Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If you thought the Mayans were wrong (with their calender), they weren't. And Nibiru IS coming.

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Hay..... it all made sense to me.. And the part of the crop circles, well to me thats like all the effort it took to figure out and translate Hieroglyphics early on. But the translation you give makes sense, well as much or more than any other I'v read or seen. Curious, why do you think England is the site for most all of them? Why not the US mid west fields or some other expanse of cropland. There must be some reason for the chosen location. So what does this mean for me........ I mean, if this is true, I want to get on board early on. (on a humorous note, I want some position of authority like hall monitor......... with a Badge...... I may be old, but I can still ........still..... um..... I forgot....uh.)

I'm curious about this 5th dimension thing...... Is it like moments of lucid almost disassociated clarity? Almost like real time, inside your head, but on the outside? If you know what I mean, you will recognize what I'm trying to convey and can tell me if it's close in description to what you relate to in your description. Universe wise, is there anything currently going on in preparation for this future event? I mean other civilizations on other planetary systems? Lastly, do you think Nassim Haramien is somehow queuing in on this? or sort of a prophet of sorts?




posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I complete agree.

I'm flawed with an extremely low tolerance for the willful and often militantly hostile rejection of not only 'mainstream science', but also education as well.
Post something like 700 Free Online Courses from top Universities with even the slightest suggestion that someone would benefit from taking any number of classes relevant to topical discussion, and more often than not, very predictably so, someone will pop up with uninspired, but colorful vitriolic opinion regarding a University education almost as if programmed to do so.

It's simply amazing how this militant position against self advancement through University or any institution of higher learning is so demonized.

These proclamations are often accompanied by supporting arguments based off some 'higher' learning supposedly obtained via some magical osmosis of learning from the Universe, or [insert magical creature here] using some equally magical means, usually either vision, dream, telepathy, meditation or similar.

Often enough it's entirely pointless in attempting to debate with such sorts, and one might only hope some of the anonymous non-commenting, non-participatory readership gains something of value from an informative post backed up by solid data.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by htapath

Originally posted by Insomniac

Originally posted by htapath
I don't turn a blind eye to science, but I do question all the answers. For instance, if everything in the known universe is expanding, then why do the constellations remain the same?

The moon with its positioning and size relative to earth and our sun is just a tad of too much of a coincidence. Throw in the lack of rotation and this creates an elephant of a different color for the critical thinker.

Then we have the work of one Mr. Percivel Lowell to consider. This is a man who proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that a highly advanced civilization existed/exists on Mars... in 1895!


The constellations are slowly changing over time. This is due to the relative motions of the stars. Although this is not evidence of an expanding universe - just that the constellations are not permanant. Incidentally, the constellations are created from line of sight effects. Very few (if any) stars in any given constellation have any physical connection.

The Moon does rotate. It appears not to from Earth because it is tidally locked. That means that its period of rotation matches one orbit around Earth. Tidal locking is quite common.

The Moon's positioning with regard to the Sun - I'm guessing you're talking about how the Moon's apparent size matchs that of the Sun. Well this is only temporary. The Moon is moving away from us so, in time there will be no more total eclipses of the Sun.

You're right about Lowell though... Despite being a highly competent and respected astronomer, he really dropped the ball with his life on Mars. The problem there was he really did see canals... But he failed to realise that they were optical illusions.


Back on topic... The OP lost me completely once he started going on about those of us who are part of the terrestrial evolutionary stream... Unlike the OP I suppose - Oh Dear!



edit on 21/3/13 by Insomniac because: typo


I'm asking questions. The way it looks from here you think you have all the answers. Congratulations for parroting mainstream science. Unfortunately you're 0-3 because it's all theory and conjecture. I like how you dismiss Lowell's work as optical illusion. That's actually pretty comical. Thanks for the laugh kitty kitty.





Athough i cannot prove or disprove life on mars, i can however confirm that the "optical illusion" of the canals was slightly more than that, due to an eye condition when starting and concentrating through a telescope he would see canals and was in no way lying, he could genuinly see them, however they were blood vessels in his own eye framed by the telescope to look like perfectly interconnecting canals\channels...


"we know now that he suffered from a rare eye disease that made him see the blood vessels in his own eyes. The Martian canals he saw were nothing more than the bulging veins of his eyeballs. Today the malady is known as "Lowell's syndrome"


just saying....



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BornOfSin
 




I get my information through 5th kind contact. I make no claim to discovering any of it. I am only the interpreter for what I am shown. I receiving massive barrages of information in my head that I have to decipher. These relate to Cosmology models, origins and purpose of religion, advanced particle physics and diagrams/blueprints for things such as plastic which can block electromagnetic forces, zero-point energy, and most recently a blueprint for creation of a temporal distortion field.

