Navajo Prophecy: July 7 2012 - Pole Shift - Cropcircles Agree

The Hopi prophecy appears to be a recent idea. It has been beaten to death in a number of threads, which simply revolve around shoehorning events into the words of the prophecy. A common claim is that comet Holmes was the blue star. It was a yellow comet, not blue. But so be it. Shoehorning into vague prophecies is a fun game, but nothing much more than a game.

what??? how could ashes fall from the sky and how could it make the land burn and the oceans boil

Originally posted by eg175
what??? how could ashes fall from the sky and how could it make the land burn and the oceans boil

Ashes usually fall from the sky after a volcanic eruption. Land burning and oceans boiling could be from many things such as lava from a volcanic flow or a meteor impact those are the first things that come to my mind.

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
I came across a member comment here at this story...
KTSM: Northern Lights Could Be Seen In Florida As Poles Shift

The commenter wrote:

Very interesting. Interesting because Navajo prophesies state that the Magnetic Entrance (North Pole) will become the Magnetic Exit (South Pole) around 496.00 (Year 2012 [Each Navajo year equals four Gregorian years]), 'Ałhiidį́į́Kii (Quadrant Two) Dlaahooził (Sector Five) Naakijį́(Day Two) which comes out to Summer, July 7th, 2012.
Navajo oracles say that it will be caused by our twelfth planet, yet astronomers confirm eight planets, excluding Pluto, Eris, Sedna and Ceres. Hmmm....

]

I take exeption to this. First of all there are many more dwarf planets than the 3 that link mentions

en.wikipedia.org...(dwarf_planet) Makemake is but one example

also Ceres is an asteroid in the asteroid belt, and while it IS large and was once even considered a planet 160 years ago, it was not alone. Several other asteroids, Pallas, Juno and Vesta were considered planets in the 1800's before Pluto and even Neptune were discovered. So back then we had about 11 planets!!!


en.wikipedia.org...(dwarf_planet)

so I don't put much into any prophecy naming an amount of planets as there have more and less over time due to classifications.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Ahmose

 

We know of no solar systems with 12 planets let along our own. Where did you get this idea?

But isn't that more a point of definition rather than a fact?
Some of Jupiter;s moons are bigger than Earth..
They also orbit the sun..
Current definition discounts them merely because they also orbit Jupiter..

reply to post by backinblack

But isn't that more a point of definition rather than a fact?
Some of Jupiter;s moons are bigger than Earth..
They also orbit the sun..
Current definition discounts them merely because they also orbit Jupiter..

That's an interesting point about the size of Jupiter's moons. I checked them up and the largest is Ganymede at 14.8 times 10^22 kg. The Earth is 6 times 10^24. The Moon is 7 times 10^22 kg. Thus the largest moon of Jupiter is more the size of the Moon.

If you check the dwarf planets you'll that they are much smaller than the Moon.

The moons of Jupiter are more like our Moon than they are the Earth. They fit as moons since they are about the same size as our Moon and they act like moons.

That was a good issue to bring up. Thanks.

reply to post by stereologist

The moons of Jupiter are more like our Moon than they are the Earth. They fit as moons since they are about the same size as our Moon and they act like moons.

That was a good issue to bring up. Thanks.

GANYMEDE and CALLISTO are both over 3000 miles diameter..
That makes them bigger than our moon and bigger than Mercury, which is defined as a planet..

So basically, if not for one part of the definition of a planet which states they must be free of other bodies ie: Jupiter, both of them would easily count as planets..

Just a piece of info to keep in mind when looking at ancient text..
Our definitions may be different.

reply to post by kroms33


The Bible also mentions that the dead shall rise again, but let me lay out what I *believe* it means....and I don't mean zombies.

As we are about to usher into the new 5th world, we are also about to usher in a new dimension of reality, I believe. Let me explain...

One dimensional - a point.
Two dimensional - one-planed, like watching TV, or reading comics. The point has extended out to the sides and is flat.
Three dimensional - spacial....the point has extended in all directions, in all planes.
Four dimensional - movement...the extended point now has forward movement, in one direction. This is called "time".

These are the dimensions we currently are familiar with. The fifth dimension, however, is what we will be soon experiencing. Although it is still theoretical, I don't believe it to be, given all the ancient "clues" that allude to what may become our reality very soon. The fifth dimension, if I remember correctly, takes "time" to a different level, where it is no longer limited to one direction....it exists all at once at all times, and we will have the ability to jump around through time....today we're 96 years old, tomorrow we can be 5 again, or we can go back to yesterday and be a teenager, and so on. No one will die. The way we currently manage time will be impossible, because time passage as we know it will no longer exist. The Bible talks about all those who have ever walked the earth, will once again be alive and walking the earth. The only way this is possible, (aside from the zombie theory), is if time stops being linear and one-directional. Then, everything that has been, will BE once again, all at the same time.

