lucus video and text presentation

I have seen it and its pretty good.

But there seems to be two schools when it comes to 2012 (not counting the skeptics because I dont care about them):

- School 1 thinks there is going to be disasters severe enough to kill off a large majority on the planet. Planet X falls into that category.

- School 2 thinks human consciousness will increase and that we are more than our physical bodies and that our current existence is a simulation. There will be a raise in consciousness in 2012 so we see the world for what it really is and that will take us into a new golden age and leave this one behind us.

Personally, Im not sure what to believe, but I do know that there is a massive campaign to keep people afraid of the world. Im asking myself why? Is it because they know that fear is a low vibration and they are trying to keep as many people as possible in that fear based state when 2012 comes around? I dont know. I just notice the pattern.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


You think the videos are good? Really?

What part of the purposeful misrepresentations do you find good? I can hardly think of any presentations that have purposely misrepresented more than these videos.

reply to post by stereologist


Not going to argue about this with you Stereo. Now go to your room.

reply to post by Copernicus


OK. So you can't defend the Lucus videos. That's not surprising. The videos are misrepresentations with the purpose of an agenda to misinform people.

Well, Lucus ran away from here as well. He didn't want to defend his claims, because that would have shed more light on his misrepresentations.

reply to post by stereologist


You really have no sense of humor Stereo.

Come on. Lighten up. What is making you so upset? That people believe things that modern science doesnt back up?

Any intelligent researcher would run away from ATS, because otherwise they would get no work done while trying to convince "skeptics" who cannot be convinced. Its just a big time sink.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by stereologist


you don't like anything that doesn't agree with you. Especially anything that deals with 2012 since you just post in this forum.

reply to post by dragnet53


Its his job. Cut him some slack.

I would actually like to have a cup of coffee in real life with one of these guys. Perhaps get a straight answer why they are doing what they are doing, and if they believe they are doing something worthwhile.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


There is a large difference between having an unconventional idea and purposely misrepresenting facts to support an agenda.

For example, you suggest a change in human thinking - whatever you wish to call it. That does not involve misrepresenting facts. I may question you about evidence of this happening before, or whatever.

But to state that Nibiru is here because comet Holmes was blue is a misrepresentation. Holmes was yellow. It is true that photographs were taken with blue filters, but the comet was not blue. It was a yellow object.

The bulk if not 90% of the Lucus presentation is misrepresented. To deny ignorance is point out this purposeful fabrication.

reply to post by dragnet53


Another post without substance. Do you having anything to actually say?

reply to post by stereologist


Not a change in Thinking, a change in Consciousness. There is a difference.

Consciousness:

"Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

—Schneider and Velmans, 2007[4]

Thought:

Thought and thinking are the processes by which these concepts are perceived and manipulated. Thinking allows beings to model the world and to represent it according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires.

Interesting stuff dont you think?



[edit on 3-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Do you believe that it is alright for people such as Lucus to purposely misrepresent facts and misinform his audience?

You watched the videos and thought they were as you said "good." When you watch a video series such as this do you take it hook, line, and sinker or do you ask yourself if the presentation is factual? If the Lucus presentation were made by a government official would you give it the same acceptance?

I believe that the answer is that the speaker counts more than the material. I believe that no effort was made to check the facts. I believe that the material was accepted without any questions asked.

Any fact checking whatsoever would have quickly shown that the material was dubious at best.

reply to post by stereologist


I told you before Stereo, Im not going down that road with you.

reply to post by Copernicus


Whatever. The issue in this thread is whether or not Lucus' material is good or bad.

Do you have any defense of his material which you labeled good and I have labeled a purposeful fraud.

reply to post by Copernicus


Alright, another post with no defense of Lucus.

Did you do any fact checking of his material? Did you take it hook, line, and sinker? Do you ever question the material in video presentations to check the correctness of the material?

reply to post by stereologist


you just provided evidence that some how a comet destroyed soddom and gammorah. Hmm what is supposed to cause drastic harm and events to Earth every 3600 years? I give you an answer it is has many names from the destroyer to nibiru to red star kachina.

reply to post by dragnet53


Did you read the article? Doubt it. Did you see the date? Obviously not since that date does not jive with the faked 3600 year cycle you are harping about.

Can you even begin to explain how you have related this article to the red kachina? I doubt it?

The problem with Lucus assigning a date to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the date he assigns does not match any of the ideas even this far flung idea of a cometary debris impact.

A really big problem is that no one can even find these cities. So how can anyone date their destruction? There is a big dispute about where the cities are. There are disputes about when these cities were destroyed. Even the destruction is in dispute.

I pointed out a range of ideas about the destruction just to show the range of ideas of when, where, and how range from the prosaic to the fantastic. But no one agrees with Lucus.

Thanks for all the bumps Stereo...it really helps. Thanks

It actually has no effect.

I see that we have a visit from Lucus who still does not want to attempt to defend any of his claims. That certainly suggests that the claims are false.

The claims that have been debunked so far are:
1. The Norway spiral and petroglyph claims
2. The IRAS and other NASA claims
3. The 3600 year cycle

The introduction is a shambles and therefore the claims built on these misrepresentations are a shambles.

reply to post by stereologist


"The introduction is a shambles and therefore the claims built on these misrepresentations are a shambles."

LOL - It seems to me, and probably many others here that YOU are just as much ''in shambles'' over The Rabbit's Hole website and presentation.

What's ruffling your feathers so much? You're acting as though Lucus has personally (or should I say 'purposely') offended you to an extreme degree.

The extent that you have gone thus far in attempting to ''debate'' with Lucus has not only been a little over the top, but in his defense, you initially started this ''debate'' by directly accusing him of intentionally/purposely lying in order to support some sort of personal ''agenda'' that he has. Those are some pretty serious accusations there, and you sir, have NO proof of this, just your own personal suspicions.

You can say that somebody is lying on purpose all you want until you're blue in the face, but if you have no rock-hard solid evidence that he is doing this ON PURPOSE, then YOU look like the ''fraud'', not him.

Why not just initially say that there are several parts of his presentation that are inaccurate/incorrect, and then point out exactly where he was wrong, and let the discussion go forward from there?

But no, you didn't do that, you came right out of the gates with ''he's a hoaxer, he's a fraud, he's purposely lying in order to fit the presentation into his own agenda, ect.'' And THIS is coming from somebody who doesn't like people stepping on HIS toes each & every time a poster mentions your posting track history on ATS. You wanna talk about ''agendas'' here?

You seem to be one of the very few posters on ATS that have been adamantly against Lucus & his presentation, and yet at the same time clinging onto this discussion like a fly on a cow patty.

May I suggest something? Perhaps it would be a much better idea for you to create your own website that debunks Lucus for the ''fraud'' that you say he is (the term ''ad hominem'' comes to mind again - why is that?). But let's be honest - you don't have the time to ''waste'' in order to do this, right?

I think it's pretty amusing that Lucus has chosen to put you and your posts on ''ignore''. If I were him, I would be doing the same thing. Why? Because I'd rather discuss something with somebody that treats me with the same level of respect that I would want to be treated - regardless of who's right or wrong. And as you can plainly see by this post, I have little to no respect for anybody that comes across as a complete ''know it all'' all the time, with a chip on their shoulder.

Feel free to post something along the lines of ''yet another post with no substance'' - I'll take it as a compliment!

Cheers.