The 2012 Forum Has Become a Snake Pit

reply to post by curious7

Who says they're lies? Far out conspiracies maybe but lies? That purports the notion that something exists to be considered a truth or a lie in the first place. If this supposed "dwarf planet", "gas giant", "Nibiru/Planet X" or anything else you wish to call it hasn't been sighted or discovered and so far lies firmly in the realms of "speculation and theory" then it can't be a lie now can it?

The main lie is the repeated claim that the Washington Post article states that an object was found in the solar system. That is a glaring lie. Other lies were also stated.

Vast difference between "lie" and "speculation".

Correct. That is why I stated that they were lies and not ridiculous or unfounded speculations.

How exactly would you know for sure I don't understand? Can you read minds?

Are you referring to this statement?

You suggest that you don't understand the precision of measurement.

Where does it state or suggest that I know for sure?

I also do find your obsession with 2012 very unhealthy.

Why do you think it is an obsession? To infer that it is an obsession from the scope of my postings is making a poor inference.

Your posts suggest that there is a lack of understanding of precision in predictions. Not all predictions are as precise as others. There is sometimes a large uncertainty in a prediction. Other times the precision is good and the uncertainty small.

reply to post by Cecilofs

Yeah, I studied Science for 9 years including High School and I still think there's something to this 2012 "hoax" as you call it (again with no proof I might add).

I've provided a wealth of evidence against these silly 2012 claims.

the DOGMA that has seen science become the new religion, I can safely say that YOU are telling lies about science Stereo.

Where's the proof I might add.

Again, if you really understood true science then you would realise that it is fallable (don't mince words by saying I mean falsifiable here - I mean fallable). As in, you can find fault in it. As in, it might be wrong. As in, you can't say anything with 100% certainty.

That's right and that's what good science is all about. It is about stating the limitations of the research.

So here is the problem in a nutshell. There isn't going to be an unknown planet entering the orbits of the known planets because the uncertainty is infinitesimal. Any possible error is so small that it is of no consequence.

The lies that get sold to everyone are that "This is how it is", "science knows best", "science can answer any question" and most importantly, "If its not accepted by scientists then it must be false". Those are the lies that are perpetuated by the dogmatic structures that I was talking about.

Those are the nitwit tales from bad movies. That is not how scientists work. That is not what science is about.

Those are the lies that you are telling daily in this forum, yet you call us liars for putting forward speculation. Hilarious!

That's a laughable claim. Please start opening your mind and reading my posts and learning. I don't make any of those claims because they are laughable at best, actually anyone saying that is stupid and I have never said any of those things. So please don't tell lies such as me, stereologist, having said any of those things. Only a liar would claim that I said any of that.

That is why we can't predict if anything will happen in 2012 and you can't say that nothing significant will happen that day.

Nothing you stated leads to that conclusion. All you've done is show a lack of understanding of how predictions are made, how science works, and misrepresentations of what I have stated.

Every time you try you just make yourself look foolish IMO.

For unknown reasons you are unable to understand what I posted.

Originally posted by stereologistSo here is the problem in a nutshell. There isn't going to be an unknown planet entering the orbits of the known planets because the uncertainty is infinitesimal. Any possible error is so small that it is of no consequence.

Note that my thing is more TWZ and I am new to this Nibiru idea. Haven't made up my mind about that either but as always I remain open-minded.

Your point is true, ASSUMING a few things:

1. That our models of the universe are correct. They might not be. They could be slightly wrong, they could be completely wrong. If they are slightly wrong then the possibility is tiny, if they are completely wrong then who knows what could happen.
2. That the officials aren't lying to us. They might be.
3. That the planet would be travelling using "normal" means. Again, going with remote possibilities - it could be "cloaked" by some form of alien technology or other means. It could be travelling at FTL speeds and/or using a "wormhole". Not saying I believe these things but its possible.

Those are the nitwit tales from bad movies. That is not how scientists work. That is not what science is about.

No that's not how scientists work and its not what science is about. Its what the dogma is about and it is perpetrated through everything from bad movies, through the MSM and into our every day lives. Result? Everyday, normal people believe science to be all of those things. If a scientist doesn't give something the tick of approval, then people don't believe it. If a controversial theory comes out and a few scientists in key official positions say its not true, then it gets forgotten about or becomes maligned as some crazy alternative theory that only "whackos" believe. e.g. You coming into our threads and arguing that 2012 can't possibly be true because it doesn't fit your current world view.

