I think a coffee maker with an internet connection (seen a couple of weeks ago) wins the ridiculous award.
2012 Prophecy
- Thread starter RJM Corbet
- Start date
I think a coffee maker with an internet connection (seen a couple of weeks ago) wins the ridiculous award.
Starbeast
Benevolent Galaxy Being
You get those blank 'uncharted' squares on Google Earth too, in some places. It does make you wonder what's there.
But you wouldn't be able to see some 'Planet X' on Google Sky anyway, if telescopes battle to. The fakes are becoming a competition, a bit like the viruses -- and some of them are pretty good. But then, some folks are easily taken in by them, like me, for example, in the small hours of night
That's for sure, telescopes can see much clearer into outer space. That's why the South Pole Telescope was built (completed in February 2007). The SPT began it's first task in March 2007 scanning deep space for galaxy clusters.
Here is a magnificent photo it.
Truly is
Metryq
Cave Painter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 935
Sounds more like one of Heinlein's lesser-known short stories, "Beyond Doubt," originally published under the pseudonyms Lyle Monroe and Elma Wentz. The punchline of the story is that the "heads" of Easter Island (Rapa Nui) were really PR for a political campaign in the colonies of old Atlantis.
Yet you don't find any coffee machine manufacturers being called onto the carpet by pinhead politicians to explain this harvesting of personal breakfast drink data. But in all seriousness, the coffee machine needs the internet connection for Java updates. <rimshot>
Although there was this time a fellow technician was having some problems with a video switcher in a TV studio. He called up the manufacturer, and the support tech asked, "What's the IP address on that switcher?" I'm not kidding. The support tech did a firmware upgrade, or something like that, and the image problem was cured.
Now you know why we desperately need IPv6.
Really? I thought it would be a nice wallpaper ...
The top half does
Starbeast
Benevolent Galaxy Being
I was thinking that too.
J Riff
The Ants are my friends..
Well. What is it all about then, 2012?
I have a question for everyone, before I go off and do this...2012 business, my part of it anyway.
Do you believe that UFO evidence and a lot more, was found 60ish years ago, and covered ever since, and - will the truth emerge by 2012? Or not.
Because, unfortunately, I have to go add my bit... to the horde of scientists and military and security people who have 'come forward', each of whom know part of the story.
I don't want to start an argument in here, because it's like a 2nd home...
but that's my lot, and it's no fun at all.
Bloody aliens. You allus knew it was true. Bloody Mars. Hell. Just forget I said anything, OK?
I have a question for everyone, before I go off and do this...2012 business, my part of it anyway.
Do you believe that UFO evidence and a lot more, was found 60ish years ago, and covered ever since, and - will the truth emerge by 2012? Or not.
Because, unfortunately, I have to go add my bit... to the horde of scientists and military and security people who have 'come forward', each of whom know part of the story.
I don't want to start an argument in here, because it's like a 2nd home...
but that's my lot, and it's no fun at all.
Bloody aliens. You allus knew it was true. Bloody Mars. Hell. Just forget I said anything, OK?
It's all tied up with dating of the pyramids and sphinx and with exinoxal precession, with ancient maps accurately charting the Continent of Antartica as it was before the southern ice sheet buried it -- and with the messages left for us in the above monuments and numerous others spread around the world in significant locations, that all seem to point in a single direction and of which there is no better all round explanation than Graham Hancock's 'Fingerprints of the Gods'.
UFOs don't come into the picture, I'm afraid. Or let's say they don't HAVE to.
That the lunatic fringe and all the funny fakers and the charlatans have taken up the idea and run with it is to be expected, but Graham Hancock's work is not at all esoteric or mysterioso, in spite of the loonies and the nutbars attempts to tie their own colours to his mast.
That it is all coming to light now is because it was DESIGNED to come to light now, when we needed it and are able to understand it. I think.
Of course there are always going to be those so mentally atrophied against new ideas in conflict with the 'models' they have spent their lives supporting, that they will use their power and positions in their own various disciplines and organisations to make the new ideas look so ridiculous that it becomes an embarrassment for serious people to even read them -- especially after all the nutbars have muddied up the water real good.
Le plus ce change, le plus il sont meme chose ...
Last edited:
J Riff
The Ants are my friends..
