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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Shouting does not make your false claims any more truthful.


using CAPS for EMPHASIS, does not mean I'm shouting...however, NOT shouting doesn't disprove what been claimed either. lol


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


and your OPINION the claims made are appealing to the ignorant, is nothing more than YOUR OPINION and doesn't prove YOUR claim.

but I can cite hundreds of intelligent comments from what are clearly VERY intelligent and educated people, praising the video who would laugh at your ignorant commentary. In fact, from what I've seen so far, 90% of the comments from over 2000 messages, have nothing but kudos and praise as well.

nice try though.


Originally posted by stereologist
There has been no effort made to point out anything important in the video.


There are hundreds if not thousands who would DISAGREE with your OPINION... So who cares? No big loss there as it pertains to anything the video claims and presents.


Originally posted by stereologist
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.


The fact you CLAIM the video "found" something that you're unable to even specify, makes this OPINION of yours beyond laughable if not completely worthless. Talk about wasting energy, being junk and going no where.



Originally posted by stereologist
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


You keep making that worthless claim about something you claim is worthless which you've repeatedly failed to even prove or back up with anything other than worthless OPINIONS about a subject you've proven you have no intellectual comprehension of probably due to the fact you've really never actually watched the video.
But then, as one of the responses points out... since the majority of the masses resonate at very low frequencies and prefer subject matter that involves no intelligent thought processes which these video's require, your comments are a typical reflection of the state of ignorance our society is currently in.


edit on 17-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Ley lines remind me of the Bermuda triangle. Everyone draws their own lines. The BT was drawn in different places by different authors with some covering nearly the entire northern Atlantic. Ley lines are drawn by people in a whimsical helter skelter manner. Another funny thing are the energy vortex maps sold in Sedona. My favorite wacko place. The map shows a vortex of forgetfulness behind the post office. I'm sure as the town changed the maps have been changed to adjust for new construction.

The ley lines drawer often does so on the basis of some subjective notion and makes uneducated claims about the lines such as those in the video. Select enough points on a sphere and the possible lines is large and can be made to cover anything of interest. This of course relies on real science to have collected the data in the first place.

Here is a brief write up on the history of ley lines and their dubious nature. It describes the funny notion that the Earth is actually a dodecahedron crystal.
saskskeptics.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



There are hundreds if not thousands who would DISAGREE with your OPINION... So who cares? No big loss there as it pertains to anything the video claims and presents.

When asked you simply stated that the entire video had to be watched. When I hear someone state that I am of the opinion that the person writing that is aware that nothing in the video makes sense. They are unable to state anything in particular since nothing in particular makes sense.




Originally posted by stereologist
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


You keep making that worthless claim about something you claim is worthless which you've repeatedly failed to even prove or back up with anything other than worthless OPINIONS about a subject you've proven you have no intellectual comprehension of probably due to the fact you've really never actually watched the video.
But then, as one of the responses points out... since the majority of the masses resonate at very low frequencies and prefer subject matter that involves no intelligent thought processes which these video's require, your comments are a typical reflection of the state of ignorance our society is currently in.

I continue to stand by my position that there is very little content in the video and that it could be read in a few minutes without wasting a lot of time watching the video or wasting bandwidth.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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?


Yet another response without any specific question or argument showing exactly how or where the video's present no content. lol

which is probably due to the fact there's nothing wrong with the claims, ideas, or evidence and content presented.

I guess you figured the easy way to make it appear as if there's no content.

lol



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Yet another response without any specific question or argument showing exactly how or where the video's present no content. lol

which is probably due to the fact there's nothing wrong with the claims, ideas, or evidence and content presented.

I guess you figured the easy way to make it appear as if there's no content.

Pretending is okay in this thread since it is about the asinine idea of ley lines. You are pretending that I did not ask a question. I did. I am asking you, if there is any place in the video with content worth watching.

I already know there is nothing to watch in the first 3 minutes. That is a complete waste of time. I also know there are 2 spots I chose at random that are poppycock as well.

Where is there any content worth watching?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Finding articles on the ridiculous nature of ley lines is oh, so easy.

Here is another write up.
www.skeptical-science.com...

