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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

Which definition do you use for a megaquake?

The USGS suggests this category is a reference to quakes of M10 or more.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

The news thinks that megaquakes could be as low as M7.

So what do you define as a megaquake?




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
The OAXACA quake whether or not downgraded, still falls into the technical category of a MEGA-quake....

Your trying to hard. The clasiffication scale doesn't even include a megaquake classification but a major earthquake is at least 7.0. The closest thing to Mega Quake that I found was Megathrust earthquake but it states:

Since 1900, all six earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater have been megathrust earthquakes.

9.0 or greater is far from Oaxaca's 4.9, so no it wasn't a mega quake.

According to the first site linked, it is estimated that 30,000 quakes between 2.5 and 5 occur every year.


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.

Actually you may be right because I stopped watching at about the middle. If the creator of the video had done a better job and not made claims that something was true, only to try and correct it later, there would be no misunderstanding. He should have just left them out.


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,

Really I said in my first post that I had gotten the information from "earthquakereport.com" I missed the hyphen big deal. In my second post I posted the link so your point makes no sense.


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.

Quit making excuses for the guy in the video, unless you are in fact him, in which case just own up to the mistakes. I just pulled up the screen shot that I posted and easily marked the place were Oaxaca is at so your excuse is just that. Putting images that don't match up is sloppy even if one is accurate and the others not.


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.

I think that my facts are backed up but are falling on deaf ears. By the way 30,000 quakes of that magnitude a year pretty much assures a quake is going to happen every day within a few hundred kms from some ley line.
edit on 18-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

Which definition do you use for a megaquake?

The USGS suggests this category is a reference to quakes of M10 or more.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

The news thinks that megaquakes could be as low as M7.

So what do you define as a megaquake?


www.macmillandictionary.com...

www.wordnik.com...

en.wiktionary.org...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
The OAXACA quake whether or not downgraded, still falls into the technical category of a MEGA-quake..

Your trying to hard. The clasiffication scale doesn't even include a megaquake classification but a major earthquake is at least 7.0. The closest thing to Mega Quake that I found was Megathrust earthquake but it states:

Since 1900, all six earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater have been megathrust earthquakes.

9.0 or greater is far from Oaxaca's 4.9, so no it wasn't a mega quake.


Uh, YES IT WAS.

see post above to Stereo.

and please STOP LYING about the quake being a 4.9. You're making yourself look BAD and approaching very IGNORANT each time you repeat a LIE.

But then, even if we argue semantics over definition, ITS STILL IRRELEVANT and has no bearing on whether or not the 188 day pattern was validated.

why?

because that Quake aside from hitting readings as high as 8.2 and whether downgraded (by an agency that has manipulated data and has been shown to have errors in their data, some of which have never been explained or corrected) not only hit a category of magnitude that HAS IN FACT been defined as a MegaQuake, but was LARGE and POWERFUL enough to have met the CRITERION/parameters as to SIZE AND DATE predicted, explained and warned of by the video LONG BEFORE the event occurred.


Originally posted by daskakik
According to the first site linked, it is estimated that 30,000 quakes between 2.5 and 5 occur every year.


IRRELEVANT.


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.

Actually you may be right because I stopped watching at about the middle.


i rest my case.




If the creator of the video had done a better job and not made claims that something was true, only to try and correct it later, there would be no misunderstanding. He should have just left them out.


WHY? what correction was necessary? what correction WASN'T MADE? It "WAS" (made) explained IN the VIDEO!!! lol


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,

Really I said in my first post that I had gotten the information from "earthquakereport.com" I missed the hyphen big deal. In my second post I posted the link so your point makes no sense.