Leave the UFOs out of the story? Hardly possible, but then people are crazy, I keep forgetting that, they might try that angle.
Bugs me, because most SF becomes redundant overnight.
The Mars mission will come out 1st, then.... I'm not sure how it will go.
Yea, did go there. Sorry.Not my idea to lie to everyone, but you will see why it had to be that way.
Serious. No fun, though, really quite painful, like being tortured to have anything to do with it.
Craziness. But... truth will out.
Bugs me, because most SF becomes redundant overnight.
The Mars mission will come out 1st, then.... I'm not sure how it will go.
Yea, did go there. Sorry.Not my idea to lie to everyone, but you will see why it had to be that way.
Serious. No fun, though, really quite painful, like being tortured to have anything to do with it.
Craziness. But... truth will out.
Riff, you keep hinting at this Mars thing, and I keep thinking you're going to explain more, but you never do.
C'mon! PLEASE??
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
Remember what Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
In other words, if someone claims anything which does not comply with generally-accepted knowledge, they have to provide rock-solid evidence before their claim is worth taking seriously (let alone believing).
And a bunch of conspiracy theorists yattering on the internet doesn't even begin to come remotely close...
On the 2012 farrago, I posted this on my blog some time ago:
I fact, I was subsequently informed that Mayan calendars have been discovered which run beyond 2012...
In other words, if someone claims anything which does not comply with generally-accepted knowledge, they have to provide rock-solid evidence before their claim is worth taking seriously (let alone believing).
And a bunch of conspiracy theorists yattering on the internet doesn't even begin to come remotely close...
On the 2012 farrago, I posted this on my blog some time ago:
I fact, I was subsequently informed that Mayan calendars have been discovered which run beyond 2012...
No, The Mayans did NOT predict celebration! Where on earth did you get that idea?
I'm not talking about conspiracy theorists yattering on the internet. Like I say, the nutbars and loonies leap in and muddy the water, making anyone who is interested in proper investigation look like one of them.
That's the whole damn problem with the internet. The fact that so much really useful information, books and science papers, latest NASA findings and photos, etc. are available on the internet, is outweighed by the fakes and viruses and nutbars spreading their crazy garbage.
No-one's asking anyone to believe anything, but please allow people who are prepared to take the trouble to seriously investigate something -- to the point of even going beyond the Wikipaedia and You Tube 'soundbites' and trying to find and READ actual (copy) documents, believe it or not -- to at least discuss the subject if they wish to? We're not all internet dilletantes and mindless doomsday freaks, mate.
Anyway, Graham Hancock's book was published before the internet was a consideration, when researchers actually WENT to see the places they were researching and actually TALKED to their sources face-to-face, not to faceless internet usernames.
Mayan calendar or not, you can leave the Mayan calendar completely out of the equation, it still comes to the same thing. The only thing the Mayan calendar has done is to produce a very precise prediction, to the day -- and of course, probably nothing's going to happen on that exact day. But its a time period, and that is in our lifetime, which means we are the only ones who may be able do something about it -- even if there's the slightest possibility that it IS going to come to that.
And no, the Mayans did NOT predict celebration. I don't know where on earth you got that? From the spoutings of some new age guru? Nassim Haramein perhaps? The Mayans predicted untold catastrophe, the end of civilization as we know it. Nothing to celebrate.
That the final end result, a thousand years or more later, might be an improvement on the overpopulation and destruction of rain forests, and so on, that we and our children are forced to live with now -- may be an eventual good result of very bad events. The grass grows green again after the fire.
That is where they saw cause for celebration.
Terrance McKenna? Sure. But no-one has to buy everything everything Terrance McKenna has to say. And 'timewave zero' is not all he has to say. One hears what Terrance McKenna has to say, with a open mind, whether he takes magic mushrooms or not, and later one finds that some of his observations may or may not tie in with parts of what others have to say, from random observations, and draw your own conclusions.
To quote a Wiki article stating with a straight face that: "The present day Maya attach no signifcance to b'ak'tun" says all that needs to be said. The present day Maya have only recently discovered the blooming wheel.
As far as 'scholars have rejected the possibility of such events happening in 2012' -- vintage Wiki. The fact that 'scholars' reject the possibility of crustal displacement doesn't mean it can't happen.