To illustrate all this, there is a website created by a smart chap called Tom Scott, and as a piece of satire that mocks all this, I love it. No matter where you are in the UK, you can key in your postcode and it will quickly tell you about the 3 or more ley lines the converge at that point, thus proving you are currently at a hub of “spiritual” power (no need to trek to Stonehenge)


So here is another write up showing that by selecting sufficient points on a sphere you can make up any grid you want to.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


more claims and opinions implying there's no content even though THOUSANDS would disagree with you.

Yawwn


Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Claiming the video's contain no content etc, is far worse and ridiculous than any such fallacy in the context you're claiming if you've refused to watch the video's to get any context let alone show you know anything
thats been discussed in the video OR EVEN WHAT THE DEFINITION OF CONTENT IS...

-------------------------------------------------
con·tent1    [kon-tent] Show IPA
noun
1.
Usually, contents.
a.
something that is contained: the contents of a box.
b.
the subjects or topics covered in a book or document.
c.
the chapters or other formal divisions of a book or document: a table of contents.
2.
something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech, writing, or any of various arts: a poetic form adequate to a poetic content.
3.
significance or profundity; meaning: a clever play that lacks content.
4.
substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation: publishers, record companies, and other content providers; a flashy Web site, but without much content.
5.
that which may be perceived in something: the latent versus the manifest content of a dream.
=====================================================================

FACT, the video is apprx 90 minutes in length which contains ample CONTENT that MOST OBJECTIVE rational people with a half a brain, would agree with; something that can easily be demonstrated with simple research
on the video comments section let alone thousands of pages and tons if not hundreds of sites & forums on the net discussing these videos.


Originally posted by stereologist
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.


if you stopped watching the video, how would you know there's no content? LOL

the fact you can't even specify an example to prove you've actually watched more than 2 minutes of even one video of 3 that contain an HOUR and a HALF of CONTENT and when THOUSANDS have posted comments praising the CONTENT, makes your OPINION and comments there's no content, all the more laughable if not worthless.

why would you enter this thread to criticize something you claim isn't worth your "valuable" time?

If I didn't know better, I'd say this tactic of yours is a clever way to derail the thread and piss off the mods in an attempt to have it closed (which someone even suggested). lol gawd ur making this obvious man. Pure Genius stereOOOH. Is that in the debunker hand-book as well?


Originally posted by stereologist
>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.


excuses excuses. so see above.

oh and btw, the video is FREE. lol

nice try again though buddy.


Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Yawn.


Originally posted by stereologist
Is this because you can't point to the content?


yaaawn.


Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Yet you've failed miserably to point out a single mistake or how exactly they're poorly constructed which is based on nothing more than the worthless opinion of someone who refuses to watch more than maybe 2 minutes of videos that are almost 90 minutes in length.


if they're so poorly constructed, surely there would be more people in some reasonable percentile out of over 100,000 viewers, saying something similar.

I can't find any with your OPINON.

and those who have any negative comments, not only represent less than 1% of them, but when one actually analyzes those with such negative comments, find that 99% of that 1%, either haven't watched the videos, watched 2 minutes of the intro, offer zero evidence to back up what they claim is BS, or end up making foolish claims about things that were never even discussed in the video as PROVEN by the previous post above in this very thread.



Originally posted by stereologist
That is when there comes the refusal to point out content.


for the record, you sound like a broken stereo record

but then, its not my job nor any need to waste my time attempting to prove there's "content" to someone
that refuses to watch more than the intro of a 90 minute video, and who makes himself out to
be one of the most objective, intelligent debunkers on ATS.

edit on 17-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Once again stereo shows the extent of his ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter of Sacred Geometry.

Thats the best you can do stereo? paraphrasing 1 blurb out of context implying one of the fundamental principles or foundations of Sacred Geometry, has nothing to with exactly what was stated, or that somehow
your OPINION thats based on ZERO understanding and knowledge of SG, somehow invalidates the videos or proves SG is nonsense, OR that the statement made isn't accurate as it relates to SG???

oooo yeah sure stereo, whatever you say... we all bow to such supreme wisdom you have to teach the world... Sacred Geometry is just a bunch of Line Drawing or Numerology in "drawn" form!





Originally posted by stereologist
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.


now that your game here is clear, why would I waste my time when you post such idiotic claims like there's no content and prove you have no real intention to objectively discuss anything presented or the content which it clearly has plenty of? If its your OPINION there is no content and nothing of substance or interest has been presented, then THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION however ignorant and meaningless it is.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



more claims and opinions implying there's no content even though THOUSANDS would disagree with you.

