May 20, 2012 - A Significant Date

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Evildead

 

The 22 year cycle of the Sun involves 2 11 year cycles. The change from one magnetic orientation to the other is not a quick, overnight event. There won't be much difference over the course of a few days or weeks. This is seen in the plots of numbers of sun spots over time.

True that but according to these statements in the quotes of the OP of the ATS article I linked to about the solar pole reversal, it is eastimated to COMPLETE in May;

Magnetic field polarity at the solar poles will reverse and become quadrupolar in May...

A research team led by Saku Tsuneta, a professor at the observatory, analyzed solar magnetic fields data using Hinode, an observational satellite, and confirmed that the polarity of the magnetic field at the North Pole began to reverse in July last year. Solar Poles to Become Quadrupolar in May

The estimated completion of the reversal of the north polar region will take place in 1 months or so, about one year earlier than the nominal expected reversal time. Polar Field Reversal As Observed With Hinode

Since astronomers can analyze solar magnetic fields data using Hinode, they should be able to tell when the pole flip is complete. Again, it will be interesting to see if the flip completes before, during, or after the eclipse on May 20, 2012.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Tortuguero, I disagree and Wikipedia supports me:

Monument 6 from Tortuguero is currently generating discussion as it includes the only known inscription depicting the end of the current 13-Bak'tun era in 2012.[4][5] Grube, Martin and Zender have stated[6] it refers to “the end of the 13th b’ahktun which we will see in the year 2012” and as to what will happen, they say, “…utom, “it will happen” (O4) followed by something that we cannot read (P4) and he “will descend” yem (O5). The last glyph begins with ta followed by something.”

and

Gillespie and Joyce[8] and also Houston and Stuart[9] have concurred that the inscription on Monument 6 concerns the god(s) Bolon Yokte’ K’uh - specifically “…a calendrical event in the early 21st century AD, at which time, apparently, the god may 'descend'.” Stuart has given a more complete translation: “"The Thirteenth Bak'tun" will be finished (on) Four Ahaw, the Third of K'ank'in. ? will occur. (It will be) the descent(?) of the Nine Support (?) God(s) to the ?."[10]

Tortuguero (Maya site). If you read it carefully it certainly comes across as them agreeing it states one thing and then re-convincing themselves it means another. From a sceptics point of view the possibility of the 9 Lords descending is inconceivable so they will reach for the next best explanation.

The fact is the Tortuguero monument clearly references the 13th B'ak'tun.

Now, the Comalcalco bricks. They mention a calendar round date that ends every 52 years but also ends on the 13th B'ak'tun, and it DOES match up.

The brick date does coincide with the end of the 13th Baktun; Baktuns were roughly 394-year periods and 13 was a significant, sacred number for the Mayas. The Mayan Long Count calendar begins in 3114 B.C., and the 13th Baktun ends around Dec. 21, 2012.

The original article on the Comalcalco bricks. Both Tortuguero and Comalcalco are possibly related due to the conquering of Comalcalco by Tortuguero in 649 and if the ruler of Tortuguero found it necessary to leave info to inform the 'public' of future events then this is how it has been done. Keep in mind that the Comalcalco bricks were set in place so the information on the brick WAS NOT VIEWABLE unless you physically removed the brick. WHY?

You can deny all you like but there is a definite case here for a possible confirmation of an event at the end of the 13th B'ak'tun/beginning of the 14th B'ak'tun, for the people who actually believe the thousands of UFO witness testimonies and abduction cases. If you look back in the Bible it clearly shows us that God eats humans and living things. Why else would he request the firstborn of everything that exits the womb? The stories of Giants also speak of the Giants eating people. The stories of the Greys bathing in vats of humans organ solution plus the global annual missing children statistics and animal mutilations.

Personally I'd prefer to be somewhat mentally prepared for anything and everything.

reply to post by LightAssassin


The famous translation of Tortuguero Monument 6 comes from a paper written by Houston & Stuart. Since that time more of the inscription has been able to be translated. The most recent comes from Gronemeyer & MacLeod. They have found that it refers to a religious ceremony. Houston and Stuart for the most part agree with their translation. The part where their opinion's diverge is that Houston and Stuart no longer think it even references 2012.

