a whim.

If I were to do that, I'd probably gloss over important context that you'd be asking questions about or complaining makes no sense. So what would the point be to debate material out of context? There are many ideas, issues, ample evidence and data presented throughout the videoS that are linked at different intervals as well... So how does one choose/decide which is in your field of interest?

Stop making excuses as to why you can't point out content. Is this because you can't point to the content? When people begin to look back at videos like this they realize how poorly constructed it is and how they fell for some simple graphics and how it is not well done and full of mistakes. That is when there comes the refusal to point out content.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But then, thats not much of a surprise considering your criticism, comments and opinions have been
formulated based on having viewed the videos out of context.

I provided the time. I provided the content at the time. If you cannot be bothered to check it out, then I am not surprised. It is very possible that you did not watch carefully and did not understand what was being stated. That is ok. You can go back and disagree with me on the content, not on this off topic childish bickering you are attempting with me.

The fact you think and assume RV was involved or had anything to do with this video and discovery, makes you look beyond absolutely bad as a rational skeptic or academic mind.

A rather bad attempt at a strong man argument. Please reread my post and realize I did not connect the video with RV. I stated that the video was so ridiculous it makes anything seem reasonable in comparison.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

so you object to HUMOR now and imply that somehow invalidates the video? LOL

Another poor attempt to misrepresent what I have written. No. The video posted something so silly I thought it was funny.

Whether or not his "scheme" failed, doesn't negate or disprove Sacred Geometry. /quote]
What it does show is that the video is wrong. It claims that everything is based on platonic solids and that idea cost Kepler years of effort. The video is wrong. I gave an example of an error detected centuries ago. That's right it has been known for centuries this is a wrong concept. I also discussed the fact that this sacred idea has been costly to the people that have followed it.

Well, not sure what your point is or how exactly your point pertains to the issues presented, but since you want to venture off on a tangent, as its been explained... Plato is credited with discovering that only five three-dimensional, convex solids can be formed using regular convex polygons. When a sphere is circumscribed around each shape touching all its corners, the vertices mark off spherical polygons that define the only possible equal divisions of the sphere's surface area.

I am well aware of all of that. I have done the proof. It's not very hard.

What you do not explain about Kepler is that this idea of the nested platonic solids was a failure. It cost him dearly in terms of years of effort. I do not believe that Kepler thought about gravity as being a universal force. That would be an idea suggested by Newton, wasn't it?

You post is in violation of copyright restrictions. You need to make reference to whose words you are using.

Seriously.

There are more important things, I think.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by stereologist
The video is void of content. It was created by an arrogant child that comes across as uneducated. The snotty comments in the first 3 minutes of film. The bad music and the comment about the music show that it is a stinker.

Watched about half of it and it is pretty bad. I decided not to waste any more time when the MEGAQUAKE of May 21, 2012 in Oaxaca shows up on earthquakereport.com as a 4.9

Whats actually BAD is your apparent research skills that make your comments beyond FOOLISH.

So you're either just a LIAR, or just lack basic critical thinking/research skills to CLAIM any real and official earthquake report lists the OAXACA quake as a 4.9 or that the video said anything about that quake being 4.9!

but then the PROOF that its probably a combination because YOU FAILED TO WATCH THE VIDEO, is the FACT that you THINK and CLAIM the video says anything about such a Quake ON MAY 21ST 2012 as well.



next time you're going to ridicule something or someone and expose yourself to be so ignorant, you might want to make sure you understand what it is you're criticizing...

in this case, WATCHING THE VIDEO would have helped ... but seeing you missed such a BASIC FACT, I doubt it

but your next comment is SO BAD which gives the term a whole new meaning, I'm actually embarrassed for you...

Originally posted by daskakik
and the intersection on the map which he claims lines right up is about 1500km from Oaxaca.

Hmmmm

so you're actually claiming the video claims the Oaxaca Quake, was 900 miles from a Ley-Line (and/or intersection--which it DIDNT')?

realllllllllly?

but okay, lets see how FAR the Oaxaca Quake on MARCH 21st 2012 (from the video this person claims is BAD even though he/she claims to have watched HALF ) that had readings as high as 8.2, really was from the LEY LINES OF 188 shall we?



There's quite a difference between 126 miles and 900 miles which is far more amazing when you realize the lines radius is approx 50-75 miles wide!

What method of computation did you use to arrive at that distance?

Now thats what you call BAD

Only thing I have left to say in the words of Homer Simpson is...

DOH!

moral of the story folks? WATCH THE VIDEO or you'll be choking on shoe laces and probably won't be able to troll threads anymore unless you change your username.

reply to post by truthseekr1111


I watched party of that asinine video. There is less than 5minutes of reading, probably 3 minutes of reading. What is there to this video that is useful. The first 3 minutes were valueless. Two random checks in the video showed clear stupidity on the part of the author with issues so wrong it was laughable. I am referring for instance to the idiotic claim of platonic solids being at the root of everything.

I'm unclear as to why anyone would pay any attention to such a video. If you think there is anything of value why not post it.