Yes it does... the 2D map was only to give a rough estimate as to SCALE and was somewhat DISTORTED itself anyways!... which is WHY there's a 3D ACCURATE MAP/PROJECTION to SUPPORT it in the SAME video! lol

but since you admit you NEVER WATCHED IT, but STILL decided to CRITICIZE it based on ZERO context, its no wonder you look really bad now. Its like a teacher who decides to teach the class a great lesson they could apply to the REAL WORLD, with a POP QUIZ as they walk into class... The teacher passes out a 3 page test with questions to answer, and advises the class to read through all the INSTRUCTIONS on each page before finishing... The students start in answering the questions... after about 1 minute, one of the students named JOHNNY, puts down his pen while the rest of the class looks astonished he already finished answering 3 pages of questions. After 20 minutes of answering questions, you begin to hear groans from the rest of the class as they begin to realize their mistake and WHY Johnny finished so quickly...Johnny decided to READ THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONS at the END of page 3 which said... "DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS EXAM".

But also, the MAP you posted is a DIFFERENT TYPE OF MAP and has a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCALE and clarity! duh. Lol


edit on 19-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
in reply to truthseeker
the 2D maps show a 2D location which most with common sense, understand cannot project the type of accuracy you're interpreting, 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!
---
Quit making excuses for the guy in the video, unless you are in fact him, in which case just own up to the mistakes. I just pulled up the screen shot that I posted and easily marked the place were Oaxaca is at so your excuse is just that. Putting images that don't match up is sloppy even if one is accurate and the others not.


except THERE WAS NO MISTAKE on this, in the video… you just failed to understand the context.

stop making excuses for YOURSELF.

and as a big supporter of these video's and in general since I'm sick of hypocrites, trolls, shills, and those who make claims they can't back up, are too lazy to do research, and don't employ basic truth-seeking skills, yet still decide to post derogatory comments about something being wrong when in fact THEY'RE the ones who are WRONG, you're damn right I'm going to defend it and hold others to the most basic standard if they can't.


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.

I think that my facts are backed up but are falling on deaf ears.


I think you're blind if you think you've backed up anything you've claimed, and really ignorant if you think what you did say, contained any facts.


Originally posted by daskakik
By the way 30,000 quakes of that magnitude a year pretty much assures a quake is going to happen every day within a few hundred kms from some ley line.


except the QUAKE wasn't of that magnitude.


you're really making this too easy.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

Did you really need 2 posts to try to clear up a couple of mistakes in a video?

The quake was 4.9 and that is far below the 7 that you claim is a megaquake.

First you claim it was not 4.9 and that I was lying, then you try to say "the man" fudged the data.

4.9 is in the 2.5 to 5 range so yes there are 30,000 quakes a year in that range, yet you disregard that fact as irrelevant.

I watched enough to notice the errors. I stopped watching and therefore missed the corrections, which you claim are made. Had the video been put together correctly this wouldn't have been needed. That is just plain logic.


and as a big supporter of these video's and in general since I'm sick of hypocrites, trolls, shills, and those who make claims they can't back up,

The facts are there but as a big supporter you rather not acknowledge them. There is nothing wrong with believing in them but if your boy had put things together better and toned down the hype they would have gone over better.

Now I can't be bothered to look at anything else in the series, so I will ask in all honesty, what impact does any of this have on mans's reality or existence? I mean can he predict large quakes (>7.0) accurately or is a few hundred kilometers from any random point of that massive grid the best he can do?


edit on 19-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


So you are using a definition which allows for many megaquakes a year. So these quakes happen all of the time. There are on average 18 of these a year or on average better than 1 a month.

I had no idea the vernacular had allowed such a common event to be called a megaquake. Thanks for letting me know standards had dropped so low.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:53 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.

There is zero content on the subject in the first 3 minutes of the video. I have repeatedly stated that.


and I have repeatedly stated how can there be content if the video has barely finished the introduction?


So you are lying or did not read my post. That's ok. That is why I repeated it here.


Either you're lying, haven't read my posts/responses, haven't watched past the first 3 minutes, or lack the ability to comprehend the subject matter.

that is why I've 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?