As for Comalcalco I will simply link you Marc Zender's views on the subject. Zender is an archaeologist that works on the Comalcalco project. Specifically he is the epigrapher for the project. Here's just a little taste of what he has to say on the issue:

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that the month sign cannot be K'ank'in. Granted, there's a well-known "dog" variant of this month that Erik must have had in mind when he made his suggestion late last year (see for example the Chinikiha Throne, B1 and PNG Altar 2, D2), but this never has the infixed AK'AB "darkness" elements which appear just below the ear of this sign. As I've argued elsewhere, this is a trait of nocturnal animals in Maya art and writing (e.g., jaguar, bat, rodents, fireflies and other insects, etc). As a result, only Zodz (anciently Suutz' "bat") and Xul (anciently Tzikin or perhaps Chikin, some kind of rodent) emerge as feasible candidates, with the latter offering the most likely identification.

No 2012 Reference at Comalcalco

If you want sources for my claims regarding Tortuguero I have discussed it numerous times on other threads. Specifically if you visit the first link in my signature and visit the thread linked therein I discuss it more at length and provide citations.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Wow, I dug, and dug some more and found this:

You posted this link regarding No 2012 reference at Comalcalco which is a blog type page with comments from a Mark Zander. Well the original research brought out by John Major Jenkens, of which Mark Zander offers his rebuke, mentions Maya scholar Erik Boot. Now I searched Mr. Erik Boot and found something very very interesting here. Basically it is Mr. Erik Boot asking some very important questions and making very important factual statements like the following:

To the Moderators of Aztlan,

My name is Erik Boot, I am an anthropologist from the Netherlands,
specialized in Maya epigraphy and iconography. In recent postings at
Aztlan reference is made to certain aspects of my unpublished
research, and without my prior consent. I hope that after you read the
following, you consider posting this message, as I do not subscribe to
Aztlan.

On July 17, 2010, Marc Zender posted a short comment on Aztlan
concerning a hieroglyphic text on a brick from Comalcalco, Tabasco,
Mexico, which I had identified as being concerned with the well-known
date 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw/K'ank'in. This message is my reply to that
comment.

But first things first. On July 6, 2010, the Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia posted a short bulletin (martes, 06 de julio
de 2010, "Mayas no citan fin del mundo") in which epigrapher Carlos
Pallan mentioned a text from Comalcalco that referred to the 2012 date
on 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw/K'ank'in. Unfortunately, in this bulletin my name
is not mentioned nor did it appropiately summarize my opinion on this
hieroglyphic text. This is what the bulletin says:

"Conforme la correlación GMT + 2 (Goodman-Martínez-Thompson, más dos
días) que utilizan los epigrafistas para convertir las fechas mayas al
calendario gregoriano, la fecha exacta sería el 23 de diciembre de
2012 y no el día 21. Ésta se halla registrada en el Monumento 6 de
Tortuguero y en un fragmento encontrado en Comalcalco, ambas zonas
arqueológicas de Tabasco y relativamente cercanas entre sí".

The INAH bulletin was brought, although indirectly, under the
attention of Aztlan subscribers on July 7, 2010, through links to the
newspaper Diario de Yucatan. On July 8, 2010, an inquiry was made at
Aztlan by 13 Tochtli/Thiago Cavalcanti: "Could anybody here provide
more information about this fragment?" To that particular inquiry a
reply came written by John Major Jenkins, a part of which I cite here:
"In answer to your query, Maya scholar Erik Boot noted last December
that an incised brick from Comalcalco probably contains a 4 Ahau 3
Kankin tzolkin-haab combo --- an abbreviation referential to the 2012
period ending date. The accompanying inscription states "it will be
completed" which lends credence to this being a reference to the
future 2012 period ending."

