2012 Equation Solved -- Pane "Astral Walker" Andov

reply to post by GeosAlien


Actually that is a falsehood you just posted. There are no more earthquakes.

My link was to people that study the matter and their opinion, not some web page crank that doesn't understand what is happening and doesn't have a clue as to how earthquakes are detected.

Phage agrees that the data you presented was incorrect and had obvious flaws.

The fact is that there is no increase in earthquakes.

reply to post by GeosAlien

No. There are not more earthquakes.

FILE CREATED: Sun Sep 26 18:34:41 2010
Global Search Earthquakes= 324
Catalog Used: NOAA
Date Range: 1901 to 1938
Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 9.9
Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA)


FILE CREATED: Sun Sep 26 18:35:16 2010
Global Search Earthquakes= 333
Catalog Used: NOAA
Date Range: 1939 to 1976
Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 9.9
Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA)


FILE CREATED: Sun Sep 26 18:35:50 2010
Global Search Earthquakes= 117
Catalog Used: NOAA
Date Range: 1977 to 2010
Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 9.9
Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA)

reply to post by Phage


Phage, you are looking at earthquakes from 7.0 and above. I am sure you are aware of this link: USGS recent USA earthquakes

The west coast of the US has looked like this most of this year. You see only the last 7 days. I see that it says 850 eqs in the last 7 days, I have seen it as high as 2,000. This is not normal and is called a earthquake swarm.. Notice how the swarm goes along the California coastline and around Long Valley. It stretches from S. California up to Yellowstone. Washington State has seen more than its share as well.

When people say there are more earthquakes happening, I think of this swarm. I am not sure where this swarm is leading, but it goes with all the unusual events being talked about here.

CU

reply to post by CUin2013?


There are over a million earthquakes a year and that is normal. The existence of many earthquakes in a particular area is normal too. It's a local event dealing with the local fault zones and is not indicative of anything global.

reply to post by CUin2013?

I used the statistics which the poster I replied to used.

Do you realize that the earthquake "swarm" you are talking about includes magnitude 1 earthquakes? There are thousands (10s of thousands, 100s of thousands) of such earthquakes every year. There has been no increase in the number or severity of earthquakes.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CUin2013?

 

There are over a million earthquakes a year and that is normal. The existence of many earthquakes in a particular area is normal too. It's a local event dealing with the local fault zones and is not indicative of anything global.

Once again, your lack of a link denotes your persistance of no,no,no,no.

I refuse to waste my time on you.

Read more - learn something.

Back to ignoring you.

reply to post by CUin2013?


No links is better than the hoax sites you use to support your failed claims.

I already knew this and I have posted this link dozens of times.
Earthquake Facts and Statistics
Notice that it says 1.3M which I knew when I wrote over a million. I will allow you to learn why this is an estimate instead of telling you since you persist in your attacks. No, they are not counting quakes at the magnitude 1 level.

This thread sure has ballooned rather quickly. I'm going to make a quick observation and hope I'm the first to do so. Let me paraphrase the begining right quick, 26,000 years ago big energy erupts from the center of the galaxy at the speed of light and is due to hit us in two years. Great, I'm on board already. The Chandra X ray observatory has seen that stars that have been hit with this energy are expanding.


NO NO NO!

Those fancy X-RAYS are electromagnetic radiation(light). The energy from the center of the galaxy is moving at light speed, and is therefore some sort of EM radiation as well. We would not be able to observe stars expanding until the galactic energy wave hit us because the light containing the information of said star's expansion would be moving at the same speed as the energy wave.

I can't comment on any of the new-agyness of this document, but when facts are butchered right at the get-go I have to assume that the whole thing is a poorly researched fairy-tale. And I'm REALLY open to new age nonsense.

In an attempt to put these claims about increasing numbers of earthquakes to rest I have taken it upon myself to perform a statistical analysis on the number of earthquakes. I started by looking at more significant earthquakes, specifically those of 6.0 or greater, for the past 20 years. For this I separated earthquakes into three groups 6.0 - 6.9, 7.0 - 7.9, and 8.0 - 8.9. First here is the ANOVA output for the 6.0 - 6.9 earthquakes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/487f3ba3015a.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see from the significance value, the number of 6.0 - 6.9 earthquakes has not changed significantly over the past 20 years. Now, we'll move onto the 7.0 - 7.9 earthquakes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8532800b6441.jpg[/atsimg]

Once again there has been no significant change in the number of 7.0 - 7.9 earthquakes over the past 20 years.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cce8642af65c.jpg[/atsimg]

Finally, we have the 8.0 - 8.9 earthquakes and as before no one year was significantly more or less than any of the other years.