I hope you realize that if you say that to anyone in authority there will be a manditory stay.

So what is the next date I should mark on my calender?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I'm flawed with an extremely low tolerance for the willful and often militantly hostile rejection of not only 'mainstream science', but also education as well.



I've got 6 kids, 4 of them grown, and 2 grandchildren. I'm the den leader of our pack's Webelos cub scouts (a group of 9 to 10 year old boys), and have been both a teacher and a tutor.........

That right there explains my patients and putting up with a LOT of things!




posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
My friend and I were discussing this last night, for so many are waiting for something big and yet, if all of it is we're waiting for them to crash banks and impose NWO, they can really take a hike. In fact, I keep asking for them to expect the big blue beam in 3....2....1 and when aboard immediately check in to the psychiatric ward, they're expecting you. NWO can take flying leap in a cosmic holding tank for the criminally insane.

But the odd things is, the outer cosmic cycles and systems that many look to, are illustrations, or surreal, as in interactive holographic and if the universe were a mirror, then this entire thing is inner soul work. Something we go within, with emptied minds and a good loving heart to work through. It would be something we're mirroring out there, in an indiviudal way, and collective arrangement.

The inner battles, our inner Michael defeating our inner dragons with Peace and Love and perhaps a bit of soul awkening and psi thrown in, ie soul abilities. I don't know, I just think all these Mayan Calendar threads, and Cycle threads and 2012 threads are inner workings.
edit on 22-3-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BornOfSin
 


With all due respect, your op is quite unique and could very well be re-worded to "Everything you thought you knew about science but were absolutely wrong...according to me..."...

But what bugs me a bit more is this:


I've come up with a working method for alignment in monomer resins to make plastic which blocks electromagnetic forces. My understanding of particle physics is more than sufficient considering nobody on Earth had figured this out yet.


THAT is quite the claim. You know...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...type o' things...so...

Anything to back that up? And please, don't tell me it's in the books to come.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Also when you read definitions, people who have some good intent it feels, but also they are saying things like: shredders, big black cubes and mid management ETs, have power over your soul, all sorts of definitions, they are doing the same thing as the mayan calendar, revelations, and the story book in the cosmos, in the sense they are trying to make you feel hopeless and little, cut off from your Source (inner) and basically its like keep us all in a fear based paradigm.

Stop feeding the fear based paradigm, withdraw and uplug, and with a good heart, filled with an attempt to be hero mode, Love, go within, empty your mind, go within and say, OK how do I become the hero in my own life story.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Double post

See below
edit on 22-3-2013 by BornOfSin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Fact?? The only fact is we can guess averages.

All these theorems are calculated with a solar position axiom, which is wrong. Parallaxes gives a degree of accuracy due to their relative position in universal scale.

Proper motion is also not entirely correct as the calculations include a component based on solar movement within a primer system that is yet incalculable. The means that the equations are technically INproper by definition and represent only a calculative estimate.

Until all these systems are applied within an axiomatic system relative to the galactic centre, we are merely guessing within a system that is subject to a cascading degree of error.

Most importantly when a temporal component is treated as constant it will always represent an inaccurate calculation. When it is treated as a variable component, we must first determine a system of accurate measurement. Estimated axioms will give a relative degree of error to the output of the systems theorems.

As it stands at the moment, all calculations are based on systems which relay average, which stands as FACT to them being flawed calculations.
edit on 22-3-2013 by BornOfSin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   


5th Kind contact.
Why isn't this in the hoax bin?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
The Dark Rift, of the Mayans, and the whole gravity thing. Well, Gravity is an outcome of magnetism and


You have it the wrong way around. Gravity represents the X plane constant of all motion and is the only physical phenomena present throughout every ethereal layer. Electromagnetism is a result of gravity.
edit on 22-3-2013 by BornOfSin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by BornOfSin
 


If this were happening, we'd be seeing a doppler shift with the known stars and constellations, as well as experiencing relativistic events as we got closer to the event horizon.

We would also be witnessing the death of stars closer to the event horizon in a flood of infrared and ultraviolet, and we aren't.

Add to that fact that the Earth is 27,000 light years (and bear in mind a single light year is 6 trillion miles approx) from the Centre of the Milky Way. How do you propose the planet gets there in 50 years?


See video.

upload.wikimedia.org...
edit on 22-3-2013 by BornOfSin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GonzoSinister
 


Read the paper, because it's quite obvious you have not.

Lowell wasn't the only astronomer who documented the canals. Are you trying to say everyone who has seen the canals has an eye condition? That's a typical mindset these days. Don't fret, because what you believe or don't believe has nil affect on the truth. Nil.