To this first line of events I have some pertinent comments to make.
The very tentative proposal I made on this possible 2012 text stems
from an email exchange dating from the end of 2009 and the beginning
of 2010. This email exchange was restricted to a small group of
epigraphers and Mayanists (to this there is no mystery or secrecy; in
small groups of knowledgable people the conversation keeps being
fluent). During this exchange several stipulations concerning the
tentative identification were formulated. My tentative identification
became part of a short manuscript on 2012, written in Dutch, in which
several possible stipulations concerning the tentative identification
were included. This manuscript was written for publication in a
catalog to accompany the Maya 2012 exhibition at the Museum of
Ethnology in Leiden, the Netherlands. The catalog targets a general
audience, but at present this catalog remains unpublished. Thus also
the manuscript is *not* published and was only distributed among the
limited number of epigraphers and Mayanists who participated in the
email exchange. Carlos Pallan was part of a related email exchange,
when I started the search for the object. Here follows part of the
text of the first message of that particular email exchange (dated
December 6, 2009):

"I am frantically looking for this object, an incised object of some
sort, drawing style seems to indicate bone. I have it [in] my archive
of "portable objects," but no additional information. I absolutely do
not remember where I got it from.

The text seems to record the date 4 Ajaw 3 Uniw (that does ring a bell
...), followed by hu?-li 2tzu-jo?-ma (that does ring a second bell
...). It may thus be the second text referring to the 2012 date ...
And, although I only have this drawing, it looks like a legitimate
text."

John Major Jenkins and Marc Zender were not privy to the email exchanges and thus did not.....

reply to post by LightAssassin

receive the correspondence nor the
manuscript from me. None of the stipulations are mentioned in the INAH
posting, nor are they mentioned by John Major Jenkins, except that he
uses, correctly, the word "probably."

So, to what exactly is given reference in these recent 2012 comments
concerning the Comalcalco brick? Basically, reference only is given to
an email exchange, in which Carlos Pallan in some form participated,
but in which John Major Jenkins did not. My question now is, how did
he get access to that email exchange, and more importantly, why should
one use information that was never directed to that person in the
first place? I can imagine that it was done with best intentions in
mind (to acknowledge the original researcher and post the drawing of
the brick), but still, how did he get that information to which he was
not privy? Giving a source would have helped.

I also have to make a remark. In regard to the INAH bulletin, it would
have been most appropiate if I would have been asked if my research
results relative to the putative 2012 Comalcalco text could be used. I
would have said yes and would have provided an analysis with
applicative stipulations. But that station has passed; it is how it
is.

The John Major Jenkins posting prompted Marc Zender on July 17, 2010,
to write his comments on my tentative identification and the short
comment that Jenkins included in his message. And here a very
interesting thing happens. Zender's comments are based on little
pieces of information gleaned from an incomplete statement in the INAH
bulletin and the post by John Major Jenkins. I am sorry, but this is
not the way one practices science. How can you post your observations
if you do not know any part of the identification process nor the
stipulations that are part of that process?

So, here it is. I do have my tentative identification in writing.
Granted, it is in Dutch and it is directed to a general audience, but
here I will cite it and I will provide an English translation as well.
This is the passage from the Dutch manuscript, remaining
*unpublished*, which was finished on January 3, 2010:

The text has two footnote numbers, 18 and 19. Translations of those
notes will follow after the translation of the main text:

Final Remarks
Monument 6 from Tortuguero contains a text that refers to the date
13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw in 2012. The probable contents of this
text is "complete will be the thirteenth bak'tun (on 13.0.0.0.0) 4
Ajaaw 3 Uniiw; happen will that seen is the presentation of Balun
Yokte' K'uh in the grand ceremony."
This reference was placed on a monument that most probably was
placed inside an inner room to which access was restricted. The text
could only be read by a select group of Maya, the kings, his
relatives, priests, and court officials. This text was and is not
intended for our eyes. The text also does not indicate that an
"ending" is coming; it is just a point in the Maya calender on which
the thirteenth bak'tun will be complete. The count of days will just
continue. Thanks to an inscription in Palenque we know that the Maya
placed their dates far into the future, in a year A.D. 4772, much time
after 2012.