Once I had established that high profile earthquakes were not on the rise I decided to look at the total number of earthquakes for the past 10 years. These results also show that there has been no change in the frequency of earthquakes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc84108a396a.jpg[/atsimg]

I have a feeling that these are not going to change anyone's minds, but I figured I'd put the math out there so I can at least say I tried.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that for each year I only looked at earthquakes that occurred between January 1 and September 26 so that I would be able to accurately compare 2010 with previous years.

I'm reading here about the crop circles, so have a ways to go still in the pdf, but....that is bascially what I thought after David Wilcock talked about the crop circle with the expanded sun, and the planetary allignments that depicted 2012.

Seems to be a real connecting of dots.

This seems very odd to me. The thread is about this man's work, a 100 page book. Yet Stereologist and Phage jump in, tag team, derailing yet another thread about how science is the answer to everything and we plebes just don't understand, because if we did, all would be right. Why do this? You two clearly think everything said that is not backed up by proper data "interpretation" is nonsense and must be stamped out. More, you two often miss the point of certain things. The book interprets what crop circles may or may not say, the point of who made them isn't all that relevant. Okay, non human terrestrial persons did it - not from outer space but under ground. Now what? You are aware that energy is altered by things like computer chips? And you are aware that many of the crop circles are very similar to computer chips? And you are aware that the earth is made up of all sorts of energy connections? There is a connection that man made or not, some of these do just that - move energy in the way chips do.

I really don't see why you insist on doing this sort of thing, you clearly think this whole 2012 thing is bs, so just leave the conversation alone. There are plenty of threads about things that don't include anything out of the realm of science, at least the science you are privy to (there is a whole lot, I mean a whole lot, you are not privy to) so why jump on these topics asap? Maybe if you stated your intentions it would be helpful. I get the feeling you want to make sure NO ONE ever buys into this 2012 stuff - why? What's in it for you to steer everyone away from the idea that life evolves in ways you can't learn about at Harvard? The actions you two are a lot like corrective actions, rather than discourse actions.

There are usually two reasons for this: disinformation agent. I'll assume you aren't. And insecurity. Folks who are very insecure about things, tend to be absolutists, zealots, because the feel their beliefs secure them. They feel if they can covert as many to their way of thinking as possible, they will be secure. I assume you will feel best if all people drop all consciousness notions and be beholden to science.

The reason I bring this up, the 2012 changes are about changing that very addiction.

This interview looks interesting:


The Veritas Show - Show 14 - Pane Andov - Part 1/26

reply to post by crankyoldman

the point of who made them isn't all that relevant.

Who says something is of prime importance. An interpretation of a piece of artwork, which is all that crop circles are, shows us what?

Crop circles do not do this energy whatever you claim. They do not "move energy in the way chips do." The whole connection of energy and crop circles and computer chips you've attempted is a real mess. It's just artwork. A painting of a computer is still a painting. A painting of a horse is not a horse. It is a painting. A crop circle is a form of art.

So after making more fantastic claims that appear to be unrelated to the way things actually work you ask for censorship. You are not the first person that has asked for censorship. You follow this up with a completely wrong categorization of myself. What it is telling about is how poorly science is understood by the average person. Take your claims here. You appear to think it is a religion. You think it involves arcana, dogmatism, and elitism.

Here is a thread in which the material is based on false claims. Do you have a problem sorting out the chicanery and falsehoods from the truth?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Here is a thread in which the material is based on false claims. Do you have a problem sorting out the chicanery and falsehoods from the truth?

Sorry Stereotype, you may be right on some of your statements.
On the other hand, you seem to step over facts that easy, that I wonder your brain is blocked for anything new in the 2012 enigma.

With regard to earth quakes, see this blog: www.science20.com...
where one can notice the actual growing trend of quakes of an higher magnitude over the last 30 years.