Sounds like science fiction, huh? Far more exciting than the zombie theory though, wouldn't you say?

I really wanted to get into this thread/discussion, I am very interested in phophecy, Navajo phophcy is a very enticing subject, but then I saw the words 'cropcircles'. It is like saying 'true, true, true, fake'. IMO. Crop cirlces are only there to make money selling aerial views and walking tours to them. They are a business, not a fact. So many people have come forward and told their truth about making them. But the supposed 'mystery' of them keeps some thinking it is true, that aliens come here to earth, to draw in the wheat fields. This is all they do, draw mysterious pictures and leave and go back to their world, no matter what technology it takes to travel here, and back to their own planet, that technology is no good when they get here, all they can do is swirl some wheat around. Yes that is sarcasm. I tend to think that an intelligent alien life form, and it would take intelligence to come to earth, could come up with a better way of communicating a dire message. And that they would do it everywhere, not in the same area of england over and over.

Originally posted by backinblack
GANYMEDE and CALLISTO are both over 3000 miles diameter..
That makes them bigger than our moon and bigger than Mercury, which is defined as a planet..

So basically, if not for one part of the definition of a planet which states they must be free of other bodies ie: Jupiter, both of them would easily count as planets..

Tough break for Ganymede and Callisto.

Just a piece of info to keep in mind when looking at ancient text..
Our definitions may be different.

If we count moons as planets on the basis of size, then we should also consider lots of other bodies. Io, Europa, Titan, Triton, Rhea and Charon spring immediately to mind. While some of these are larger than Earth's Moon, none (including Ganymede and Callisto) are larger than Earth itself, contrary to your earlier claim. Even our Moon, with a radius in excess of 1,700 km, could be a candidate based on an arbitrary size requirement.

You say that "ancient [texts]" might have defined things on a basis like this, as opposed the IAU's modern specification. Fair enough. Can you name an "ancient text" that shows how some pre-telescope culture even knew the difference between a planet and a star, apart from apparent motion? The original Greek term for planet literally meant "wandering star." In any case, such parameters would leave us with a total number of bodies somewhat higher than 12, even assuming these cultures of yesteryear could A) see these moons (unlikely) and B) knew what they were (even more unlikely). Just taking those moons with a diameter greater than 2,500 km, we come to a grand total of 7 additional bodies.

So, I suppose the crux of the my concern is why any "ancient text" -- whether you refer to dubious so-called "prophecies" by the Hopi or Navajo or something older like Sumerian or Babylonian writings -- should be considered to refer to bodies for which there is no evidence of observation by the civilizations in question. There's a reason, after all, that the two objects you mentioned are called Galilean moons.

User Ahmose claims in this thread that "Every solar system surrounding 'ours'..all have 12 planets..and our system is no different." Of course, he/she offers no evidence in support of this claim. I speculate that this person refers not to large moons, but to something along the lines of Nibiru or some such nonsense. At the end of the day, one can probably craft definitions to fit just about any number of his or her choosing, and this qualification becomes even more flexible (not in a good way) when we start shoehorning in text from ancient sources, mythological or otherwise, all while completely ignoring practical considerations such as visibility and evidence thereof.

I guess there's always the ancient astronauts who could have bestowed this previously unattainable knowledge upon our forebears.

reply to post by UndeadDinosaur


Not sure what you are trying to show..
Many ancient texts listed more planets than modern man could actually see..
Some have been since proven..

I'm just questioning if our definition of a planet is different to theirs..
Afterall, poor Pluto was recently dumped which shows where we are at with consistency..

Originally posted by backinblack

Not sure what you are trying to show..

Essentially, that your assertion -- "Just a piece of info to keep in mind when looking at ancient text..Our definitions may be different," -- doesn't make any sense in regard to moons, and that any hypothesis that ancient people knew about planets they couldn't see demands more evidence than assertions.

Many ancient texts listed more planets than modern man could actually see..
Some have been since proven..

Great, then surely you can name at least one unambiguous example.

I'm just questioning if our definition of a planet is different to theirs..

I know, and I addressed that pretty clearly. If Bob thinks some ancient text refers to a planet, and there is no known mechanism (e.g. a telescope) by which the author of that text could have known about the object, then the burden is Bob's to show that the text actually refers to what he claims. Otherwise, there are far simpler explanations. For example, "Nibiru" as referred to in Babylonian literature means the summer solstice point in the sky, Jupiter or Mercury, depending on the cuneiform tablet. It does not refer to a magical planet on a wildly eccentric orbit that mysteriously travels with a cloaking device, except for during specific moments when certain people are aiming their cell phone cameras at the Sun.