Sorry ...
I'm not talking about conspiracy theorists yattering on the internet. Like I say, the nutbars and loonies leap in and muddy the water, making anyone who is interested in proper investigation look like one of them.
That's the whole damn problem with the internet. The fact that so much really useful information, books and science papers, latest NASA findings and photos, etc. are available on the internet, is outweighed by the fakes and viruses and nutbars spreading their crazy garbage.
No-one's asking anyone to believe anything, but please allow people who are prepared to take the trouble to seriously investigate something -- to the point of even going beyond the Wikipaedia and You Tube 'soundbites' and trying to find and READ actual (copy) documents, believe it or not -- to at least discuss the subject if they wish to? We're not all internet dilletantes and mindless doomsday freaks, mate.
Anyway, Graham Hancock's book was published before the internet was a consideration, when researchers actually WENT to see the places they were researching and actually TALKED to their sources face-to-face, not to faceless internet usernames.
Mayan calendar or not, you can leave the Mayan calendar completely out of the equation, it still comes to the same thing. The only thing the Mayan calendar has done is to produce a very precise prediction, to the day -- and of course, probably nothing's going to happen on that exact day. But its a time period, and that is in our lifetime, which means we are the only ones who may be able do something about it -- even if there's the slightest possibility that it IS going to come to that.
And no, the Mayans did NOT predict celebration. I don't know where on earth you got that? From the spoutings of some new age guru? Nassim Haramein perhaps? The Mayans predicted untold catastrophe, the end of civilization as we know it. Nothing to celebrate.
That the final end result, a thousand years or more later, might be an improvement on the overpopulation and destruction of rain forests, and so on, that we and our children are forced to live with now -- may be an eventual good result of very bad events. The grass grows green again after the fire.
That is where they saw cause for celebration.
Terrance McKenna? Sure. But no-one has to buy everything everything Terrance McKenna has to say. And 'timewave zero' is not all he has to say. One hears what Terrance McKenna has to say, with a open mind, whether he takes magic mushrooms or not, and later one finds that some of his observations may or may not tie in with parts of what others have to say, from random observations, and draw your own conclusions.
To quote a Wiki article stating with a straight face that: "The present day Maya attach no signifcance to b'ak'tun" says all that needs to be said. The present day Maya have only recently discovered the blooming wheel.
As far as 'scholars have rejected the possibility of such events happening in 2012' -- vintage Wiki. The fact that 'scholars' reject the possibility of crustal displacement doesn't mean it can't happen.
Sorry ...
Last edited:
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
I never said that the Mayans "predicted" celebration - I said that they celebrated the end of their calender cycles, just as we celebrate the New Year, the New Century and, of course, the New Millennium.
Believe it or not, the fact that someone has published a book claiming something is worth precisely...zero. In my younger days I read all sorts of books claiming weird things, which quoted all sorts of impressive-sounding evidence in support - but the "evidence" had no credible independent confirmation. It was therefore worthless.
If any unconventional ideas are backed up by enough hard evidence to support them, then serious researchers - scientists and other academics - will look at them. However, even that stage is a long way short of proving that the ideas are valid.
"Check the evidence" should always be the principle. If the Mayans were so brilliant at predicting events (and by what mechanism - other than being deluded by hallucinogenic drugs, of course - could they possibly do that many centuries ahead?) how come they didn't realise that their empire was about to collapse so all their long-term calendars were pointless?
Believe it or not, the fact that someone has published a book claiming something is worth precisely...zero. In my younger days I read all sorts of books claiming weird things, which quoted all sorts of impressive-sounding evidence in support - but the "evidence" had no credible independent confirmation. It was therefore worthless.
If any unconventional ideas are backed up by enough hard evidence to support them, then serious researchers - scientists and other academics - will look at them. However, even that stage is a long way short of proving that the ideas are valid.
"Check the evidence" should always be the principle. If the Mayans were so brilliant at predicting events (and by what mechanism - other than being deluded by hallucinogenic drugs, of course - could they possibly do that many centuries ahead?) how come they didn't realise that their empire was about to collapse so all their long-term calendars were pointless?
Chaoticheart
In chaos I find truth
The Mayans predicted a celebration just as much as they did a catastrophe.