With regard to the volcano activity, I would like to refer you to the following graph:
"

"Not only has there been a dramatic increase in volcanic activity for 2003, but volcanic activity has been increasing for over 100 years. The graph to the left was developed by Michael Mandevill who has written an analysis of the relationship between the 6 1/2 year wobble of the earth (due to the pull of the sun and the moon) and volcanic activity. See the "An Alternative Ice Age Scenario" subsection above for a video that shows how population growth has lagged the reported increase in volcanoes which would counter the idea that more volcanoes are reported because there are more people around to notice them."

See page: www.handpen.com... for further observations, if you like.

For me, I have only asked attention for the article of Andov, and I have reiterated several times that some of the claims are questionable to me. Some of the points I can't deny nor approve, but some of the point are quite clearly explained. One of this is the method of how the stems of the plants have been bend; definitely NOT by a plank and rope. We will forever differ opinion on this point.

Have fun!!

reply to post by GeosAlien

No.
The blog does not show a growing trend of higher magnitude earthquakes. It shows the same data that your other source used:

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.

earthquake.usgs.gov...
It is not a complete listing of earthquakes. The complete listing shows that the number and severity of earthquakes has not increased.

reply to post by Unity_99

Planetary alignments? You mean this?
12/21/2012
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0700b2ce5db0.gif[/atsimg]
Which planets are aligned? Which crop circle showed the alignment?
www.fourmilab.ch...

Originally posted by GeosAlien

Originally posted by atlasastro




Pane uses BLT to try and assert that there is a difference between CC's.
BLT themselves, admit that they cannot do that. So it defies beliefs that Pane can do that.

Sorry, but I am at a loss here, with your statement.

Let me explain it again then.
Pane uses poor science, in fact it is not even science to back his claims.
Once again I will ask you, have you looked at the work Pane is using?

It is very easy to see the difference in human made (with planks and ropes) with broken stems versus those with the bend stems.

It is very easy to make stuff up too.
The only research done on the Node and stems, was BLT, who admit it is not a marker of anything.
Once again, Pane uses this in his work.
So Pane uses research that makes absolutely no claim about identifying genuine crop circles.
How can Pane then?

Here is some content to help you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
From about page 3 BLT is discussed.
And agin, heavy discussion on BLT, which Pane uses to make his assertions.
reply to post by atlasastro



Did you just read Panes version of events or did you actually research the material he uses?

I am on this subject for years, and have seen others explaining the differences.

I have seen other explain CC's too, explained by humans making them.

So, I am one that dares to differ in opinion from others here on ATS.

You opinion is that of majority, I would wager, on ATS.
I have been at it for years too. I actually differ to the mainstream ATS opinion in relation to CC's.
As you will see from the numerous posters on threads that believe CC's are not man made.
My opinion dares to challenge that.

Now to the subject of The 2012 Equation....
Of course, there are many publications from a variety of roots, that all end with more or less the same conclusions for the "end-date" in 2012.

That's a claim from Ian Lungold, and I have no opinion on that. But let's not argue about a date that moves the whole event one year ahead. It is not adding anything to this equasion.

No lets argue about the facts that Panes assertions are challenged by other beliefs, this creates doubt about the material that Pane presents.
I dare to consider all opinions on this topic. It seems you are not prepared to do that!

Nothing to do with me. My point was that perhaps many of those 2012 theories are based on taking the end of the Mayan calendar as fact to base their theory on.

Your thread and the topic has nothing to do with you?
Pane goes further than that. Pane is cutting and pasting a whole raft of "supernatural" and "conspiracy theory" together.
Pane is not even original, in anyway. Greg Braden, David Wilcock, Dannion Brinkley, Spunky Delores Cannon, Clif" I'm" High, David Icke, Lenny Horowitz, Terry Mckenna, Pinchbeck.........Pane has ripped a lot of people off. You mentioned Ian Xel Lungold before, but you can also add Hoagland and Bill ryan and Kerry Cassidy that are spinning the same tales that Pane has basically cut and pasted from. But most especially from Wilcock.

This may well be the case and only time will tell.

Considering the number of prophecies that have come and passed with no actual events, this should provide some insight into that question.
Am not that sure about your claim in this respect, and have seen things moving alone lines that are not in contradiction with the popular theories yet.

