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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

The definition is relevant. Who would think that a quake that happens 18 times a year would be called a megaquake? The frequency of such quakes makes it possible for someone to make fake claims about their distribution which are Poisson.


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.

Where do you get this claim that it works? Did you do the work or is that from some source?

I don't believe that there are quake records going back that far.


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.

Not at all. The hoax here is started by looking at recent data and faking other data. The hoaxer expects the video watcher to be clueless and unable to check the data for themselves. Videos turn off the brain and lead to acceptance without thought.


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.

Look up the word vernacular.

Megaquake is not an accepted category of quake. It is whatever the user thinks it is. The USGS uses it as a measure of quakes M10 or higher. Others think it means quakes that happen more often than once a month. It is a nebulous concept and not scientific.




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


So you use the term in the slang manner to which these dictionaries refer. That is good that you realize that these are unscientific, vague terms. The standards for a megaquake have been lowered. That's what happens with common usage.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

If you are such a big supporter of these idiotic videos then you should be able to tell us what is in them. Are you one of the trolls or shills because you cannot back up yur claim that there is content.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:51 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?

So over 10% of the video is worthless junk. Where does the content start? Why does a video require 3 minutes of junk? How pathetic is that?


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.

So where is the content? Are you lying that there is content?


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.

So you can't find content. That is all this shows.


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

I also showed how it ruined years of Kepler's work.


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

The first 3 minutes and the 2 random samples.


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.

Not at all. It means that I cannot afford to waste the bandwidth watching a contentless idiotic video.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
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.

Actually I have a problem with the videos. I have never commented one way or another on Sacred Geometry.


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.

The creator of the videos claims to have found a pattern to earthquakes. Did it ever occurred to you that his pattern may be wrong but that that doesn't mean a pattern doesn't exist?

Since you are the supporter of the theory and the creator of the theory has done such an awful job at presenting it then, maybe you could put all the energy you are putting into defending the videos into compiling proof.

I'm sure, if the theory is right, that you can compile the 200 or so megaquakes for the last 100 years with a 188 day intervals that occurred on the grid instead of pointing to a video that takes almost half an hour to watch just to point out a couple of incidents that could be dismissed as mere coincidence.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:00 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.

I am truly sorry that is over your head. That is the basis for quite a bit of research - showing that a set of data is distinguishable from random data. You might consider a basic intro to stats course at some point. That would really be useful.


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.

I realize now that your position is based on not understanding some really basic issues such as how to distinguish real from fake data. Maybe the following link can help you get started in understanding what I am trying to discuss.

en.wikipedia.org...


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.

Avoiding videos is a good way to avoid being a blockhead. Videos in general, whether on TV or the internet, lead to mistaken ideas because the viewer becomes lazy about thinking.


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

I am again sorry that this has gone over your head. The reason ley lines do not work has been well established. The reasons require some basic knowledge of math and stats. The issues involve an understanding of randomness, distributions, and stochastic methods.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I think this dude's problem is that he thinks he is very intelligent. While you may be intelligent about some things, a couple subjects here and there, you don't know everything. No one does.

It's a video about speculation. You don't have to believe everything you hear. You don't have to believe everything you see, I'm sure you know that. The way you choose to form your sentences leads me to think you are intelligent, probably have a masters in something (Stereology? lolol).

There probably is some sort of energetic "line" running through the earth. Not a line you can see, just where there is more energy present above, or below. Something like that.

But congrats, you refuted someones opinion. I'm sure the hours you spent on this thread were well worth it, just to refute an opinion.

+1 to you sir.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Trappenin
 


The issue is a little bit more than refuting an opinion.

One of the issues is the recognition that a discussion is more than posting a video.

The real issue is making people aware that ideas should be checked out:
Are the things stated in the video true or not?
Do the logical steps in the video make sense?

Instead of steadfastly clinging to a video or written work it makes more sense to address the claims. Find out what is being stated and see if the material is correct. Blindly accepted is false called having an open mind. An open mind does not mean accepting the obviously false. If someone says that chickens are a form of electricity I doubt many people will accept it. Not to say that there won't be a few that will echo the mantra of "keep an open mind." But there will be those that accept that 200 years of good quake records (which do not exist) tell us something important.