Research on this text continues and in this research possibly new
readings, and thus new interpretations, will be presented. The two
opening quotes, hopefully, cover the contents of this chapter. It is
even possible that another text on 2012 will be found. And very
tentatively, this already may have happened. A ceramic tile from the
site of Comalcalco, as I recently noted, may possibly refer to the
Calendar Round date 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw, followed by two hieroglyphic
collocations (Figure 8 [see the image posted by John Major
Jenkins]).18 There is no calendrical information to be found on this
tile that it indeed concerns 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw, but the
importance of the Calendar Round date 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw would not have
escaped the attention of any high placed Maya at that time.19
Comalcalco was also a part of the Baakal (Baakel) kingdom and from
that kingdom comes Tortuguero Monument 6.

18
The texts opens with 4 Ajaaw, followed by 3 Uniiw. The main sign for
Uniiw is an animal head and in my opinion only Uniiw is to be
considered (other months with prominent animal heads are Zotz', Xul,
Muwan, and K'ayab). The third hieroglyphic collocation seems to be
hu-li (an opinion I share with Christian Prager) and the fourth
hieroglyphic collocation seems to open with 2tzu for tzu-tzu, tzutz-.
The last two parts could be -jo-ma, but without a good photograph of
this tile this is just conjecture (and older drawings of Monument 6
have led to incorrect readings and interpretations!). The search for
that photograph (and the tile itself) has begun.
19
In the Maya calendar the date 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw is just a winal-ending
(one time per 52 years,...

reply to post by LightAssassin

for instance on 9.14.1.17.0, 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw
(November 2, A.D. 713). One time per 18 x 52 years it is tun-ending
(for example on 10.12.11.0.0, 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw (August 5, A.D. 1077)
and only on 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaaw 3 Uniiw it is the date on which the
thirteenth bak'tun will be complete.
***

All the important stipulations that could be made in a general text
are present; it is just a proposal and acceptance depends on seeing
the original. To reiterate, this manuscript is directed to a general
audience, this is no in-depth or complete epigraphic analysis.

Based on my own stipulations and those present in Zender's comments,
there are clear pro's and con's to the putative identification of this
text as being related to 2012. But as you can read, my stipulations
were never considered by Zender as he did not have them available. He
only used two pieces of information of a more elaborate argument.
Until the present day I have not seen the brick itself, nor have I
seen a photograph. For this I have asked various researchers late
2009, some of whom reside and work in Mexico. Maybe soon I will be
able to see it for myself.

All of this could have been avoided if at the very first instance a
simple question would have been asked and sent to me via email. It now
has become an epigraphic oil spill to which, hopefully, the proverbial
lid to close all matters, presented above, does fit. If so, then now
we can dedicate our intellectual efforts to the real thing, epigraphic
research of the highest standard. That standard includes that email
exchanges are not quoted or referrred to out-of-context without the
expressed written consent of the original writer or any of the
participants that were privy to the exchange. Nor should incomplete
arguments obtained through third parties be used to set up a new
argument.

Yours sincerily,
Erik Boot, Ph.D.

Addendum: After finishing this letter, and before I sent the above
letter to the moderators, on July 19, 2010 I received an email from
John Major Jenkins. I now know the source (it was not the email
exchange itself, but yet another unpublished manuscript of which I am
aware), with which I am okay, and apologies are accepted (in regard to
disseminating information which is unpublished), knowing that indeed
good intentions were meant.

Ultimately you should have read this before asserting your info. Now we know this artefact hasn't even been seen but we also have questionable info coming from Mark Zander. It stands to reason that for the time being this is still in contention. I know it was just an oversight on your behalf due to your eagerness to remain sceptical but it's moments like these that make you come across as a paid shill.