I claim nothing here. I state that , considering the number of previous prophecies that have come and passed with no actual events, that this should give you an insight into your proposition that:
This may well be the case and only time will tell.
My point is, you may not need time, you can simply revise a vast history of prophecy that has failed to transpire, and you can perhaps consider that this prophecy is no different.

Well, if you dig a bit further you will find distinct recent changes on Jupiter, Venus, Our Sun, Mars etc. Please check it out.

I am aware of the changes.
Once agin though, you mentioned events on Earth as being typical of our solar system. This is a gross generalization with no content to support it.

I am not on alert regarding 2012. Time will tell I guess.

Okay, that's up to you, but apparently you are interested to follow publications in this respect, given the fact of your reading this thread and replies. .... and of course, one thing I agree with you for sure is.... only TIME will tell, and we will not have to wait for long.

I can be interested in a topic with being on alert about it!

Having an interest in the sociology of religious movements and there evolution in this technologically and scientifically dominant culture is incredibly interesting to me. 2012 as well as the beliefs expressed in relation to Aliens/ET are an incredibly good example of the "new religious beliefs, groups, churches or E-temples" that have become established within this technological and scientific paradigm. In particular, I find that the internet has enabled supernatural and spiritual beliefs to flourish by providing a place were people can congregate and share their beliefs, practice their spirituality and express themselves whilst they transform older traditional belief systems into a contemporary context that is supported by the dominance of technology and science, technology and science that is in conflict with those older and more traditional supernatural beliefs.
So yeah, apparently I'm interested and I follow publications in this respect.
I like to call this trend iGod.

Just out of curiosity, what other prophetic material have you compared 2012 with in order to differentiate between a plausible prophecy and so as to consider it as not like all the others that have failed to transpire?
Well, here you lost me. ... all the others failed to transpire.... what are you referring to ...??

Only 2000 years of people claiming that the end of the world, as we know, is nearly here!


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my previous post.

Originally posted by crankyoldman

There are usually two reasons for this: disinformation agent. I'll assume you aren't. And insecurity.

False Dichotomy.
Could you consider that options that Phage and Stereo have spent a lot of time actually dealing with the topic.
That they are offering their opinion, and opinion ON A PUBLIC FORUM!

This seems very odd to me. The thread is about this man's work, a 100 page book. Yet Stereologist and Phage jump in, tag team, derailing yet another thread about how science is the answer to everything and we plebes just don't understand, because if we did, all would be right.

Perhaps the problem is that Pane uses no science to illustrate his claims.
Can I ask you a question?
Do you question all the science involved in medicine?
Would you take medical advice from a 100 page PDF some guy wrote on the internet because he thinks crop circles are teaching him how to be an MD?
Do you look for crop circles researchers that teach you how to repair your car from last seasons designs?
When you need the police, do you go to the internet and google crop circle research?

Pane is telling us that the future of our species and our planet is imprinted in designs in plants in a field.
I'd like to know a little bit about the facts. I'd like a little bit of science backing that up. I'd like to know that this guy knows what he is talking about.
Just like a Doctor, or a Mechanic or a Police officer. After all, Pane is talking about our entire planets future!

Why do this? You two clearly think everything said that is not backed up by proper data "interpretation" is nonsense and must be stamped out. More, you two often miss the point of certain things. The book interprets what crop circles may or may not say, the point of who made them isn't all that relevant.

The point of who made them is everything.
Do you consider the bible as being equal in this respect, who cares who wrote it or what inspired it. When you hear an abductees claim, does it really matter who abducted them! When you spot a UFO, why bother with its origins, it is the fact that its unidentified that matters hey!
Bollocks.

The message changes, when the messenger isn't super mystical and special.

Okay, non human terrestrial persons did it - not from outer space but under ground. Now what?

You tell us, its your analogy.

You are aware that energy is altered by things like computer chips? And you are aware that many of the crop circles are very similar to computer chips?

Yes, they are both man made and some are complex in design. Also we can track a trend in complexity in design in both computer chips and crop circles, this further highlights a trend significant to human design and application.

And you are aware that the earth is made up of all sorts of energy connections? There is a connection that man made or not, some of these do just that - move energy in the way chips do.