To summarize, the idea is to get those with their fingers in their ears saying la-la-la-la-la very loudly to think. That's what it is really about.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Is that not what this site is for?

I try and use it for discussions about a thought/idea someone had, or about news/current events. I try to use it as such.

But some threads turn into just arguments. I do agree with you, about having an open mind, but apply logic to the things you read. That is pretty close to true learning. Make sure you read up on what is mentioned, or just look at the "facts" presented to you, and try and research more facts and see if they line up. Applies to any topic of study.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


yawn.


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.


so you CLAIM the entire video is trash because you can't seem to get past the first 3 minutes that really only contains credits and INTRODUCTORY subject matter?

with such shallow critical thinking skills like that, no wonder you DON'T GET IT.

anyone with a true objective MIND who chooses to enter a thread criticizing the SUBJECT of thread, would usually have the intelligence to make sure they've taken the time to understand what it is they're going to criticize. When a CRITIC of a MOVIE decides to become a MOVIE CRITIC, the most important aspect of their JOB is that they must WATCH the ENTIRE MOVIE before they write a CRITIQUE of it whether or not they like and agree with the subject matter, intro or first 3 minutes... Otherwise they run the risk of looking foolish as you do making ignorant comments about something they claim is nonsense but can't PROVE IT because they don't even know what it is they have to prove or disprove.

you claim to be the ALL-KNOWING master debater of ATS, yet you violate the most basic #1 rule of DEBATING or being able to present an objective and knowledgeable opinion on a subject you want to criticize/judge.

The fact your OPINION is based on 3 minutes out of almost 90 minutes of subject matter, is beyond laughable and worthless... so if you can't be bothered to submit to the most elementary criterion before judging the merit of something, why would you bother entering the thread to begin with and continue PARROTING the same flawed argument that its all nonsense and no content because you didn't like the INTRO? LOL

The irony of your commentary is hilarious ... and an almost borderline oxymoron.


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.


where exactly did your 1 link provide any such evidence the Platonic Solids are stupid etc? Please show some understanding of that which you claim to be "evidence" which seems to be nothing more than a poorly constructed OPINION which itself doesn't even seem to understand anything about what its criticizing.

and then show me where the one OPINION about being "stupid" addresses or even disproves anything in the videos? lol


oh gee, thats an excellent excuse to avoid having to support your claims.
So where is there any content?


yawn


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.


yawwwwwn
edit on 28-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Please show any evidence to support your CLAIM that the ley lines at-issue, can be well constructed from random points as purposely chosen points.


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.


No, this is over YOUR HEAD.

You can't make claims its not evidence to support the claims of the video when you don't even know what the video presents or claims, especially in any context.


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.


if you "do not watch videos", how would you know the videos are short in content? LOL


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.


NO YOU HAVEN'T.

the evidence is not only NOT CLEAR and doesn't address the primary content, claims and evidence presented in the video, but you have no clue how the evidence you claim refutes the video, refutes the videos since you don't even know what the videos are presenting. LOL


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.


Pretending that you showed evidence or the article showed evidence the platonic solid claim was idiotic, does not prove the platonic solid claim is idiotic especially when also not only can you show any understanding of the evidence you claim shows its idiotic, but showing its idiotic out of context, definitely doesn't prove the videos have no content or substance worthy of intelligent discourse.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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 Ley Lines are based solely (at its ROOT structure) on 4 POINTS... which is far from what you've suggested.

The structure and why the grid/images cannot be random or cannot produce the geometrically precise shapes and images as well as the quakes that continue to occur on these specific lines and pattern, was explained in the videos. If you claim the argument presented is wrong and has no logical structure, then please show exactly how and where with evidence to support your CLAIM.



The article which you dismiss provides a well written history of the idea of ley lines and why they are a failure.


the VIDEOS which you DISMISS provides a well articulated history and evidence supporting the idea/theory why the ley lines of 188 are far from a random coincidence and 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.


and there again we have one of the most ignorants opinions and comments made in the INFORMATION AGE and a FORUM designed to DISCUSS ideas, especially those which do not conform to conventional primitive science.

