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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by stereologist
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...


Just to clarify first... please define your idea of a JOURNAL article and what criterion constitutes being one... I'm curious as to your DEFINITION and scope.



These scientists went outside of the range of megaquakes and used quakes down to M7.
www.newscientist.com... compensated for the rarity of megaquakes by widening their focus to events of magnitude 7 and higher.


KEY WORD: SCIENTISTS

hint hint

i rest my case.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


I've asked you to explain how the article is right and disproves the ley lines rather than just posting a link to it and claiming it does when it doesn't. So once again, you claim the article disproves the ley lines... please show exactly how and where in CONTEXT of the videos, the article disproves the ley lines.



Please provide the 200 years of data you claim exists.


I've already answered and addressed that.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


then you've ASSumed way too much that I haven't explained the material because it nebulous even though I've already explained why I haven't which has nothing to do with it not being correct which you erroneously claim.









edit on 29-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


Not at all... you haven't proven the ley lines are wrong or any of the evidence of the pattern is wrong... nor have you even addressed the evidence presented.

Seems you're the one that misunderstands what the term means.



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


the video made the claim... I'm pointing out ONE of the claims for you which I thought you'd be happy about... but the fact the video has already presented several examples of data going back two hundred years and will be posting the first 50 years of that data in the upcoming video, that more than addresses the issue right now.


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.


So once again, to clarify, your assertion and claim is that there is no quake data going back 200 years, correct?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
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.


but unfortunately, your claim that its strong evidence the ley line concept is wrong, is nothing more than an opinion.


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.


and once again, POT KETTLE BLACK



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



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

Please provide 200 years of quake data. You've provided nothing so far.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Just to clarify first... please define your idea of a JOURNAL article and what criterion constitutes being one... I'm curious as to your DEFINITION and scope.

A peer reviewed article.


KEY WORD: SCIENTISTS

hint hint

i rest my case.

That's right. Scientists do NOT consider M7 to be mega-quakes. Thanks for agreeing that M7 are NOT mega-quakes.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



I've asked you to explain how the article is right and disproves the ley lines rather than just posting a link to it and claiming it does when it doesn't. So once again, you claim the article disproves the ley lines... please show exactly how and where in CONTEXT of the videos, the article disproves the ley lines.

I've explained several times that the article shows that ley line claims are indistinguishable from randomness. Each time you complain that the concept is over your head.

Please provide the 200 years of quake data. Without it your arguments are complete failures.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



then you've ASSumed way too much that I haven't explained the material because it nebulous even though I've already explained why I haven't which has nothing to do with it not being correct which you erroneously claim.

Please provide the 200 years of quake data.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



Not at all... you haven't proven the ley lines are wrong or any of the evidence of the pattern is wrong... nor have you even addressed the evidence presented.

So far the only thing you have claimed is the existence of 200 years of quake data.

At this point I say that is a bald faced lie. Such data does NOT exist.


the video made the claim... I'm pointing out ONE of the claims for you which I thought you'd be happy about... but the fact the video has already presented several examples of data going back two hundred years and will be posting the first 50 years of that data in the upcoming video, that more than addresses the issue right now.

So you admit you took the ridiculous claims of the idiotic video hook, line and sinker. There is no such list. There are many reasons no such list exists. Had you thought for even a few seconds about it you would have realized such a list does not exist.


So once again, to clarify, your assertion and claim is that there is no quake data going back 200 years, correct?

Don't try to move the goal posts. The claim YOU made which you now claim comes from that idiotic video is:

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 200 years of quake data supporting the claims of the idiotic video?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



but unfortunately, your claim that its strong evidence the ley line concept is wrong, is nothing more than an opinion.

Apparently the idea that indistinguishable from randomness is a concept way over your head.

It is not opinion, but well established as shown in the article.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
To summarize what has been established so far:
1. Ley lines are meaningless - been established since the 1920s
2. Human constructed ley lines are indistinguishable from randomly constructed ley lines
3. Platonic solids as being the bass for everything has been shown to be wrong - been established for 400+ years
4. Scientists do not consider lower intensity M7 quakes as being mega-quakes
5. M7 and up quakes happen more frequently than every month on average
6. There is no 200 years of quake data supporting a 188 day cycle
7. Not a single thing in the video has ever been singled out as being worth watching



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Now let's examine this image. It was posted by truthseekr1111.

Do you agree that this is from the video in question and that it shows the ley lines and that all M7 or better quakes have landed on these ley lines?
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Please correct me if this is not the case.
1. You posted the image
2. It shows ley lines discussed in the video
3. All M7 or better quakes have landed on the ley lines



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
posted by truthseekr1111
and your point is?
That the video is poorly made and that the guy is wrong.


and there's HUNDREDS of others that disagree and say the videos are extremely well made and present compelling evidence to support the theory and claims.