Whether the ancient authors had a definition of "planet" that differs from ours, while not irrelevant by any stretch, is ancillary to this point.

Afterall, poor Pluto was recently dumped which shows where we are at with consistency..

Pluto being relegated to dwarf planet was perfectly consistent with the new definition established by the IAU, which was implemented specifically to address inconsistencies in the arbitrary qualifications leading up to the change.

That has diddly to do with anything. My response to you, as already explained, entailed a request for evidence as to whether a given civilization had the means to distinguish planets from stars, in some way other than their mere apparent motion relative to the fixed stars (hence the Greek "wandering star"). I'd also like to know what method or mechanism allowed these people, prior to the telescope, to allegedly know about these bodies. This is doubly important, since you have now directly asserted that, "Many ancient texts listed more planets than modern man could actually see."

reply to post by UndeadDinosaur


I sugest you do your own research on what ancient texts say about planets..
I'm not here to do it for you..

But this?

Pluto being relegated to dwarf planet was perfectly consistent with the new definition established by the IAU, which was implemented specifically to address inconsistencies in the arbitrary qualifications leading up to the change.

Only proves my point....

Originally posted by AllSeeingI

-The land will be crossed by snakes of iron = Railroads
-The land shall be criss-crossed by a giant spider's web = Chemtrails and Contrails from Aircraft
-The land shall be criss-crossed with rivers of stone that make pictures in the sun = Roads
-You will hear of the sea turning black, and many living things dying because of it = Pollution / Oilspills

You will hear of a dwelling-place in the heavens,above the earth, that shall fall with a great crash. It will appear as a blue star. Very soon after this, the ceremonies of my people will cease. = A planet, asteroid, or spaceship crashes or lands on earth.

edit on (1/17/11) by AllSeeingI because: typo

The land shall be criss-crossed by a giant spider's web = Chemtrails and Contrails from Aircraft

I think you will find that these may be telephone and electricity wires, they said the land will be criss crossed and not the sky



You will hear of a dwelling-place in the heavens,above the earth, that shall fall with a great crash. It will appear as a blue star. Very soon after this, the ceremonies of my people will cease

we already have had a dwelling from the heavens above fall to the ground, skylab fell to earth in 1979 iirc

reply to post by backinblack

GANYMEDE and CALLISTO are both over 3000 miles diameter..
That makes them bigger than our moon and bigger than Mercury, which is defined as a planet..

The measure of size I used was mass. You are using a different measure of size: length. The term size as you can see is vague. It can be interpreted to mean different things. The mass of a celestial object is easier to determine than its diameter, since the mass can be inferred from its movement. Even if an object cannot be resolved to anything more than a small dot, it's movement can be determined over time and thus leading to a determination of its mass. The diameter cannot be determine since the object cannot be properly resolved.

The new definition of a planet can be found here:
2006 Definition of a Planet

The mass of Mercury is 3 times 10^23kg. The mass of Ganymede is 1.5 times 10^22kg. The mass of the moons is small compared to Mercury. The only reason that the mean radius of Ganymede at 2634km is close to Mercury at 2439km is that the moons of Jupiter are composed of less dense material and Mercury is a rocky world.

The size or mass of the moons of Jupiter is small compared to the planets.

reply to post by stereologist

2.has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape),

So are you saying those moons are not round enough?
According to your link size or mass is not even an issue..
Actually going by your linked definition pluto is still a planet along with many other celestrial bodies..

reply to post by backinblack


As you can see the notion of size as in length is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue has to do with mass. The objects in question are large enough to form a near spherical form due to their mass. These moons have reached a mass large enough to meet criterion 2. What they fail to do is to meet criterion 1.

According to your link size or mass is not even an issue..

Not only is this statement false, but you even copied criterion 2 which shows this statement to be false. The reason I have been discussing mass is that mass, not length, as a measure of size is relevant to the discussion.

Actually going by your linked definition pluto is still a planet along with many other celestrial bodies..

Please read the linked material. Pluto and several other celestial bodies fail to meet criterion 3. That additional criterion to define a planet separates out the planets from the dwarf planets.

"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."

BP oil disaster?

reply to post by munkey66


In all of this shoehorning with the Hopi prophecies why does everyone suggest Skylab? Why can't it be Mir, any of the US or Russian capsules or even the Chinese capsule? Why does it even have to be something associated with the space program? Why can't it be a balloon, or airplane, or dirigible? For fun I'd like to suggest the Hindenberg.

PS I do know that the Hindenberg disaster predates the origin of the Hopi prophecies. On the other hand I believe that the most successful prophecies are those that are made after the fact.

THe dead will leave their graves?
Hmmm wasnt there just a report about the dead coming alive in brazil?