LEARNING includes forming educated opinions by being able to have an OPEN MIND to ALL INFORMATION available and then formulating an argument on the subject matter you chose to DISCUSS.

you've chosen to CLOSE YOUR MIND and educate yourself on that which you want to CRITICIZE...

its becoming more than obvious the reason you keep making up excuses to avoid watching the videos, is because you know you can't find anything wrong in the videos. Its far easier to criticize with OPINIONS than actually being able to support your OPINIONS with intelligent arguments based on the facts.



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


Before I need to point to anything wrong in the article, I'm waiting for the article or YOU to point to something wrong in the videos.



edit on 28-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


what claim? A response to your derogatory, arrogant attacks? yes.


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.


the article gives an OPINION about ley lines in general... so what exactly does an OPINION prove or disprove especially as it relates to the videos?

the articles commentary doesn't address the actual evidence or context presented in the videos.

So how does criticizing something out of context, prove or disprove ANYTHING?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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?


No its not...especially since you're claiming that the video has no content but refuse to even watch it .... and saying you "watched a good portion" of it while also saying you refuse to watch video's or didn't past the first 3 minutes, is contradictory.

So until I see more evidence for your arguments and that you actually have any understanding of whats being presented and claimed, why would I waste any of my time engaging intelligent discourse with you?


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.


How is an introduction that hasn't presented any data, evidence, claims or material yet, false content or even something that one can use as a MEASURE of the VIDEO*S*???

your critical thinking skills are a joke and this threads progression will be great evidence exposing your agenda and inability to be objective. You're closed-minded and far from an objective authority on measuring truth. In which case anything you criticize should be scrutinized since clearly you have an AGENDA which makes your OPINION that much more worthless.



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


it is rather obvious at this point that your opinion that the video is idiotic or not of value, is itself not of value in any objective way.

So who cares what your OPINION is? But thank you for it however worthless it is in measuring the actual merit of the videos.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

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.

The definition is relevant. Who would think that a quake that happens 18 times a year would be called a megaquake? The frequency of such quakes makes it possible for someone to make fake claims about their distribution which are Poisson.


which I've already addressed below....


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.

Where do you get this claim that it works? Did you do the work or is that from some source?


that WHAT "works"? Which "source" are you talking about exactly? Whats not correct about what I've stated though?



I don't believe that there are quake records going back that far.


you don't believe there's quake data going back that far?

reallllly???

its ignorant comments like that which prove what i've said about your OPINION.


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.

Not at all. The hoax here is started by looking at recent data and faking other data.


please support your claim that any data has been faked. THANKS.



The hoaxer expects the video watcher to be clueless and unable to check the data for themselves.


Please show evidence that the video creator is a hoaxer, especially when the creator invites the video watcher to to verify and check the data THEMSELVES.



Videos turn off the brain and lead to acceptance without thought.


Those claiming videos turn off the brain and lead to acceptance without thought, are the real ones trying to turn off peoples brains and create deception to steer people away from thinking for themselves to accept CLAIMS and OPINIONS or criticism as fact without critical thought.

you're GOOD, I'll give you that.


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.
Look up the word vernacular.


maybe you should. You imply the vernacular is low. That it is, is your OPINION.

but I don't see how it ultimately invalidates the videos at all... which I elaborated on as to why.... Guess that was over your head as well.



Megaquake is not an accepted category of quake.


please show evidence proving that claim.



It is whatever the user thinks it is. The USGS uses it as a measure of quakes M10 or higher.


LINK PLEASE?

please show evidence supporting that assertion.



Others think it means quakes that happen more often than once a month. It is a nebulous concept and not scientific.


your opinions and explanations are also nebulous which doesn't prove your claim about not being "scientific".



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


So you use the term in the slang manner to which these dictionaries refer. That is good that you realize that these are unscientific, vague terms. The standards for a megaquake have been lowered. That's what happens with common usage.


I simply addressed the technical terminology to PROVE a point which obviously went way over your head,,,again.

I further explained why though, that the magnitude/size in the context you're trying to use to discredit and dismiss the video (which you haven't really even watched), doesn't prove or disprove anything as it relates to
the merit of the videos subject matter/claims/evidence etc.

In other words, cherry-picking what you want to criticize out of context, hasn't proven or disproven anything you've been claiming.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


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.

If you are such a big supporter of these idiotic videos then you should be able to tell us what is in them. Are you one of the trolls or shills because you cannot back up yur claim that there is content.