Also, nowhere have I seen statements saying that TRT monument 6 doesn't mention the 13th B'ak'tun. Just that they are not going to interpret it literally.

reply to post by stereologist

I looked for news sources other than the single article and found nothing.

your point here? i looked for other 'news' sources and found nothing, today.

however, there were at least 3 separate sources (although none were really news) when i posted it earlier. doesn't mean it's not true or planned as the story states.
no one claims they're here now or landing anytime soon.

i never indicated joint exercises were unusual, however, any joint exercises with the Russians would be a first in quite some time. and, perhaps less than well received after the SVR bust and the Fast & Furious scandal.

apparently, you found NO advance notice of the Mexican exercises or you'd have mentioned it.

You mean almost always incorrect

msm ?? agreed.

So your justification to avoid sources more likely to be correct is what?

what sources are more likely to be correct ?? you offered none.

You don't like what you hear?

hear what ?? i read. no speakers here, but your assumptions are getting more telling with each response.

Training such as that has been going on for decades. And you finish up with excuses. No wonder.

wow, this sure is typical of this type of responder.
deflect, attack, distract ... gottcha.

the truth (ie. fact) is ... NO training with the Russians such as this has happened in the last 50+ yrs.
this, would be quite a new experience for all and likely one best kept under wraps until it can be bragged about laters, just like Mexico.

an event such as this could, alongside the majority of support teams also present at the same time, lead any reasonably sane person to question everything.
why not ??? we are the ones paying for it.

i make no excuse for sources or did you skip that part on purpose? besides, if sources can speculate, so can we.

so, do tell us, what do you think makes May 20, 2012 a significant date to anyone?
(besides the obvious)
i noticed several posters have had this date in their minds for some time, what are your thoughts on the matter ?


reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars

According to the exercise scenario

any chance you have a better source for this than has been presented ??
at least, your commentary alludes to confirmation regarding a scenario, am wondering where that info originated.
_________________________

to the poster(s) who have Stellarium, a favor please?
to satisfy my own curiosity, how does May 10th, 11th look astronomically regarding the mentioned quatrain ?
astrologically, it makes a lot of sense.

Hmm.

Im gonna save this one and look into it later.

reply to post by Honor93


Here's a quick video of Clyde Lewis, host of the Ground Zero Radio Show, commenting about these U.S. and Russian military exercises taking place in May near the Denver International Airport. Because this exercise will be held near that particular airport Clyde kinda goes over the symbolism depicted in the murals and sculptures that are on display at the Denver International Airport and how it relates to 2012.

reply to post by Evildead

thanks for the link but i'm currently not capable of viewing it (no video/audio fancy stuff atm) - adobe crashed
as for the Denver murals, been there, seen'em first hand and i'll tell ya this, no photo does them justice.

look, i'm not saying anything nefarious IS going on that particular time of the month, however, any sane mind has pleny of reason to question the collective gathering of participants.

personally, i find the timing more than coincidental considering the NK threats of late, the 9000 soldiers to be moved from Okinawa around the Asian-Pacific, the newest deployment to Australia, all the celestial fuss / sun, alignment, eclipse and has anyone noticed this is taking place during peak Full Moon ?? just wondering out loud.

edit: yes, i know an eclipse means it's a full moon ... however, some of our younger readers need the reminder.
after reading the surprise over the benefits of Vitamin C, i've come to realize, they simply are not learning the basics (obviously).

ya know Evildead, sometimes ... you just wanna ... but really shouldn't ... then you realize ... a valid point is a valid point so here goes --> do ya recall a pvs attack regarding sources ?? (not yours mind you)
i wonder if this RT story is equally false ... www.abovetopsecret.com...
sometimes, they do share more than likely correct and newsworthy information.
fyi, as of 8am EST, i've found nothing 'bout these bombings on msm, either.

reply to post by Evildead


I read the article and as it points out the process takes nearly a year to happen and is estimated to complete in May. So don't expect to see much difference next month in a process that takes a year to happen.

reply to post by Honor93

however, there were at least 3 separate sources (although none were really news) when i posted it earlier. doesn't mean it's not true or planned as the story states.
no one claims they're here now or landing anytime soon.

If this item were real or significant you'd think there would be multiple sources. Everything I located seemed to be from a single news item.