I hear people move aot of money too, in products, DVD's conferences, calenders, jewelry, T-shirts, Music, Tours as well. I hear that moves a lot.

I really don't see why you insist on doing this sort of thing, you clearly think this whole 2012 thing is bs, so just leave the conversation alone.

I really don't see why you insist on doing this, you clearly think that this whole phage and stereo 2012 thing is bs, so just leave the conversation alone.

There are plenty of threads about things that don't include anything out of the realm of science, at least the science you are privy to (there is a whole lot, I mean a whole lot, you are not privy to) so why jump on these topics asap?

Excuse me, but did you read the OP. Did you read Panes work. Pane makes assertions and claims based on CC's. The OP posted this work on a public forum. That means any number of opinions are valid, including those that want to discuss this work from a scientific stand point in order to discover the validity of the work.

Maybe if you stated your intentions it would be helpful. I get the feeling you want to make sure NO ONE ever buys into this 2012 stuff - why? What's in it for you to steer everyone away from the idea that life evolves in ways you can't learn about at Harvard? The actions you two are a lot like corrective actions, rather than discourse actions.

Why don't you state you intentions. Why did you not state that you intend on attacking Phage and Stereo purely because they have more rigorous criteria for establishing the validity of Panes crop circle interpretations.

Folks who are very insecure about things, tend to be absolutists, zealots, because the feel their beliefs secure them. They feel if they can covert as many to their way of thinking as possible, they will be secure.

It seems the only insecure people around here are those that cannot tolerate other peoples opinions. Sound familiar?

I assume you will feel best if all people drop all consciousness notions and be beholden to science.

Science is an active application of consciousness as an endeavor to broaden consciousness by gaining a greater understanding of the universe we live in.
Some people prefer the passive application. That would be those that simply believe a book on the internet and not bother to care about the origins or the source of its claims, simply because it makes them feel good and they don't have to ask themselves questions. That is not consciousness, that is blind religion.

The reason I bring this up, the 2012 changes are about changing that very addiction.

The irony of your statements will surely be wasted upon you.

2012, as an enigma, is only possible because of the knowledge science has given us.
Without science, you would not even know were traversing the galactic plane.
Without that, the calenders and the crop circles would seem meaningless.
Without Science, you would not even know DNA exists, and that evolution or stages in human development are possible from a mutation in DNA.
DNA crop circles would mean nothing to us, without this.
I could keep going, but it would be a waste of time.

It is science, and scientific knowledge, that makes all of what Pane suggest as being possible or plausible to you.
Pane just inserts religion and mysticism.
Welcome to the new church.

reply to post by GeosAlien


None of your links are working for me this morning. As I pointed out from the USGS there has not been an increase in earthquake or volcanic activity. You can post all of the mistaken sites you want. The REAL scientists disagree with whomever penned these blogs.

I figured out why one of the links was bad and was able to find the indicated page.

In viewing the volcanic eruption data I see that the chart covers from 1875 forward to sometime just after 1993. The criteria used is number of eruption days of larger eruptions. Notice how the data increased at the end of WWII.

Consider one of the larger eruptions in the US. A mountain named Novarupta blew in 1912. How many days did it erupt? Which mountain erupted? No one really knew because people were not in there until 1916. One of the largest eruptions was basically out of sight. When Griggs went in to explore 4 years after the eruption he found the Valley of 10,000 Smokes. He found which mountain had erupted.

So you might ask yourself a few questions.
1. Since no one was there to observe the eruption how is it known that it was just 60 hours?
2. How did people learn that this eruption occurred?
3. Does the largest eruption in the 20th century deserve a rating of 2.5, which is what Mandeville's chart assigns it?

Novarupta

The length of the eruption is deduced from seismic data. At least one fishing boat observed the ash cloud. I find Mandeville's chart lacking since it covers a wide time in which different methods of volcanic observation were employed from direct observation to indirect observations from seismographic stations. It also is unclear if it includes underwater activity which is about 3/4 of all volcanic activity according to the USGS.

BTW, I love the photo at the top of the article. I hiked below the face in the background and across and on top of the lava dome. It was pouring rain and I laid over a vent and took a sauna in the great outdoors.