98 ATS members and Counting...Australia "Out of Place"

As mentioned on this page of the thread, what time rips were observed because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If someone was in a newly created timeline they wouldn't be confused or in a dream state. They would just experience life as normal in that timeline.

Just because there's timelines that are "different" because someone changed something doesn't negate the "original" timeline without stuff being changed.

Things on a map where they shouldn't be? Does anyone have numbered coordinates to places that are all of the sudden wrong? (If so and already mentioned, forgive me, I have not read the whole thread yet).

Up to page 11 so far...

I must admit that I remember Australia being much further south, maybe southeast, from where it is now. Hence the name, "The Land Down Under."

Also, the pope was announced 5 years ago. How do I know? I was literally there at the Vatican the day he was anounced/displayed to the public (it was a madhouse to say the least) and I have pictures.

Originally posted by wolfwood290
I don't have any idea how this time shift could happen, but I do vaguely remember that Pope Benedict was not the pope for 5 years. Plus that Australia was surrounded by water and isolated from other land masses for sure. There also was no spike on it's northern end. Nelson Mandela was also assassinated in my time line. Perhaps these 100 or so members are related somehow? The only thing I can guess is the 1111 phenomenon.

[edit on 2/7/10 by wolfwood290]

yeah, nelson Mandell was DEFINATLY asassinated! That was the only reason I knew who he WAS!

That one is just whacky......

reply to post by mellisamouse


Nelson was not killed. You are just mistaken. Will people please stop blaming their lack of knowledge on timeshifts, different dimensions etc. The internet is reading this and laughing at ATS.

reply to post by Snowi


I can clearly remember when California was actually on the east coast, Great Britain was attached to the continent and Australia was where Greenland seems to be right now... seriously, think about that for a second. Balderdash you say?..... indeed.

Originally posted by Pryde87
reply to post by mellisamouse

 

Nelson was not killed. You are just mistaken. Will people please stop blaming their lack of knowledge on timeshifts, different dimensions etc. The internet is reading this and laughing at ATS.

NO he WAS killed, just not in YOUR timeline.... enough people know for certain he was killed and are shocked he is alive.... so NO he was NOT killed here, but he WAS in the last timeline that those of us rember were in before....

reply to post by mellisamouse


Well no-one in my "timeline" thinks this, so could we have some more facts as you see it please, like for example the date you heard the news, the tv channel, internet site you heard the information on, the newspaper you read etc the actual number of your friends or associates that believe this (it would be great if you could convince them to come onto ATS and corroborate this)

Nelson Mandela has always been alive in my timeline and I remember events like his 70th birthday event in 1988 where Artists Against Apartheid got to together for a tribute and where the legendary "Free Nelson Mandela" was performed, of course Amy Winehouse managed to trump that in 2008 at Nelson's 90th by changing the lyrics to "Free Blakey my fella" in reference to her then jailed husband!

I also remember him being freed in 1990 and although he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 he is still very much alive. One of his sons died though in 2005 but he wasn't killed he died of an aids/hiv related illness.

So as I have provided evidence of his continued life, I would appreciate it if you could give me some solid evidence of why you think he died.

Thanks

reply to post by mellisamouse


Or you're just wrong....

Why develop a far fetched sci-fi explanation with zero proof, when there is a much simpler and logical explanation - you are mistaken, along with a lot of other people apparently.

Originally posted by Pryde87
reply to post by mellisamouse

 

Or you're just wrong....

Why develop a far fetched sci-fi explanation with zero proof, when there is a much simpler and logical explanation - you are mistaken, along with a lot of other people apparently.

Indeed. Memory distortion is very common, but it's quite easy to ignore that and look for more ' unconventional', yet illogical explanations.

Originally posted by Pryde87
reply to post by mellisamouse

 

Or you're just wrong....

Why develop a far fetched sci-fi explanation with zero proof, when there is a much simpler and logical explanation - you are mistaken, along with a lot of other people apparently.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by Pryde87
reply to post by mellisamouse

 

Or you're just wrong....

Why develop a far fetched sci-fi explanation with zero proof, when there is a much simpler and logical explanation - you are mistaken, along with a lot of other people apparently.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

I think we need to step back and think of this in the terms of the law of parsimony which is a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or an event is made with the fewest possible assumptions.

Using this principle which idea seems more plausible: A percentage of people believe that a temporal shift has occurred thereby changing the known globe, or this same percentage of people have a perception of where they believe NZ "should" be and believe that it "looks different" on a map?

Sometimes the simplest, most logical answer is by far the BEST answer.

Originally posted by Logan_Tom

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by Pryde87
reply to post by mellisamouse

 

Or you're just wrong....

Why develop a far fetched sci-fi explanation with zero proof, when there is a much simpler and logical explanation - you are mistaken, along with a lot of other people apparently.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

I think we need to step back and think of this in the terms of the law of parsimony which is a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or an event is made with the fewest possible assumptions.

Using this principle which idea seems more plausible: A percentage of people believe that a temporal shift has occurred thereby changing the known globe, or this same percentage of people have a perception of where they believe NZ "should" be and believe that it "looks different" on a map?

Sometimes the simplest, most logical answer is by far the BEST answer.

you know who you remind me of?