Without some other confirmation I do not find the material credible. This reminds me of the Moscow bomb shelter story that turned out to be wrong - same original source. The story might begin with a grain of truth and then is embellished to the point it is becomes a falsehood.

to the poster(s) who have Stellarium, a favor please?
to satisfy my own curiosity, how does May 10th, 11th look astronomically regarding the mentioned quatrain ?
astrologically, it makes a lot of sense.

Why not go outside and see that the claims are false. Why bother with Stellarium? Use the real night sky.

reply to post by Evildead


You do realize that the artist who made the murals thinks that these 2012 claims are stupid, don't you?

His name is Leo Tanguma and he thinks 2012 , NWO, and other tales are wacko.

reply to post by stereologist

If this item were real or significant you'd think there would be multiple sources.

no, i wouldn't and certainly not in advance. just because you say so doesn't make it so but keep trying.

Everything I located seemed to be from a single news item.

so ??? it isn't supposed to occur for another 3+ weeks, why would they rock the boat now ?? don't you think they have enough irons in the fire already ??

Without some other confirmation I do not find the material credible.

fine, you could have said so at the onset but i guess drama is more your style ??

This reminds me of the Moscow bomb shelter story that turned out to be wrong - same original source. The story might begin with a grain of truth and then is embellished to the point it is becomes a falsehood.

don't recall the bomb shelter story and you didn't link anything so i'll go with not credible simply because you say so.
As for this source, see link above regarding Ukraine bombings or didn't they happen either ??
(notice, i never said anything about the details and since the devil is always in the details, let's keep it true or false, k?)

Why not go outside and see that the claims are false. Why bother with Stellarium? Use the real night sky.

well, let's see ... i'm near blind, i have no scope access, too much background lighting and not enough gas to run over to the observatory like i wish i did, good enough?
what's so wrong with asking for help ?

reply to post by Honor93

no, i wouldn't and certainly not in advance. just because you say so doesn't make it so but keep trying.

Yes, keep trying to substantiate your story.

so ??? it isn't supposed to occur for another 3+ weeks, why would they rock the boat now ?? don't you think they have enough irons in the fire already ??

In other words this isn't a newsworthy story. Why not? Because the story is unlikely to be true.

well, let's see ... i'm near blind, i have no scope access, too much background lighting and not enough gas to run over to the observatory like i wish i did, good enough?
what's so wrong with asking for help ?

Excuses, excuses. You don't need a scope to see the planets. No need to go to an observatory. Quite reading the fake news and use your eyes. Go outside and see for yourself. It's a marvelous sight to see the planets and this is where you can verify for yourself that the planets are not in the locations where the quatrain suggestions.

reply to post by stereologist

what does the opinion of the artist have to do with this conversation about May 20th ?
while the artist does indicate that this art is his sermon, he fails to indicate his inspiration for such extreme works.
as art is meant to inspire new thoughts, this bunch certainly does.

i found it strange that an artist who self-identifies as a Christian would choose to relate a greater sense of death and destruction while any inclinations of re-birth are questionable to most everyone who view it and many who never have.
DIA has one creepy feel to it, all over the place.

reply to post by Honor93

what does the opinion of the artist have to do with this conversation about May 20th ?
while the artist does indicate that this art is his sermon, he fails to indicate his inspiration for such extreme works.
as art is meant to inspire new thoughts, this bunch certainly does.

i found it strange that an artist who self-identifies as a Christian would choose to relate a greater sense of death and destruction while any inclinations of re-birth are questionable to most everyone who view it and many who never have.
DIA has one creepy feel to it, all over the place.