CAN'T YOU?

As I've already repeated several times for which you've ignored, its not my job to THINK for you and point out content. There's nearly 90 minutes of material making up the video's... if you claim there's nothing of substance or the material and claims are false, then PROVE IT by showing exactly how and where.


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.


where has it been proven a stupid claim or a false idea other than from your OPINION it is?


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.


oh gee, thats an excellent excuse to avoid having to support your claims.

NOT



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


Why don't YOU tell people what in the near 90 minutes aren't worth watching.

See, we can play this game as long as you want.


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

another rhetorical argument that proves or disproves nothing.


edit on 27-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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


your point has no logical basis or relevance as evidence for or against anything you're claiming. Just more poop throwing to see what sticks.


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.


but since you know nothing about ley lines nor anything explained or claimed in the video because you never actually watched it, the only joke seems to be your responses which should be submitted to the IMPROV.



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 only one repeating vacuous claims, is you claiming there is no content while also admitting you haven't, won't or can't watch the videos.



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


please show me where there's any content or evidence proving the video's and what they present or claim, are wrong let alone that anything in your "article" addresses anything presented in the videos.



The mathematical issues are more complex than the silly talk in the video.


so why can't you prove it?



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.


nothing you've just stated has anything to do with the actual subject matter, evidence and claims in the video's.

so once again, we have more of your vacuous claims that prove or disprove nothing.

talk about lacking content ,

edit on 27-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


nothing in your poorly constructed article has any relevance to whats been presented in the video's.

and the precision of the geometrical shapes based on/off the primary grid and FACT it appears all mega-quakes have hit these lines, is alone evidence that contradicts your argument.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


lied about what? No surprise you continue making claims you have no evidence to support.


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.


you're making rhetorical, subjective and opinionated claims that have no relevance to the merit of the video's and whats been claimed or presented.

no surprises 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.


please stop repeating the same CLAIMS over and over that prove or disprove nothing other than opinions there is no content and there's nothing of substance to address.

YOU CLAIM there's nothing of interest presented in the video's yet admit you've barely watched more than 3 minutes... the burden is on you to prove the video presents nothing of substance and requires you to show specific examples of what you CLAIM is false.

so far you've failed to do so.

yawn
edit on 27-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


where did I say there are thousands of words in the video? Please stop making things up and putting words in my mouth so you can twist the truth to suit your agenda.


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.


Its not my job to "point to anything in the video"

and if you're going to make a claim that its worthless, then the burden on you is to back up your claim showing exactly how and where its worthless.

so far you keep failing to do so.


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.


already addressed, answered and debunked


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.


already addressed, answered and debunked ad-naseum.


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.


and all I see is where I've already addressed or debunked what you keep CLAIMING.


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.


-sigh-

not even worth debunking again.

been there done that.


edit on 27-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

Did you really need 2 posts to try to clear up a couple of mistakes in a video?


yes, because you seem to STILL have a reading comprehension problem... or you're just a LIAR.


Originally posted by daskakik
The quake was 4.9 and that is far below the 7 that you claim is a megaquake.


NO IT WASN'T.

So once again we have more proof that you're LYING or have a reading comprehension problem.


Originally posted by daskakik
First you claim it was not 4.9


because IT WASN'T.


Originally posted by daskakik
and that I was lying, then you try to say "the man" fudged the data.


you ARE because no data was fudged.

so please show me exactly where any data was fudged and the quake being discussed in the video was a 4.9


Originally posted by daskakik
4.9 is in the 2.5 to 5 range so yes there are 30,000 quakes a year in that range, yet you disregard that fact as irrelevant.


except no where did the video discuss the quake you're talking about.

please stop lying or get your facts straight.

once you do, you can can post your apologies for your ignorance and false claims based on your imaginary data.


Originally posted by daskakik
I watched enough to notice the errors.


except you have yet to PROVE there were any errors other than your clams and opinions.


