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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trappenin
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.


while there is speculation and ideas presented to consider and discuss, the term "speculation" is still vague in context of these videos. So please elaborate for further discussion.


Originally posted by Trappenin
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).


but whether or not someone might be "intelligent" (which can be at different levels), or has a "masters degree" etc, doesn't mean their opinion is necessarily right.


Originally posted by Trappenin
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.


yep. LoL

after all his postings, it all comes down to the fact he's proven or disprove nothing about the videos other than he really has no clue what the videos are about.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
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.


and your point is?


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?


and your point is?



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.


that the creator has done an awful job at presenting the videos is nothing more than your OPINION which is in contrast to hundreds of comments from others who disagree with your opinion.

As to evidence and proof... the creator of the videos did provide evidence and proof... but then, unless you cite examples or show the claims and evidence presented is wrong, I don't see what your point proves or disproves.



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.


the creator says he's going to post that evidence.

but thats just one portion of the claims and subject matter presented.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

yawn


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.

never made such a claim. more yawning


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

Again the false claim that the OP contains 90 minutes of video


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

Try reading the link again. Just as you failed to understand the issue about randomness you failed here too.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

Already done. Think postal addresses.


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.

yawning


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

Were there anything in the videos at all you would have stated so.


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

Another falsehood.


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.

The idiotic claim that platonic solids are the basis of everything has been known to be wrong for hundreds of years. Consider learning what has been known since the time of Kepler.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

Random points work just as well as shown in the links I provided.


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.

Where? All we have is your opinion.


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.

yawn


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.

I have already pointed to the stupid platonic claim. I also indicated the time it appears in the video.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

yawn


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?

The articles provide EVIDENCE to support their statements.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




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?

I do not have the luxury of bandwidth you may have. You are dug in your heels and won't mention anything about the video. Must be because you can't.



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.

So you took the video hook line and sinker. Sorry you goofed.


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.

yawn



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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?

Where is the evidence? Where is the 200 years of data?


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.

Why don't you show me wrong. Where is the quake record.

I call your bluff.


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

You say there is 200 years of data. I say you made this up. I say you are perpetrating a hoax.


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.

Where is the 200 years of data?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

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


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


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


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

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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




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".


I already provided a USGS link that shows they consider a megaquake as being M10 or higher.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

The idea of a “Mega-Quake” – an earthquake of magnitude 10 or larger – while theoretically possible—is very highly unlikely.


Please take the time to read what I post. It may be easier for you to sit through 90 minutes of mindless video, but take the time to read before being wrong - again!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

It's not a technical term.
You're using prove wrong.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

That is a lie.

You have not pointed to any content in the video.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


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.
yawn

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.
never made such a claim. more yawning

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
Again the false claim that the OP contains 90 minutes of video


the VIDEOS together are almost 90 minutes and its explained that in order to fully understand true context, one needs to watch them all, especially if someone is going to criticize one which would be OUT OF CONTEXT.

duh


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

Try reading the link again. Just as you failed to understand the issue about randomness you failed here too.


except the facts prove otherwise.

yaaaaaaawn

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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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.

You actually think there was something well done in that idiotic, long-winded, nothing of an introduction?


EXCUSES EXCUSES

just shows how closed-minded you are.

Just shows that you can't filter out nonsense.


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?

yawn



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




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. /quote]
Sorry you can't understand how the video and ley lines in general are wrong. It does take some effort to learn how science works and how to distinguish between plausible and idiotic.


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.

Where is this 200 years of data? I say you are perpetrating a hoax.


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.

Not true. I will watch the video if you can point to something worthwhile.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


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.
Already done. Think postal addresses.


so then please show any specific examples how it relates to the context of whats been explained in the videos.


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.

yawning


evasion noted.


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

Were there anything in the videos at all you would have stated so.


evasion noted again.


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

Another falsehood.


Another evasion noted


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.

The idiotic claim that platonic solids are the basis of everything has been known to be wrong for hundreds of years.


evasion noted,,, and its too bad you can't present any evidence to support that claim.



Consider learning what has been known since the time of Kepler.


and your point is??

how does it disprove the videos or whats been presented about the platonic solids?


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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

When it comes to ley lines it is well established that education is the wrong word. Ley lines are a false idea. That has been established for decades.


....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.

You support the video. Go support it.

I supported the articles and showed how the issue of distinguishing ley lines from randomness is not possible. Thus ley lines do no better than randomness. They are thus indistinguishable from randomness.


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."

You'd be surprised. There are those that believe in ley lines. I know, hard to believe.


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

You claimed 200 years of data. Please show it to us.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



after all his postings, it all comes down to the fact he's proven or disprove nothing about the videos other than he really has no clue what the videos are about.

Although it appears to have gone well over your head the following has been shown:

1. Ley lines in general are a false idea
2. Randomly chosen points work as well as purposely chosen points, ie indistinguishable from random



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



the VIDEOS together are almost 90 minutes and its explained that in order to fully understand true context, one needs to watch them all, especially if someone is going to criticize one which would be OUT OF CONTEXT.

The video in the OP is 28 minutes.


except the facts prove otherwise.

What facts?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



so then please show any specific examples how it relates to the context of whats been explained in the videos.

Already done. You probably did not read the articles I linked to. Were they too difficult to read?


how does it disprove the videos or whats been presented about the platonic solids?

It was in the link.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join