The artist points out how wacko people are when they make up stories about his art. The extreme claims are made by wacko nuts that want to pretend to find clues for some imaginary situation. It shows how irrational people are.

reply to post by LightAssassin


I'm reading through this and I don't really see any actual argument against Zender's claims. What Boot seems to have a problem with are people arguing about his research when they didn't have access to it. However, as was later pointed out by Jenkins his source wasn't Boot's work but a prior press release put out by INAH. The reason Jenkins mentioned Boot's name in the first place was to make sure he got credit. As Boot mentions he has never even seen the object in question. He is basing his analysis off of a drawing done by Rafael Quevodo in 1984. All parties involved in this discussion had access to this drawing and thus were making their arguments off the same data. Thus the way I see it Zender's argument still stands. There's also the distinct possibility that Zender actually has handled the original artifact as he is the epigrapher for the Comalcalco project. I do however particularly like this part of Boot's article though:

The text also does not indicate that an
"ending" is coming; it is just a point in the Maya calender on which
the thirteenth bak'tun will be complete. The count of days will just
continue. Thanks to an inscription in Palenque we know that the Maya
placed their dates far into the future, in a year A.D. 4772, much time
after 2012.

As for Tortuguero Monument 6, here is David Stuart's current views on the subject. He also links back to where Steve Houston presents his views on the subject.
More on Tortuguero's Monument 6 and the Prophecy That Wasn't

reply to post by stereologist

keep trying to substantiate your story

no need, time is of the essence and all shall be revealved in due time.
true or not is yet to be seen isn't it ?? shame on you for being so mellowdramatic about it.

Excuses, excuses. You don't need a scope to see the planets. No need to go to an observatory. Quite reading the fake news and use your eyes. Go outside and see for yourself. It's a marvelous sight to see the planets and this is where you can verify for yourself that the planets are not in the locations where the quatrain suggestions.

who's offering excuses ?? you asked a question, i gave you several answers, whether you accept them is of no relevance to me.

I DO need a scope to see the moon clearly (even when it's full), so why don't you try showing some respect for my inability ??

when i can, i enjoy going to the observatory as we have community gatherings in the N parking lot with a variety of powerful scopes to enjoy, great skies, big/wide view, community cooperation, conversation and usually no trouble. it's probably where we'll be on the 20th.

i'm outside often, especially in the evenings and frequently wondering what's there that i cannot see. if this were 30yrs ago, i would do just that but this is today and i can't, capice ??
i'm guessing rather than help, you prefer to hinder ??

oh yeah, almost forgot to ask ... why are you attempting to debunk 2 separate quatrains as though they were one or even applied to each other ?? what if only one applies ?

[X.67] A mighty earthquake in the month of May, Saturn, Capricorn, Jupiter, Mercury in Taurus: Venus also. Cancer, Mars in Nonnay (cero). Hail will fall larger than an egg.

[lX.83] Sun twentieth of Taurus the earth will tremble very mightily, it will ruin the great theater filled: To darken and trouble air, sky and land, then the infidel will call upon God and saints.

as far as conspiracies go, i'd accept 83 as a potential possibility before i'd consider 67 as any connection at all. 83 fits well with the Project BlueBeam concept, the celestial timing and the rampant calls to war. (pick one, holy war, race war, war w/Islam, war on terror, wars, wars, wars, pick any one you want)

reply to post by Honor93

no need, time is of the essence and all shall be revealved in due time.
true or not is yet to be seen isn't it ?? shame on you for being so mellowdramatic about it.

Shame on you for pushing a story which does not appear to be true.

who's offering excuses ?? you asked a question, i gave you several answers, whether you accept them is of no relevance to me.

I DO need a scope to see the moon clearly (even when it's full), so why don't you try showing some respect for my inability ??

when i can, i enjoy going to the observatory as we have community gatherings in the N parking lot with a variety of powerful scopes to enjoy, great skies, big/wide view, community cooperation, conversation and usually no trouble. it's probably where we'll be on the 20th.

i'm outside often, especially in the evenings and frequently wondering what's there that i cannot see. if this were 30yrs ago, i would do just that but this is today and i can't, capice ??
i'm guessing rather than help, you prefer to hinder ??

Excuses. Excuses.

Do you need a scope to determine if the Moon is full or new? Doubt it from what you've written. Seeing a planet clearly is not necessary to determine if it is where the quatrain claims.

So you know people that can tell you where the planets are. You can determine this for yourself from the real world. There is a real world out there. Use it.