Yawwn

There are no thousands of words in the video. Please stick to the truth. Please point out anything of value in the video. Apparently, you cannot.


Claiming the video's contain no content etc, is far worse and ridiculous than any such fallacy in the context you're claiming if you've refused to watch the video's to get any context let alone show you know anything
thats been discussed in the video OR EVEN WHAT THE DEFINITION OF CONTENT IS...

You are still unable to point to anything in the video. That is why I called the video worthless.


FACT, the video is apprx 90 minutes in length which contains ample CONTENT that MOST OBJECTIVE rational people with a half a brain, would agree with; something that can easily be demonstrated with simple research
on the video comments section let alone thousands of pages and tons if not hundreds of sites & forums on the net discussing these videos.

The video in the OP is less than 30 minutes in length. If there were something of interest in the video then according to you someone "with a half a brain" could have pointed to it.


if you stopped watching the video, how would you know there's no content? LOL

The first 3 minutes had no content. Two samples turned up no content. Why would anyone continue watching such a video.


the fact you can't even specify an example to prove you've actually watched more than 2 minutes of even one video of 3 that contain an HOUR and a HALF of CONTENT and when THOUSANDS have posted comments praising the CONTENT, makes your OPINION and comments there's no content, all the more laughable if not worthless.

That is untrue. I did. Go back. Read the thread.


If I didn't know better, I'd say this tactic of yours is a clever way to derail the thread and piss off the mods in an attempt to have it closed (which someone even suggested). lol gawd ur making this obvious man. Pure Genius stereOOOH. Is that in the debunker hand-book as well?

Where is there anything of value in the video. If there is something then you could discuss it instead of discussing off topic issues such as me.

edit on 17-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Once again stereo shows the extent of his ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter of Sacred Geometry.

There you go and show that you lied in your previous post. No surprise there.


oooo yeah sure stereo, whatever you say... we all bow to such supreme wisdom you have to teach the world... Sacred Geometry is just a bunch of Line Drawing or Numerology in "drawn" form!

Not sure why that is so hard to understand. Not sure why people fall for this wacko stuff. Maybe you can tell us why you think there is anything of interest there.


now that your game here is clear, why would I waste my time when you post such idiotic claims like there's no content and prove you have no real intention to objectively discuss anything presented or the content which it clearly has plenty of? If its your OPINION there is no content and nothing of substance or interest has been presented, then THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION however ignorant and meaningless it is.

Please stop whining and tell us what is of interest in the video.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
In this third link about the wacko idea of ley lines we have.

www.reference.com...

So far we have seen that the idea of ley lines is a mistaken idea based on an idea from the 1920s. It did not pan out but was reinvented by new agers and dressed in all sorts of dubious claims such as being magical or energy filled or detectable by dowsers. We all know that dowsing doesn't work. We know that chance alignments work as well as the purposeful efforts of the various ley line drawers.


The diagram to the right shows an example of lines that pass very near to a set of random points: for all practical purposes, they can be regarded as nearly "exact" alignments. Naturally, it is debated whether all ley lines can be accounted for in this way, or whether there are more such lines than would be expected by chance. (For a mathematical treatment of this topic, see alignments of random points.)


It turns out that the diagrams simply place enough points and use subjective reasons for choosing which points to connect to construct the ley lines. Then toss in some magic and fairy dust and SG and fake claims about energies or whatever and then you have nonsense such as the video.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Ley lines remind me of the Bermuda triangle. Everyone draws their own lines. The BT was drawn in different places by different authors with some covering nearly the entire northern Atlantic. Ley lines are drawn by people in a whimsical helter skelter manner. Another funny thing are the energy vortex maps sold in Sedona. My favorite wacko place. The map shows a vortex of forgetfulness behind the post office. I'm sure as the town changed the maps have been changed to adjust for new construction.


well its a good thing then, that the 188 ley-lines have nothing to do with those of the BT and the video makes no mention of that "wacky" place having anything to do with them. lol


Originally posted by stereologist
The ley lines drawer often does so on the basis of some subjective notion and makes uneducated claims about the lines such as those in the video.


Like WHAT???


Originally posted by stereologist
Select enough points on a sphere and the possible lines is large and can be made to cover anything of interest.


Sorry, but the issue of the Ley-Lines and whats been claimed and presented, has nothing to do with them "covering" anything in the context you're talking about. Your lack of knowledge about the subject, shows how uneducated you are on whats been presented in the video's.