The belief that 2012 would be a catastrophe stemmed entirely from the fact that the calender seemed to end there, and because the Mayans believed a new world would be born with the new age. There is nothing to suggest this world would end though, especially since in Mayan belief this was the first successful world, and, as mentioned in an earlier post, there have been multiple Mayan finds that indicating predicted dates following the supposed end (many quite a bit closer than the "thousand years you suggest"). The Mayans believed it would be the end of an age, a time of rebirth.
I have read three of Hancock's books: Sign and the Seal, Fingerprint of the Gods and the Message of the Sphinx. Of which I found each to be an utter crock. All he does is dismiss the current theories and evidence which oppose him off hand and construct a brand new theory with no real evidence using claims such as the pole-shift hypothesis and orion correlation theory. Both of these theories have been disproved since they were put forth.(though polar shift was proved to happen it is only about 1 degree per million years). Hancock, like everyone else who puts forth a similar theory is NOT an archaeologist, hell he's NOT even a historian. And after reading his books I can conclusively say he has no idea what he's talking about.
If a theory is actually sound, there will be some evidence to support it. Whether the researcher seeks to disprove something or not, most scientists will put forth the honest conclusions they find. And thus far, the research done has opposed any of Hancock's ideas AND the idea that the Mayan's thought the world was going to end.
Yes, but the scientists who have access to the money and technology to check these things are busy people, involved in their careers within the 'model'.
It is a constant refrain from Graham Hancock and others, pleading with the scientific 'establishment' to at least hear what they are trying to say. There would be no-one happier than Gerald Hancock to have access to proper scientific proof or disproof of the fact, for example, that the sphinx is not 4000 but 14000 years old.
Take the sunken 'pyramids' off Japan. For a start, few scientists are prepared to learn scuba diving and then take time off from their busy lives defending the 'model' and their careers. And then, when they find a geologist who does have half and hour to spare, he fins around for a few minutes and surfaces with the conclusion, and I paraphrase, that although it's rather unlikely, there is nevertheless just the shred of a possibility that they ARE natural formations -- and that goes into Wikipaedia as: recent scientific findings have proved, etc. Someone wants to know about something quickly, he skims Wiki, and then he knows all about it. But any kid can see at first glance that they're man made.
Then you get the Prof. de Grasse Tysons of this world, taking the stage like Michael Jackson, with all the moves, and saying (again paraphrased) that 'what the 2012 freaks don't bother to mention is that the Earth and the sun line up with the center of the galaxy EVERY year on 21st Dec'. Laughter and applause from the paying audience. Of course, what HE omits to mention, is that ALL the planets don't line up every year -- they only line up every I don't know how many thousands of years.
Global crustal displacement is the real issue in question, the whole 30mile thick crust of the earth slipping around over the lower mantle on which it floats, like the skin of an orange slipping around over the orange, if that were possible? Not 'continental drift' not tectonic plates. And, talking about scientists, Albert Einstein came out in support of possible crustal displacement to explain certain events, and did so in writing ...
EDIT: Chaotic, your post landed while I was typing this reply to Anthony. Will read it now.
It is a constant refrain from Graham Hancock and others, pleading with the scientific 'establishment' to at least hear what they are trying to say. There would be no-one happier than Gerald Hancock to have access to proper scientific proof or disproof of the fact, for example, that the sphinx is not 4000 but 14000 years old.
Take the sunken 'pyramids' off Japan. For a start, few scientists are prepared to learn scuba diving and then take time off from their busy lives defending the 'model' and their careers. And then, when they find a geologist who does have half and hour to spare, he fins around for a few minutes and surfaces with the conclusion, and I paraphrase, that although it's rather unlikely, there is nevertheless just the shred of a possibility that they ARE natural formations -- and that goes into Wikipaedia as: recent scientific findings have proved, etc. Someone wants to know about something quickly, he skims Wiki, and then he knows all about it. But any kid can see at first glance that they're man made.
Then you get the Prof. de Grasse Tysons of this world, taking the stage like Michael Jackson, with all the moves, and saying (again paraphrased) that 'what the 2012 freaks don't bother to mention is that the Earth and the sun line up with the center of the galaxy EVERY year on 21st Dec'. Laughter and applause from the paying audience. Of course, what HE omits to mention, is that ALL the planets don't line up every year -- they only line up every I don't know how many thousands of years.