Originally posted by daskakik
I stopped watching and therefore missed the corrections, which you claim are made. Had the video been put together correctly this wouldn't have been needed. That is just plain logic.


had you actually watched the video's and got your facts straight, you'd realize the video's have been put together correctly and the only correction needed, is any logic to your claims and arguments.


Originally posted by daskakik
and as a big supporter of these video's and in general since I'm sick of hypocrites, trolls, shills, and those who make claims they can't back up,

The facts are there but as a big supporter you rather not acknowledge them.


clearly your'e CLUELESS about what the FACTS ARE.... which is why you keep making yourself look more and more foolish. I'm looking forward to your apology and admission of such ignorance.


Originally posted by daskakik
There is nothing wrong with believing in them but if your boy had put things together better and toned down the hype they would have gone over better


lying and making claims without any facts or evidence to support them, doesn't make them any more true nor does it help your already failed credibility as a debunker.


Originally posted by daskakik
Now I can't be bothered to look at anything else in the series, so I will ask in all honesty, what impact does any of this have on mans's reality or existence? I mean can he predict large quakes (>7.0) accurately or is a few hundred kilometers from any random point of that massive grid the best he can do?


now you're trying to ask questions about videos you haven't and won't watch??


Mans reality AND existence is based on and around the concepts of Sacred Geometry at the atomic structure of All LIFE. But trying to explain such advanced concepts to those who are ignorant and can make such major but basic ERRORS in their arguments and claims, is really a waste of time to be honest.

But the fact you think the video is just about "predicting large quakes that hit a few hundred km from any "random" point" etc, or there's nothing interesting about major and mega quakes all hitting this specific grid formed by a special pattern of Mega-Quakes, is more proof that you're obviously unable to comprehend the answers, evidence and overall subject matter being presented and is a waste of time engaging you in any intelligent discourse on it.

edit on 27-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


So you are using a definition which allows for many megaquakes a year.


The DEFINITION itself is irrelevant for all intents and purposes as it relates to the merit, argument and evidence validating the video's or subject matter being presented.

Its already an irrefutable fact that a PATTERN of LARGE, to mostly MAJOR quakes 7+ and usually far higher, exists and has been established on a 188 day cycle for quakes that DON'T happen all the time such as those
under 6.5 magnitude which do.


Originally posted by stereologist
So these quakes happen all of the time.


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.


Originally posted by stereologist
There are on average 18 of these a year or on average better than 1 a month.


the fact that MOST of the quakes on the 188 day pattern are Magnitude 7.3+ and that in the past 2 years of data, quakes 8+ to 9+ (which again, don't happen all the time) just happen to have struck during the 188 cycle, alone disproves your premise.


Originally posted by stereologist
I had no idea the vernacular had allowed such a common event to be called a megaquake. Thanks for letting me know standards had dropped so low.


if you can't show a better "vernacular" by any "credible" scientific source to measure categories of quakes etc, then any claim about it being so low implying its wrong or an inaccurate measurement which supposedly invalidates the videos, then the only conclusion is that your logic is flawed and has no merit other than being your OPINION.

and we all know what they say about OPINIONS.

edit on 27-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I am no mathematician but you precented those ley lines curving over the Earth. But earthquakes come from the inside of the Earth.

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

So in general to say what about a vision from inside the Earth instead of earthcrust vision.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



and I have repeatedly stated how can there be content if the video has barely finished the introduction?

My point is that the video wastes a tremendous amount of time better spent reading the paragraph or 2 that is in the video.


Either you're lying, haven't read my posts/responses, haven't watched past the first 3 minutes, or lack the ability to comprehend the subject matter.

that is why I've repeated it here.

Please provide something that is in the video that is worthwhile or better yet a summary.


As I've already repeated several times for which you've ignored, its not my job to THINK for you and point out content. There's nearly 90 minutes of material making up the video's... if you claim there's nothing of substance or the material and claims are false, then PROVE IT by showing exactly how and where.