But then, that the video is poorly made is nothing more than your OPINION.. and since I've already PROVEN line by line how exactly your OPINIONS, commentary, and criticism are wrong and ignorant of the facts, your OPINION has no credibility in measuring the truth and accuracy of the videos.


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.


but when someone using critical thinking skills actually watches the video and checks the FACTS, they'll realize how disingenuous, erroneous and deceptive your OPINION is which is becoming more and more obvious that there must be more of an agenda to be so willfully ignorant of the facts aside from what appears to be an attempt to perpetuate disinformation.

I'm glad though, that I'm able to present the other side of the argument with facts for readers to make their own conclusions



The proof in the video may have satisfied you but it didn't convince me.


So what? just because it didn't satisfy you, doesn't prove the videos and what they present are wrong.

show exactly where and how ANY of the data/evidence and arguments presented, are wrong with a counter-argument and perhaps your OPINION might mean something. But so far, ALL YOUR CLAIMS are false and you have ZERO evidence and facts other than opinions, to support them.



I already pointed out that the Oaxaca quake was not on the lay line


and I already explained and illustrated how it WAS for which you have yet to refute with anything other than silence or opinions.



you even posted a graphic showing that it was a couple hundred kilometers off


WRONG. The graphic in 3D shows the quake was within 60 miles of the LINE. Either you're LYING, or you're still ignorant of the FACTS. ... and its probably due to the FACT you've barely watched the video as you admit. Gee what a surprise. And since the Lines have been defined, that quake hit directly on the line. Quite amazing really. Too bad you're not on a high enough frequency to comprehend the significance or implications.



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.


EXCUSE? Lol

Its an irrefutable FACT that quake that struck, occurred on the EXACT DATE and time frame that was explained, warned about and predicted MONTHS in advance, and also even hit the correct magnitude range as well for types of quakes that DO NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.

the only EXCUSES are from those ignorant of the FACTS about not only why the date it occurred and warned about was part of the exact date connected to the quake, but within accepted parameters for a DIRECT HIT in quake prediction.

Only a fool would try to argue that a rare and MAJOR quake hitting 1 day from the exact target date/window, is a miss, not accurate and nothing special. But then again, thats irrelevant anyways because the exact date predicted and explained for the quake, in fact appeared and happened.

you're actually trying to deny and claim its a stretch and not accurate for such a quake to hit within 1 day of the prediction/warning, let alone the date that it occurred, in fact appeared in the quake as well??



That may be fine for you but I find it to be a stretch.


a rare major quake hitting the exact date or within 1 day of the date warned and predicted for such a quake, is a STRETCH?


I know its upsetting to skeptics to have to confront the shock that this quake not only hit the date warned of, but also hit directly on key line of a unique grid which was all explained and predicted in advance. Thats probably one reason why the video had over 100,000 hits in just a few days.



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

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.


oh, well then I look forward to you being a fan as well soon.

edit on 29-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



and there's HUNDREDS of others that disagree and say the videos are extremely well made and present compelling evidence to support the theory and claims.

An appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy. Then again there are lots of gullible people.


But then, that the video is poorly made is nothing more than your OPINION.. and since I've already PROVEN line by line how exactly your OPINIONS, commentary, and criticism are wrong and ignorant of the facts, your OPINION has no credibility in measuring the truth and accuracy of the videos.

Now you are getting to the meat of the matter. What we have established up t now is that the concept of ley lines is a wrong idea. It has been shown to be wrong for over 80 years. Of course that does not stop wackos from parading around a wrong idea.


but when someone using critical thinking skills actually watches the video and checks the FACTS, they'll realize how disingenuous, erroneous and deceptive your OPINION is which is becoming more and more obvious that it there must be more of an agenda to be so willfully ignorant of the facts aside from what appears to be an attempt to perpetuate disinformation.

I'm glad though, that I'm able to present the other side of the argument with facts for readers to make their own conclusions

Laughable. Please provide the 200 years of quake data you claim exists and is mentioned in the video.


show exactly where and how ANY of the data/evidence and arguments presented, are wrong with a counter-argument and perhaps your OPINION might mean something. But so far, ALL YOUR CLAIMS are false and you have ZERO evidence and facts other than opinions, to support them.

Actually the false ideas all come from the video.


The graphic in 3D shows the quake was within 60 miles of the LINE.

That pathetic, a 60 mile miss. That in and of itself shows how worthless ley lines are.


Only a fool would try to argue that a rare and MAJOR quake hitting 1 day from the exact target date/window, is a miss, not accurate and nothing special. But then again, thats irrelevant anyways because the exact date predicted and explained for the quake, in fact appeared and happened.