Originally posted by stereologist
This of course relies on real science to have collected the data in the first place.


how does that point relate to or even disprove anything presented in the video?


Originally posted by stereologist
Here is a brief write up on the history of ley lines and their dubious nature. It describes the funny notion that the Earth is actually a dodecahedron crystal.
saskskeptics.com...


one of the more poorly written articles on Ley-Lines and posted by someone who has poorly researched the subject and implies the article somehow invalidates SG or anything presented in the video's. But what else would one expect when the article's author is the same type of DEBUNKER like Stereo who already has pre-concieved notions or BIASES to begin with, which prevent them from offering any OBJECTIVE criticism or opinions.



edit on 17-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Finding articles on the ridiculous nature of ley lines is oh, so easy.

Here is another write up.
www.skeptical-science.com...

To illustrate all this, there is a website created by a smart chap called Tom Scott, and as a piece of satire that mocks all this, I love it. No matter where you are in the UK, you can key in your postcode and it will quickly tell you about the 3 or more ley lines the converge at that point, thus proving you are currently at a hub of “spiritual” power (no need to trek to Stonehenge)


So here is another write up showing that by selecting sufficient points on a sphere you can make up any grid you want to.


Except the "points" that create the 188 Ley-Line Grid, aren't based on just "any" random points, which alone contradicts your claim.

the article you post is laughable at best, especially as it relates to anything presented in the videos as evidenced by the opening sentence... A theory that was actually REJECTED in the videos having nothing to do with the ley-lines of 188.

yawn.

the guy who wrote that could probably make serious money selling it as a sleeping pill



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Yet another response without any specific question or argument showing exactly how or where the video's present no content. lol

which is probably due to the fact there's nothing wrong with the claims, ideas, or evidence and content presented.


Originally posted by stereologist
I guess you figured the easy way to make it appear as if there's no content.

Pretending is okay in this thread since it is about the asinine idea of ley lines. You are pretending that I did not ask a question. I did. I am asking you, if there is any place in the video with content worth watching.

I already know there is nothing to watch in the first 3 minutes. That is a complete waste of time. I also know there are 2 spots I chose at random that are poppycock as well.
Where is there any content worth watching?


Its not my job to tell you what part is "worth" watching

if you believe its not worth watching, then you don't have to watch it all.

however if you do decide to, then the burden is upon you to support any claims you make about the video or where exactly and why you believe its wrong.

saying there is no content in an almost 90 minute video, or asking what is worth watching, only suggests you have no interest to engage in any objective or intelligent discourse because you're biased to begin with and have an agenda.
edit on 17-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Like WHAT??? /quote]
Like the idiotic claims about plantonic solids. (facepalm inserted)


Sorry, but the issue of the Ley-Lines and whats been claimed and presented, has nothing to do with them "covering" anything in the context you're talking about. Your lack of knowledge about the subject, shows how uneducated you are on whats been presented in the video's.

So what is in the video that is worth watching? A simple question you seem unable to answer.


how does that point relate to or even disprove anything presented in the video? /quote]
Ley line drawers put the cart before the horse. (facepalm inserted)


one of the more poorly written articles on Ley-Lines and posted by someone who has poorly researched the subject and implies the article somehow invalidates SG or anything presented in the video's. But what else would one expect when the article's author is the same type of DEBUNKER like Stereo who already has pre-concieved notions or BIASES to begin with, which prevent them from offering any OBJECTIVE criticism or opinions.

That is your opinion and nothing more. You have repeatedly stated "is nothing more than YOUR OPINION and doesn't prove YOUR claim. "

The article actually contained content and it was read in a matter of minutes. Simple extrapolation suggests it contained 2X the content of the video.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Except the "points" that create the 188 Ley-Line Grid, aren't based on just "any" random points, which alone contradicts your claim.

Sorry you missed the point. The point is that random points do the same as selected points. In other words, there is no difference between random selection and purposeful selection. It does not contradict my claim.


the article you post is laughable at best, especially as it relates to anything presented in the videos as evidenced by the opening sentence... A theory that was actually REJECTED in the videos having nothing to do with the ley-lines of 188.

Tell us how. Ley lines are a joke. A very poorly constructed joke at best.