Global crustal displacement is the real issue in question, the whole 30mile thick crust of the earth slipping around over the lower mantle on which it floats, like the skin of an orange slipping around over the orange, if that were possible? Not 'continental drift' not tectonic plates. And, talking about scientists, Albert Einstein came out in support of possible crustal displacement to explain certain events, and did so in writing ...
EDIT: Chaotic, your post landed while I was typing this reply to Anthony. Will read it now.
Last edited:
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm surprised that you read all three books if you thought he was such a crock?
You don't mention the accurate map of the Anartica continent, precision charted before the southern icecap covered it?
No-one said he was an archaelogist or an historian, and no-one said he had to be. Best he's not, no position, job, family to support -- means he can say what he likes.
Magnetic pole shifting has nothing to do with equinoxal precession or crustal displacement, both of which are central to understanding what he has to say. That geologists are now accepting the idea of crustal displacement, even 1deg a million years, is new to me. Thanks. The 'thousand years' I suggest, is the recovery period afterward, by the way.
And birth may indeed be something to celebrate, but it's preceded by death. The grass grows green again after the fire, old Chinese wisdom. Also 'Mayan' calendar is a misnomer. The issue is that the Maya, who were busy cutting out hearts with stone knives and hadn't invented the wheel, inherited their calendar, along with their buildings from an earlier, much more advanced civilization who were destroyed as a result of crustal displacement.
And the 'Orion' orientation? Since when was that disproved?
Last edited:
I was a fan of the Antarctic-Atlantis theory back in the day, largely thanks to Colin Wilson's extremely readable "From Atlantis to the Sphinx". I even used it as the backstory for a novel. (Did you know that the Babylonian base-12 numbering system, by which we have 360 degrees etc, was derived from the fact that the fallen angels who built Atlantis had six fingers on each hand, a mutation until recently taken to mean "faery blood", thanks to cross-breeds entering the human gene-pool? No? Well, you do now.)
The trouble with Hancock etc is that they're fond of tossing around phrases like "uncanny accuracy", without quantifying what they mean. When you do find out the precise data for some alignment or cross-culture comparison, they're often not at all impressive. For example, if you try to actually compare the Piri-Reis (was that the name?) map of supposed ancient pre-ice Antarctica with current mapping, it's extremely disappointing, and in no way, in my opinion, justifies the extravagant claims for it. (I believe recognition of this kind of disparity has caused Graham Hancock to distance himself from the Pyramids = Orion idea since he wrote Fingerprints of the Gods.)
It has now been demonstrated (to my satisfaction at least) that Plato's Atlantis was Santorini/Thera in the Mediterranean (along with elements of Minoan Crete), destroyed by a volcanic eruption in about 1500 BC. I wonder, if Plato hadn't come up with the figure of 10,000 years and placed Atlantis beyond the Pillars of Hercules, would there ever have arisen any theories of worldwide progenitor civilisations to trouble us now?
The trouble with Hancock etc is that they're fond of tossing around phrases like "uncanny accuracy", without quantifying what they mean. When you do find out the precise data for some alignment or cross-culture comparison, they're often not at all impressive. For example, if you try to actually compare the Piri-Reis (was that the name?) map of supposed ancient pre-ice Antarctica with current mapping, it's extremely disappointing, and in no way, in my opinion, justifies the extravagant claims for it. (I believe recognition of this kind of disparity has caused Graham Hancock to distance himself from the Pyramids = Orion idea since he wrote Fingerprints of the Gods.)
It has now been demonstrated (to my satisfaction at least) that Plato's Atlantis was Santorini/Thera in the Mediterranean (along with elements of Minoan Crete), destroyed by a volcanic eruption in about 1500 BC. I wonder, if Plato hadn't come up with the figure of 10,000 years and placed Atlantis beyond the Pillars of Hercules, would there ever have arisen any theories of worldwide progenitor civilisations to trouble us now?
Similar threads
-
Latest Windows Update Problems for Windows 7, 8.1, Server 2008r2, 2012r2- Started by HanaBi
- Replies: 3
-
-
-