I've already addressed, answered and debunked that comment for which you have never responded and just keep repeating like a troll and shill.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

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

So over 10% of the video is worthless junk. Where does the content start? Why does a video require 3 minutes of junk? How pathetic is that?


in the context of 29 minutes, 3 minutes as an intro seems very reasonable to me both offering a disclaimer about the types such as yourself (very relevant and accurate), and laying an artistic foundation upon which the video BEGINS. Just because you don't like the intro or its OVER YOUR HEAD, doesn't invalidate the video itself or what it presents over the next 27 minutes.


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.
So where is the content? Are you lying that there is content?


HUH??? lol


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.

So you can't find content. That is all this shows.


YAWN


where has it been proven a stupid claim or a false idea other than from your OPINION it is?
I also showed how it ruined years of Kepler's work.
Why don't YOU tell people what in the near 90 minutes aren't worth watching.
The first 3 minutes and the 2 random samples.


YAWN


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


EXCUSES EXCUSES

just shows how closed-minded you are.



another rhetorical argument that proves or disproves nothing.

Not at all. It means that I cannot afford to waste the bandwidth watching a contentless idiotic video.


interpretation: "I'm very closed-minded and prefer to enter threads criticizing things with OPINIONS rather than with intelligent arguments"

If you cannot afford to waste your time watching a video which this thread is about, why would you bother entering the thread to criticize it to begin with?

edit on 28-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.

I am truly sorry that is over your head. That is the basis for quite a bit of research - showing that a set of data is distinguishable from random data. You might consider a basic intro to stats course at some point. That would really be useful.


I am truly sorry that the videos and their subject matter are over your head beyond your ability to grasp. But because it is, doesn't invalidate what they present.


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.

I realize now that your position is based on not understanding some really basic issues such as how to distinguish real from fake data. Maybe the following link can help you get started in understanding what I am trying to discuss.en.wikipedia.org...


I realize that you obviously don't seem to understand that your opinion that there's "fake data", doesn't prove there's fake data.

And unless you can show any examples of fake data and how your link relates to the subject matter and merit of the videos, its really quite meaningless as it relates to anything the videos present... which btw, you have no clue about.


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.

Avoiding videos is a good way to avoid being a blockhead. Videos in general, whether on TV or the internet, lead to mistaken ideas because the viewer becomes lazy about thinking.




do the words POT KETTLE BLACK mean anything to you?



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

I am again sorry that this has gone over your head. The reason ley lines do not work has been well established.


How? Where? Please let me know when you have evidence to support that claim.



The reasons require some basic knowledge of math and stats. The issues involve an understanding of randomness, distributions, and stochastic methods.


and you have ZERO evidence for your argument because you don't even know what it is you're arguing since you refuse to watch the videos.


(stretch & yaaaaawn)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Trappenin
 


The issue is a little bit more than refuting an opinion.


not really.


Originally posted by stereologist
One of the issues is the recognition that a discussion is more than posting a video.


Not when the subject matter of the discussion revolves around whats presented by/in the videos.


Originally posted by stereologist
The real issue is making people aware that ideas should be checked out: Are the things stated in the video true or not?
Do the logical steps in the video make sense?


how can the ideas be checked out when those wanting to criticize the ideas, aren't willing to take the time to even educate themselves on what the ideas are? LOL


Originally posted by stereologist
Instead of steadfastly clinging to a video or written work it makes more sense to address the claims. Find out what is being stated and see if the material is correct.


....which you refuse to do and expect someone that didn't create the video, to do the research for you and waste time explaining what you are too lazy to acquire for yourself.


Originally posted by stereologist
Blindly accepted is false called having an open mind. An open mind does not mean accepting the obviously false.


and your point is???

If someone says that chickens are a form of electricity I doubt many people will accept it. Not to say that there won't be a few that will echo the mantra of "keep an open mind."

Yawn


Originally posted by stereologist
But there will be those that accept that 200 years of good quake records (which do not exist) tell us something important.


and your point is??? how does that relate to or prove and disprove anything the video presents?


Originally posted by stereologist
To summarize, the idea is to get those with their fingers in their ears saying la-la-la-la-la very loudly to think. That's what it is really about.


Do the words POT KETTLE BLACK mean anything to you NOW?




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join