M7 quakes are not rare. They happen on average 17 times a year or better than once a month.


I know its upsetting to skeptics to have to confront the shock that this quake not only hit the date warned of, but also hit directly on key line of a unique grid which was all explained and predicted in advance. Thats probably one reason why the video had over 100,000 hits in just a few days.

The number of hits has nothing to do with anything. It simply means that the gullible will latch onto anything no matter how inane.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The claim of 200 years of quake data supporting the idiotic video is a failure. It is not only that you won't produce the data you so arrogantly claimed existed, but that you can't. There are very good reasons that you can't and anyone thinking for even a few moments would realize why.

So now we are left with an important issue. To repeat.

Now let's examine this image. It was posted by truthseekr1111.

Do you agree that this is from the video in question and that it shows the ley lines and that all M7 or better quakes have landed on these ley lines?
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Please correct me if this is not the case.
1. You posted the image
2. It shows ley lines discussed in the video
3. All M7 or better quakes have landed on the ley lines



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 

Just to clarify first... please define your idea of a JOURNAL article and what criterion constitutes being one... I'm curious as to your DEFINITION and scope.
A peer reviewed article.


so please show me where the article from USGS is "peer" reviewed... what makes that article peer reviewed in the context we're discussing? and also as a side note, I always hear the "peer reviewed" argument which is essentially somewhat technically, a logical fallacy which I would also add depends on the context of the issue.


KEY WORD: SCIENTISTS

hint hint

i rest my case.
That's right. Scientists do NOT consider M7 to be mega-quakes. Thanks for agreeing that M7 are NOT mega-quakes.


what are you talking about?

I don't interpret the context of what the article says to be saying M7's are not megaquakes. The context actually appears to simply agree that certain M7's can be classified in the category of a megaquake.

But then again, you still have yet to show any technical scale/definition for Quake Categories and sizes such as what a MAJOR quake is versus a LARGE QUAKE or GREAT QUAKE etc.

If you want to play semantics over vague terminology that hasn't even been fully defined and agreed upon by all "peers", then thats your prerogative, but it still doesn't change the essential point that the quake that struck was a quake that DOESN'T happen all the time and was in fact a RARE size and MAJOR quake which validated the warning and prediction.




edit on 29-6-2012 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I've asked you to explain how the article is right and disproves the ley lines rather than just posting a link to it and claiming it does when it doesn't. So once again, you claim the article disproves the ley lines... please show exactly how and where in CONTEXT of the videos, the article disproves the ley lines.
I've explained several times that the article shows that ley line claims are indistinguishable from randomness. Each time you complain that the concept is over your head.


and it keeps going over YOUR head that its nothing more then yours and the articles opinion which proves or disproves nothing.



Please provide the 200 years of quake data. Without it your arguments are complete failures.


and once again, I've already addressed that question.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



so please show me where the article from USGS is "peer" reviewed... what makes that article peer reviewed in the context we're discussing? and also as a side note, I always hear the "peer reviewed" argument which is essentially somewhat technically, a logical fallacy which I would also add depends on the context of the issue.

To call asking for a peer reviewed article a logical fallacy is a fallacy. Apparently even this idea is over your head. Please look up what peer reviewed means.


I don't interpret the context of what the article says to be saying M7's are not megaquakes. The context actually appears to simply agree that certain M7's can be classified in the category of a megaquake.

I did not realize English is a second language for you. The quote specifically states that the rarity of mega-quakes forced the researchers to include non-mega quake events including M7 quakes.


But then again, you still have yet to show any technical scale/definition for Quake Categories and sizes such as what a MAJOR quake is versus a LARGE QUAKE or GREAT QUAKE etc.

Scientists do not use nebulous terms such as that. They use a numerical system.


If you want to play semantics over vague terminology that hasn't even been fully defined and agreed upon by all "peers", then thats your prerogative, but it still doesn't change the essential point that the quake that struck was a quake that DOESN'T happen all the time and was in fact a RARE size and MAJOR quake which validated the warning and prediction.

Scientists are never going to use vague terms such as mega-quake when they have a superior system in place.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Stop avoiding the important issues. I repeat yet again.

The claim of 200 years of quake data supporting the idiotic video is a failure. It is not only that you won't produce the data you so arrogantly claimed existed, but that you can't. There are very good reasons that you can't and anyone thinking for even a few moments would realize why.

Do you agree that this is from the video in question and that it shows the ley lines and that all M7 or better quakes have landed on these ley lines?
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Please correct me if this is not the case.
1. You posted the image
2. It shows ley lines discussed in the video
3. All M7 or better quakes have landed on the ley lines
edit on 29-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join