As I have repeatedly explained not everyone has the bandwidth luxury you might have. So where in the video is any content? Nothing but trash in the first 3 minutes of the 28 min video you linked to.


where has it been proven a stupid claim or a false idea other than from your OPINION it is?

You confuse proof with evidence. I also stated the stupid claim was the platonic solids claim. And I gave an example hundreds of years old which shows that it has been known for a long time that the claim is stupid.


oh gee, thats an excellent excuse to avoid having to support your claims.

So where is there any content?


Why don't YOU tell people what in the near 90 minutes aren't worth watching.

See, we can play this game as long as you want.


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

another rhetorical argument that proves or disproves nothing.

If there were anything worth watching in the video you would have posted it.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



your point has no logical basis or relevance as evidence for or against anything you're claiming. Just more poop throwing to see what sticks.

It is relevant. Maybe we need to go over some basics.

Suppose someone makes a claim that something is important or unusual and it stands out as such. One of the tests is to see if this is distinguishable from randomness. It might b a claim of proximity or size or distribution or a measure of abundance or traffic patterns or whatever.

In this case it turns out that the ley lines can be as well constructed from random points as purposely chosen points. This tells us that there is nothing special here.


but since you know nothing about ley lines nor anything explained or claimed in the video because you never actually watched it, the only joke seems to be your responses which should be submitted to the IMPROV.

Sorry this is over your head. You've posted support with an article which has a stance that the video rejects. That is not evidence in support of the claims of the video.


the only one repeating vacuous claims, is you claiming there is no content while also admitting you haven't, won't or can't watch the videos.

You're correct for a change. I do not watch videos. They are short on content.


so why can't you prove it?

Learn the difference between proof and evidence. Unlike you I have provided clear evidence of the stupidity of the claims in the video.


nothing you've just stated has anything to do with the actual subject matter, evidence and claims in the video's.

so once again, we have more of your vacuous claims that prove or disprove nothing.

talk about lacking content

Pretending that I did not show that the platonic solids claims was idiotic does not mean that the claims are not idiotic.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



nothing in your poorly constructed article has any relevance to whats been presented in the video's.

and the precision of the geometrical shapes based on/off the primary grid and FACT it appears all mega-quakes have hit these lines, is alone evidence that contradicts your argument.

You've fallen for the ridiculous nature of the ley line claims.

The person has purposely constructed a faux situation in which the ley lines are laid over most, but not all major seismic zones.

The article which you dismiss provides a well written history of the idea of ley lines and why they are a failure. You've simply fallen for the claims of the video. Watching videos turns off the brain. It is a way of doing nothing and not learning. Videos lead to stupors.

Can you point to anything at all in the article that is wrong?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



lied about what? No surprise you continue making claims you have no evidence to support.

This comes from someone unwilling or unable to summarize the video and to point out pertinent content.


you're making rhetorical, subjective and opinionated claims that have no relevance to the merit of the video's and whats been claimed or presented.

no surprises there.

You made an opinionated claim about me and SG of which you have no basis for his silly remark.


YOU CLAIM there's nothing of interest presented in the video's yet admit you've barely watched more than 3 minutes... the burden is on you to prove the video presents nothing of substance and requires you to show specific examples of what you CLAIM is false.

I watched a significant portion of the video and it has been nothing but idiocy. You have provided no comments about the comments. I have shown articles that dispute the concept of ley lines.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Its not my job to "point to anything in the video"

Actually, it is. You support the video. Why? What is it in the video that is compelling?


and if you're going to make a claim that its worthless, then the burden on you is to back up your claim showing exactly how and where its worthless.

so far you keep failing to do so.

That's false. I pointed out that the first 3 minutes is a waste of time. I did 2 samples and found false content.

It is rather obvious at this point that the video is so idiotic that it is not possible to point to anything of value.



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join