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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Where is the quake data?

You made a claim that there is 200 years of quake data.

Where is it? Did you knowingly tell a falsehood?




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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!


the CONTEXT implies/suggests 2 ideas/definitions...

that a mega-quake is only one above 10 magnitude

or this statement "scientists agree that “Mega Quakes” of magnitude 10 or more are implausible."

which apparently has a different context and meaning in that there are mega quakes of varying degrees but such ones OVER 10 MAG are implausible.

but no formal definition is ever given that I can find anywhere that defines QUAKE CATEGORIES.

let me know if you do.

in the meantime, technical definition or bar of a Mega-Quake, seems to be as low as a 7.

however the semantics over terminology still doesn't invalidate the videos as it relates to the issue at hand since the primary point is that the quakes that have been correlated DO NOT happen all the time.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


The data for the PATTERN has already been posted... are you claiming no such postings and data for these 5 quakes on the 188 cycle have been posted?

are you claiming the videos haven't posted several examples of quake data going back 200 years?

come on big boy, keep digging your hole



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




the CONTEXT implies/suggests 2 ideas/definitions...

that a mega-quake is only one above 10 magnitude

or this statement "scientists agree that “Mega Quakes” of magnitude 10 or more are implausible."

which apparently has a different context and meaning in that there are mega quakes of varying degrees but such ones OVER 10 MAG are implausible.

but no formal definition is ever given that I can find anywhere that defines QUAKE CATEGORIES.

let me know if you do.

in the meantime, technical definition or bar of a Mega-Quake, seems to be as low as a 7.

however the semantics over terminology still doesn't invalidate the videos as it relates to the issue at hand since the primary point is that the quakes that have been correlated DO NOT happen all the time.

Actually you are completely wrong.

Mega-quakes is in quotes since it is not a technical term.

The definitions you provided are common parlance, or as I call it the vernacular. They are not technical in any way or form.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



The data for the PATTERN has already been posted... are you claiming no such postings and data for these 5 quakes on the 188 cycle have been posted?

are you claiming the videos haven't posted several examples of quake data going back 200 years?

come on big boy, keep digging your hole

The issue is you claiming 200 years of data. Please provide the data or admit that you lied about its existence.

The place where you made the claim is again listed here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now is the time to provide the data for this claim.

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 is the data?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


based on what evidence? "Conventional Science" that barely understands the Universe let alone our own planet? LOL


....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.


lol. supporting a video, doesn't mean I have to do your research... and when someone is as arrogant as you and employs the type of derogatory, disrespectful attitude you do, I'm even less inclined.



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.


the articles gave an opinion as you do... great, thanks for your OPINIONS. But it doesn't prove or disprove anything.


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 ANALogy to chickens is idiotic if not laughable.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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?


You actually think there was anything well done in your poorly constructed article that disproves anything presented in the videos?


EXCUSES EXCUSES
just shows how closed-minded you are.

Just shows that you can't filter out nonsense.


just shows you're too close-minded to know the difference.


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


interpretation: "touche"


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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


The video already offered several examples of the data proving a PATTERN

it also claims it will be presenting a 50 year cross-section of data FOR STARTERS.

But whether such data was even presented, if even 10% were presented, its evidence supporting the PATTERN



You made the claim now provide the evidence.


I stated the claim from the video.

Its not my claim... however I've already been researching the pattern and data, and so far, what the video claims has been correct. When I finish my own research, I'll be happy to post my findings if the video doesn't first as it claims it will.



When asked to provide the information you became evasive.
www.abovetopsecret.com... WHAT "works"? Which "source" are you talking about exactly? Whats not correct about what I've stated though?


thats not being evasive. Thats challenging you to elaborate and clarify your statements etc so a response can be given.



Another evasion
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and your point is??? how does that relate to or prove and disprove anything the video presents?


see above

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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


right... it was in the form of a mindless dead beat article.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 




the CONTEXT implies/suggests 2 ideas/definitions...

that a mega-quake is only one above 10 magnitude

or this statement "scientists agree that “Mega Quakes” of magnitude 10 or more are implausible."

which apparently has a different context and meaning in that there are mega quakes of varying degrees but such ones OVER 10 MAG are implausible.

but no formal definition is ever given that I can find anywhere that defines QUAKE CATEGORIES.

let me know if you do.

in the meantime, technical definition or bar of a Mega-Quake, seems to be as low as a 7.

however the semantics over terminology still doesn't invalidate the videos as it relates to the issue at hand since the primary point is that the quakes that have been correlated DO NOT happen all the time.

Actually you are completely wrong.
Mega-quakes is in quotes since it is not a technical term.
The definitions you provided are common parlance, or as I call it the vernacular. They are not technical in any way or form.


If I can show REGULAR usage of the term and/or by even one person in the field of science that deals with the study of seismology, then your premise is wrong.

And please show any other seismological source or any sources corroborating the link from usgs.








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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



based on what evidence? "Conventional Science" that barely understands the Universe let alone our own planet? LOL

A meritless opinion. The issue is what is understood. One of the issues well understood is that the idea of ley lines is wrong.


lol. supporting a video, doesn't mean I have to do your research... and when someone is as arrogant as you and employs the type of derogatory, disrespectful attitude you do, I'm even less inclined.