You remind me of the beavers in the south park Wii episode.

"Your awnser to the great question is flawed! United aethiest alliance is the most logical choice!"

Is the simplest, most logical answer always the best answer?

Let's see:

Since boats disappear over the horizon, the earth must be flat. Or, at the very least, Cube shaped.
By your logic, the earth is flat and/or cube shaped.

I hope you see how you can't just assume that everything you know and understand is 100% fact.

There is geometry in everything. When you break down scientific patterns, you can see that math is the fundamental building block of life. It's not just a chaotic and random world. Its a calculated and geometric one.
The simplest answer here is that we live in the matrix, designed by Mathematicians.

reply to post by demonseed


That was the most stupid and ignorant post I have ever seen on ATS.

Boats disapear over the horizon because the earth is round and the fact that light travels in a straight line.

I can't lie. I laughed when I first looked at this thread. New Zealand has been where it is now for a long, long time.

Living in Norway may make it more somewhat easier to understand you thinking this, but really, I think it's more a case of you being overly paranoid and you not having looked at New Zealand on the map for a long time.

Would you laugh at me if I said Norway was west of Iceland?

I can't believe this is still ongoing. It has legs, I'll give it that.

Forgive me if I've missed it, but has anyone been able to explain why, if Oz and NZ aren't in the "right place," why their climates are still identical in each of these supposed time lines? That is the biggest flaw in the argument. If such a thing was to occur, it just wouldn't involve land mass shifting, unless it has legs like this thread, then it could just walk north a bit.

Originally posted by Pryde87
reply to post by demonseed

 

That was the most stupid and ignorant post I have ever seen on ATS.

Boats disapear over the horizon because the earth is round and the fact that light travels in a straight line.

your the most ignorant and stupid poster ive ever seen on ATS. Lets just stay away from the name calling, thats clearly not helping, is it?

You really dont get what i was saying:

If you see a boat go over the horizon, and you dont know the Earth is round, what do you assume?
The old folk assumed the earth was flat.

Thats exactly whats going on here.
Because nothing seems wrong about your view of the world, you assume we are all just crazy wackos.

I really dont understand why its so hard to comprehend for you people.

Australia is way too close to papa new guinea. Nuff said.

reply to post by demonseed


Australia has not moved in relation to other land masses enough to notice on a map, from my interest in the globe of the world i had as a child and my interest with the atlas to my map charting in the RAN, sailing around cape York many times i can verilly assure all that it is as was! The 98 ATS that disagree, how many are aussies? You are not only an embarrassment to ATS you embarrass your nation!!!!

reply to post by demonseed


No its not. You are just wrong, bad at geography and unwilling to admit your lack of knowledge.

Dont you see how ignorant it is for somebody say: "Im not wrong, its just that the whole world has changed. In my world I am right!".

Thats one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

You know why people used to think the world was flat. Its because its quite a logical assumption for someone who has never been in the air or seen the curvature of the earth. Whereas your argument of a different dimension and moving landmasses is completely illogical and has no basis in fact or common sense. You have zero evidence for your claims. Your argument is at best a childish attempt at satisfying your ego.

Normal people just admit when they make such a glaring mistake.

I picked "C" for the position of New Zealand being about where I thought it was, but couldn't decide about Australia itself. For Australia, I picked everything BUT "C". I don't think C looks quite right. My husband pulled up the satellite view from Google Earth and that view was better but still shows Australia being positioned further north than I recalled. My husband is a history buff and he didn't pick "C" either. But he wasn't keen on the other choices. The Google Earth image looked about right to him as he recalls it in his studies of the different battles of WWII.

I don't think it has anything to do with my being part of a time shift or having a horribly faulty memory or being learning disabled in some way. I do recall being shown that Australia was a big blob way off by itself ridiculously far down south on some of the maps I had to color in. I think that's because we were working on coloring in maps on "Ditto Sheets" (circa mid-late 1970's) and those maps were poorly rendered likely from a distorted looking source like the Gall-Peters projection shown in a link provided in an earlier post. Teachers were always cautioning us that the proportions and positions were quite "off" from what we'd see on better maps.

Okay, I just looked up on Google "World Map Circa 1970" and got an image of a map that looks very much how I remember Australia looking on my very old childhood globe. It and choice "C" clearly to me represent the same positioning but there's still something that just looks odd about "C" that accounts for my continuing reluctance to accept it as "accurate". It really does make Australia looked too badly squashed and crowded to its northern neighbors. But, again, when carefully compared to the Circa 1970 map, it's not. I think it just looks that way because map C shows the wide expanse of ocean beneath Australia more starkly than some of the other maps I've just Googled.

My conclusion as it pertains to my and my husband's failure to choose "C" is that certain maps can confuse the eye and therefore the memory into exaggerating certain proportions and relationships between the land masses.

BTW, I also fall into the camp that had thought Nelson Mandela died in prison. I don't know quite what to make of that but it was one heck of surprise to discover I was quite mistaken!

Seriously... Australia is not out of place.

I think people who are should look at a map. Say Google maps... Google maps is CORRECT. How do i know this? Because i've lived in australia all my life and i know that New Guinea is NOT that far from the tip of Australia. And new Zealand is around where C picture is. C picture captured the majority of where australia is meant to be.