That being said, I wish you all the best and hope you have a splendid day.

edit on 22/3/2013 by htapath because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
No idea why my edit double posted. Sorry about that.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BornOfSin
 


2+2=4

Fact.

Take a basketball and go outside. Place it at the end of a football field. Go to the other end and to one corner. Observe the ball. Move to the other corner and observe the ball again. Notice the difference.

Parallax. Fact. (I used to align my radar antennas in the US Navy this way. Sorry, it's a fact, and it works great).

Stand outside when a fire truck goes by on a call. Listen to the siren. Listen to how the siren changes pitch as it approaches, then again when it passes you and receeds.
Get in your car and get on the highway. Keep a look out for any cop sitting there with their radar gun. Floor the gas peddle and exceed the speed limit.

As the cop is writing you a ticket, ponder on how Doppler is an established fact. That it works with sound frequencies, but also in the electromagnetic range (which includes light).

Do some research. Look into ancient star charts. Note stars that you can find today in those charts and where they are (the older, the better).
Compare them to today's star charts.

Do some research on Benard's Star. Learn how it's moving faster than any other visible star in our sky, and what we know about it.

Do some research on the Milky Way Galaxy. Learn the difference between "Galactic Plane" (which is 1000 light years thick) and "Galactic Equator". Learn about the sun's motion through this area.
But most importantly, observe how our galaxy has been photographed millions of times by both professionals and amateurs. Observe how much of the sky it covers. Observe how that amount has NOT changed in over a hundred years........

Learn how, objects get larger the closer you get to them........

Everything I listed above is, yes, FACT.

If on the other hand you are saying they are not, that is a extraordinary claim on your part, and requires evidence or proof otherwise. That burden is on YOU.

Please show this evidence with something other than your word only (IE typing a wall of text in a post). Please use links to sources, (multiple ones would be better).



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Well Born of Sin. I don't know what I believe in regards to your information - BUT

The information is laid out in such a way that it is a compelling read. So I hope you don't let anyone run you off. I enjoy your posts, and even if I don't comment, I tend to click on anything you author just to read what you have to say.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Can anyone summarize what the planet passing by is supposed to actually do?



Will it be like the Red Star from the Ann McAffery books and drop flesh eating thread on the land? In which case we are out of luck - My trained-to-sear-thread dragon is in the shop.

Or will it just be a photo op for the astronomers?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BornOfSin


Ignore mainstream science? You are forgetting the very obvious truth that most of 'mainstream science' was not that long ago considered to the ravings of madmen when they were first proposed. The Earth was flat, etc.


 


Flat Earthers were more the crazed religious crowd, or if you want to relate it to modern times, people like the OP, who believe science is nothing more than a bunch of loons drawing cartoons everyone should abide by.

en.wikipedia.org...

A round Earth dates back to scholars of Roman Empire....




The fundamental thing to remember is that when mainstream sciences 'theories' can't offer explanations that fit all the 'facts' about what is going on, the logical conclusion is that there must be another explanation. This is the premise of the pursuit of truth.


Unless you completely understand 'theories' and 'science' you are not qualified to make that judgement.




My theory incorporates most of the changes we are seeing at a global level and is plausible. If you believe I am crazy, prove me to be wrong in what I am saying, don't just discount it in the fashion that people did when it was proposed the Earth was round.



Quite the opposite, we have evidence the Earth is round but you are claiming it's flat!



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I don't think you listened to (or understand) a thing I just said.... Parallaxes work great in near fields as you described with a known axiom point.

Place the same basketball on a car in the outside lane of a circular track. Then go get in another car in the inside lane. Then drive the two cars in a circle with the inside lane car driving twice the speed of the outside. Take your measurements. Make your calculations within the elliptical average centre. What is your margin of error you think?

Now tell me if you can calculate the 'real' axiom component being the centre of the velodrome, Using speed of light as a constant this is a plausible calculation method. But, If you were to consider that the 'length/speed (density)' component is an unknown variable and not a constant. What is your possible margin of error within the elliptical field at a planetary distance?

Now, increase calculated length to a universal scale. Margin of error when relative to the solar perspective decreases within a larger field (relative to size). BUT .. Apply that margin of error to a model relative to a galactic central with a variable density component in distance and tell me how accurate you think your equation will be.

Our current theorems all represent very, very vague guesses at best based on average. They are relative within our near-field ethereal density. Doppler effect that you described perfectly illustrates the change I am talking about, illustrating density resistance to wave motion causing a frequency shift. Apply this to a universal model.

edit on 22-3-2013 by BornOfSin because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-3-2013 by BornOfSin because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join