The video appears to be contentless and I see no reason to view any other portions of the poorly done video. You claim it is of value. So please tell us all instead of repeating the vacuous claim that it has content.


the guy who wrote that could probably make serious money selling it as a sleeping pill

Sorry it was over your head. It certainly discussed issues much more complicated that the few minutes I saw in that horrible video. The article certainly has much, much more content that the video could possible have. The mathematical issues are more complex than the silly talk in the video. The demonstration of how easy it is to construct ley lines for any postal address in the UK also shows the ludicrous nature of the ley lines construction.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Yet another response without any specific question or argument showing exactly how or where the video's present no content. lol

which is probably due to the fact there's nothing wrong with the claims, ideas, or evidence and content presented.

There is zero content on the subject in the first 3 minutes of the video. I have repeatedly stated that. So you are lying or did not read my post. That's ok. That is why I repeated it here.

Where is there any content to the video? You claim the 28 minute video is 90 minutes long. That should be enough video to find some content. Can't you?


however if you do decide to, then the burden is upon you to support any claims you make about the video or where exactly and why you believe its wrong.

I already stated that one of the random checks makes the idiotic claim that everything is based on the 5 platonic solids. I already stated that was a stupid claim. Kepler wasted a great deal of time trying to use that scheme. It has been known for centuries that is a false idea.


saying there is no content in an almost 90 minute video, or asking what is worth watching, only suggests you have no interest to engage in any objective or intelligent discourse because you're biased to begin with and have an agenda.

As I explained before not everyone has the luxury of cheap high speed unlimited bandwidth.

So why don't you tell people what in the 28 minutes of video is worth watching.

If it were written material or there were a transcription of the material I could have read it in under 3 minutes.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

Please, I'm not trying to ridicule I spotted and pointed out a couple of errors. The video even has a graphic, which like the one you posted, indicates that the quake was downgraded. So the claim of it being a megaquake is a flat out lie. It even says it was the largest of 2012 which is another lie because the largest was in Indonesia. It doesn't help that the person can't get the facts straight.

Here is a the place were I found the Oaxaca quake report earthquake-report.com....

The image you posted and the video's flat map which shows the spot where the quake occurred don't match up and it looks like the quake had happened closer to Puerto Vallarta which is about 1500km from Oaxaca.

img.abovetopsecret.com...

So after lying and showing that he is sloppy in his drawings how can someone not question the videos validity.
edit on 17-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

Please, I'm not trying to ridicule I spotted and pointed out a couple of errors. The video even has a graphic, which like the one you posted, indicates that the quake was downgraded.

So the claim of it being a megaquake is a flat out lie.


NO IT WASN'T... you just can't comprehend what you read.

The OAXACA quake whether or not downgraded, still falls into the technical category of a MEGA-quake....

thats a FACT, NOT a lie. Please retract your remark.


Originally posted by daskakik
It even says it was the largest of 2012 which is another lie because the largest was in Indonesia. It doesn't help that the person can't get the facts straight.


NO, the real problem is that YOU didn't and still DON'T have your FACTS straight, and seem to have a reading comprehension or RECALL problem.

The context of the video explains that the Oaxaca Quake REMAINED the largest Quake of the year as of THAT point which was BEFORE the quake in SUMATRA which btw, the video author accurately predicted as well.


Originally posted by daskakik
Here is a the place were I found the Oaxaca quake report earthquake-report.com....


well at least now we know the first mistake you made and why you made yourself look REALLY BAD, not to mention you can't even repost or find the SOURCE you CLAIM to have used, yet you still chose to make unsupported claims as FACT in your failed attempt to debunk the video due to ignorance and ego.


Originally posted by daskakik
The image you posted and the video's flat map which shows the spot where the quake occurred don't match up and it looks like the quake had happened closer to Puerto Vallarta which is about 1500km from Oaxaca.


the 2D maps show a 2D location which most with common sense, understand cannot project the type of accuracy you're interpreting, however the projection gives the closest approximation such a map is able to give. But the video ALSO showed the 3D projection which DID give an accurate position of the Quake in relation to Ley Lines which was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! So don't blame anyone but yourself for YOUR ERROR and failure to have MISSED key context and what was actually stated.


Originally posted by daskakik
img.abovetopsecret.com...
So after lying and showing that he is sloppy in his drawings how can someone not question the videos validity.


Learn how to QUESTION better which involves checking your facts and educating yourself on them as well instead of being the one that was really SLOPPY in your derogatory remarks that were based on your ignorance and mistakes, not the video or maps.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join