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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Where is the 200 years of quake data?

You suggest it exists. Where is it?




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


evasion noted.


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.


as soon as you're specific on which portion you claim hasn't been articulated etc and what your objection is, we can then proceed with further discussion addressing and debating it.


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


evasion noted



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.


and I still fail to see where your poorly constructed article PROVES the platonic solids are "idiotic"



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


so now you call OPINIONS evidence?




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


The articles provided evidence.

Too bad that was over your head.

Rather i think you did not read the material.

Had it been in video form it might have taken 12 hours to view seeing that it contained actual content.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Where is the quake data?

You claim it exists. Where is it?

Without providing the data it means one of the only times you have made a statement of content you apepar to have not told the truth.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


OR YOU CAN'T.

and if you lacked the capability to adequately debate a VIDEO, then why would you bother entering a thread that was about debating a VIDEO?

lol



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.


since you haven't shown any evidence that the videos are wrong, I can hardly see where I've been hoodwinked.


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


I rest my case



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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?


The video presented evidence supporting there's a PATTERN and evidence as far back as 200 years was included in the form of several examples of unique of MAJOR QUAKES that have struck on the 188 day cycle/pattern


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.


So to clarify, you claim there's no quake data and records going back 200 years?


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.


I already stated above what the video claims.


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?


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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

I realize that this is a difficult concept for you to understand. It requires quite a bit of basic knowledge, which you may not have been introduced to.

Two things are indistinguishable if the tests show them to be the same. In the case of ley lines purposefully chosen points and random chosen points provide the same coverage or organizational results.


as soon as you're specific on which portion you claim hasn't been articulated etc and what your objection is, we can then proceed with further discussion addressing and debating it.

4th post in which I have shown how ley lines are no better than randomness


and I still fail to see where your poorly constructed article PROVES the platonic solids are "idiotic"

Sorry it is over your head. Been idiotic since Kepler's time.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
So where is this 200 years of data you claim exists?

Did you tell an untruth? Did you get that from the video?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



OR YOU CAN'T.

and if you lacked the capability to adequately debate a VIDEO, then why would you bother entering a thread that was about debating a VIDEO?

yawn


since you haven't shown any evidence that the videos are wrong, I can hardly see where I've been hoodwinked.

I've already shown that platonic solids are not the underlying thingy claimed in the video



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Please show the 200 years of quake data you claim exists.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.


Time to cough up that data.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I'm not the only one challenging you to come clean here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.


You made the claim now provide the evidence.

When asked to provide the information you became evasive.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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


Another evasion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Random points work just as well as shown in the links I provided.
I realize that this is a difficult concept for you to understand. It requires quite a bit of basic knowledge, which you may not have been introduced to.

Two things are indistinguishable if the tests show them to be the same. In the case of ley lines purposefully chosen points and random chosen points provide the same coverage or organizational results.


Please show an actual example illustrating or applying your argument that claims it debunks the ley lines of 188 as explained and illustrated in the videos and will yield the similar results and images.

I submit its impossible

and I'm calling your bluff.


as soon as you're specific on which portion you claim hasn't been articulated etc and what your objection is, we can then proceed with further discussion addressing and debating it.

4th post in which I have shown how ley lines are no better than randomness


see above


and I still fail to see where your poorly constructed article PROVES the platonic solids are "idiotic"

Sorry it is over your head. Been idiotic since Kepler's time.


and where's the evidence to support that claim?

still waiting for more than opinions.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


The articles provided evidence.

Too bad that was over your head.

Rather i think you did not read the material.

Had it been in video form it might have taken 12 hours to view seeing that it contained actual content.


I've asked you to point out where exactly your article disproves what you claim and premise of the videos.

Its obvious you can't point to any specifics because you don't understand it yourself.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Where is the quake data?

You claim it exists. Where is it?

Without providing the data it means one of the only times you have made a statement of content you apepar to have not told the truth.


for starters, the video presents several examples of quake data for unique quakes that have correlated to the pattern.

so where is it?

Its IN THE VIDEOS!

lol



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Please show an actual example illustrating or applying your argument that claims it debunks the ley lines of 188 as explained and illustrated in the videos and will yield the similar results and images.

I submit its impossible

and I'm calling your bluff.

Already posted. I submitted the links as well as an explanation.


and where's the evidence to support that claim?

still waiting for more than opinions.

Already posted.

If you want the material in video it won't happen. You simply have to read the provided links.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



I've asked you to point out where exactly your article disproves what you claim and premise of the videos.

Its obvious you can't point to any specifics because you don't understand it yourself.

Already done.

Sorry the material was not in the form of a mindless dead beat video. You simply have to read the links provided. An explanation of what is of interest was provided along with the links.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



for starters, the video presents several examples of quake data for unique quakes that have correlated to the pattern.

so where is it?

Its IN THE VIDEOS!

lol

So the video lied to you and you did not figure that out.

The video does not contain 200 years worth of data on quakes.

Please provide the evidence that there is quake data going back 200 years.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Where is the 200 years of quake data?

You made this claim. You posted it. Now is the time to show us the data.

Where is the 200 years of quake data?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



OR YOU CAN'T.

and if you lacked the capability to adequately debate a VIDEO, then why would you bother entering a thread that was about debating a VIDEO?

yawn


since you haven't shown any evidence that the videos are wrong, I can hardly see where I've been hoodwinked.

I've already shown that platonic solids are not the underlying thingy claimed in the video


and i've already shown its nothing more than your opinion or others opinions.

which proves or disproves nothing.

back to the drawing board for you

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn



new topics




 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join