So you won't support the video. Not surprising.


the articles gave an opinion as you do... great, thanks for your OPINIONS. But it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Both articles showed strong evidence against ley lines.


and your ANALogy to chickens is idiotic if not laughable.

Sorry, this was way over your head.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



You actually think there was anything well done in your poorly constructed article that disproves anything presented in the videos?

The strong evidence in both articles shows that ley line concepts are wrong.


just shows you're too close-minded to know the difference.

You being unable to separate the ludicrous ideas from potential ideas is often due to being close minded and unable to accept the evidence.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



The video already offered several examples of the data proving a PATTERN

it also claims it will be presenting a 50 year cross-section of data FOR STARTERS.

But whether such data was even presented, if even 10% were presented, its evidence supporting the PATTERN

You misunderstand what prove means.

You made the claim of 200 years of data. Your inability to present that data is telling.


I stated the claim from the video.

Its not my claim... however I've already been researching the pattern and data, and so far, what the video claims has been correct. When I finish my own research, I'll be happy to post my findings if the video doesn't first as it claims it will.

Then the video lied. It is very clear for a number of reasons why it is not possible to go back 200 years.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



thats not being evasive. Thats challenging you to elaborate and clarify your statements etc so a response can be given.

Yes you are being evasive. You took that idiotic video hook, line and sinker.

You should have stated that the video made that claim.

You have avoided stating anything about the video. I have been assuming that the material in the video was so nebulous that you can't explain it. You've just assumed it was correct. That is the sign of a closed mind.

Turn on the filters and look at the claims.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



right... it was in the form of a mindless dead beat article.

Please point out anything at all wrong in the articles. Time for you to explain your position.

Please provide the 200 years of data you claim exists.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



\If I can show REGULAR usage of the term and/or by even one person in the field of science that deals with the study of seismology, then your premise is wrong.

And please show any other seismological source or any sources corroborating the link from usgs.

No. Please show that the term is a technical term used in a journal article.

earthquake.usgs.gov...


These scientists went outside of the range of megaquakes and used quakes down to M7.
www.newscientist.com...

They compensated for the rarity of megaquakes by widening their focus to events of magnitude 7 and higher.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Where is the 200 years of data?

It's time to present the data. If all you can do is to state that at a certain point in the video, as in mm:ss into the 28 minute video, the person makes the claim so be it.

So far it looks like you made this up.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I was thinking about this thread/video today at work, again, and it does seem like a connection made where there isn't necessarily a need for it.

This would be possible to prove if we have access to all the data about our planet. All the data pertaining to all the forces acted upon our planet by outside forces, and all the forces acted on our planet on both the topside and inner earth. If we had that data, then we could start looking for patterns that repeat on an annual basis, or any pattern for that matter.

After having watched the video, there may be something to this theory. But we simply cannot say if it is true or not, based on the fact that there aren't enough facts to prove or disprove. Instead of arguing, maybe try and entertain the idea by speculating and talking about what would have to happen in our solar system/universe to make the quakes line up on a patterned basis.

If this theory were to be true, there would have to be a force great enough to first generate an earthquake, and then it would have to repeat annually or w/e.

This force most certainly would be a massive mass object that has an orbit around some object, that brings it close enough to earth to cause an earthquake. But that is a longshot.

I really doubt that something inside the earth would have a pattern like above, but that would be the force needed to generate an earthquake. This is more likely than an outer force.

Maybe it's a combination of outside and inner forces acting upon each other, which ultimately acts upon our planet and makes an earthquake, along these ley-lines.

As for sacred geometry holding the theory together, it could be. I don't know near enough about sacred geometry to say anything about it, but it does seem like most, if not all, of our universe is connected on a geometrical level. Insofar as to say, the geometries of planets and their orbits and satellites are not too different, as to not form some sort of pattern with each other.

Or maybe this whole thing is the general case of the Human, making patterns in something where there are no patterns. It's what we do. Oh, and we adapt.. that too. Or die.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
and your point is?


That the video is poorly made and that the guy is wrong.


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.

Sure it is and that is why I'm sharing that opinion here so that others who may be following this thread and who might need more than 3 iffy pieces of evidence don't waste their time with the video.

The proof in the video may have satisfied you but it didn't convince me. I already pointed out that the Oaxaca quake was not on the lay line and you even posted a graphic showing that it was a couple hundred kilometers off and the reason I couldn't find the magnitude claimed was that the quake happened on the 20th and not the 21st but the guy in the vid uses a lame "it was the 21st somewhere on earth", excuse. That may be fine for you but I find it to be a stretch.


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

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

Until he does the claims of the video are unbacked which is what I and stereologist have been saying all along. I think it is the portion that matters the most because it would be proof positive.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Where is the 200 years of data?

It's time to present the data. If all you can do is to state that at a certain point in the video, as in mm:ss into the 28 minute video, the person makes the claim so be it.

So far it looks like you made this up.


waiting for you to answer a few previous questions before I respond further.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join