That's a laughable claim. Please start opening your mind and reading my posts and learning. I don't make any of those claims because they are laughable at best, actually anyone saying that is stupid and I have never said any of those things. So please don't tell lies such as me, stereologist, having said any of those things. Only a liar would claim that I said any of that.

Your argument as I understand it, is that none of these 2012 ideas could possibly be true. The argument you use is they either contradict scientific theories or that there are no peer-reviewed, widely accepted scientific papers showing it to be true. Am I wrong on this?

Assuming I am on the right track, then the latter could potentially be because the dogma of science does not allow there to be any peer review of these ideas. If a scientist comes out with a controversial paper, they are shouted down by other scientists all over the world who don't believe it could be true. Straight away those scientists are being biased. Why? Because they are entrenched in their own beliefs as well as their own research which says that can't possibly be true, so they don't even look into it. A scientist is supposed to consider any theory, yet scientists are entrenched in the dogma that keeps science rigid, when it is supposed to be fluid. Therefore, new ideas can be crushed and pidgeon-holed as a crazy, fringe idea before they have a chance to be discussed openly in the public forum.

As for the former - as I said, our current theories could be wrong and that idea is fundamental to scientific theory. So you can't use contradicting current theories as a basis for why it can't happen - you have to test the old theories again in light of new evidence to see if they still stand up. How many Governments do you think would give scientists money to look into 2012? Besides private research that's where the money comes from. The only scientists willing to give it a good look are instantly ridiculed and their careers are effectively ruined.

Now, in relation to 2012, the evidence is largely anecdotal. The problem, in a nutshell, is that science is built from the ground up to ignore anecdotal evidence, eliminate subjectivity and promote only the cold, hard, physically observable facts (Some of the softer sciences are better at this e.g. Psychology and Sociology). Therefore, evidence which supports 2012 is thrown out as rubbish by people like you, who demand hard facts. Therefore, no unbiased research happens into it. Therefore people like you can throw out the evidence. Around and around we go...

THERE CAN BE NO HARD FACTS UNTIL AFTER THE DATE HAS PASSED.

Can we agree on this one simple point at least? You can run all the simulations and make all the predictions you want, but we won't know until the date comes and goes. That comment cuts both ways, but I am not claiming 2012 as 100% true while you are claiming it to be 100% false.

This is my whole point - you will find no satisfaction here because we are talking about completely different things. Science in its current form cannot possibly describe anything even remotely close to what we are talking about here. It encompasses religion, science, anecdotal evidence, intuition, emotions, thoughts, history, alternate concepts of time and space. Science does not and in its current form can not even begin to touch on these subjects, because by its very design it denies they exist (e.g. religion) or sweeps their existence under the carpet as though they don't exist (intuition and emotion).

So coming into the 2012 forum and using science as a way to discredit it will not work. Move on, we get your point, there's nothing for you here, so move on. Unless you do have another agenda for being here?

i think there are not enough evidence to prove 2012 is the end of our world.

Originally posted by needhelp1
i think there are not enough evidence to prove 2012 is the end of our world.

A lot of people thought the same about 9/11 not being an inside job.

All depends on your perspective, I guess...

reply to post by Cecilofs

Your point is true, ASSUMING a few things:

1. That our models of the universe are correct. They might not be. They could be slightly wrong, they could be completely wrong. If they are slightly wrong then the possibility is tiny, if they are completely wrong then who knows what could happen.
2. That the officials aren't lying to us. They might be.
3. That the planet would be travelling using "normal" means. Again, going with remote possibilities - it could be "cloaked" by some form of alien technology or other means. It could be travelling at FTL speeds and/or using a "wormhole". Not saying I believe these things but its possible.

1. Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru.
2. Far fetched considering that so many groups can test the predictions.
3. A silly version of 1.

No that's not how scientists work and its not what science is about. Its what the dogma is about and it is perpetrated through everything from bad movies, through the MSM and into our every day lives. Result? Everyday, normal people believe science to be all of those things. If a scientist doesn't give something the tick of approval, then people don't believe it. If a controversial theory comes out and a few scientists in key official positions say its not true, then it gets forgotten about or becomes maligned as some crazy alternative theory that only "whackos" believe. e.g. You coming into our threads and arguing that 2012 can't possibly be true because it doesn't fit your current world view.

Retelling the basis for many really bad movies is nothing more than that. That's just not how science works.

Your argument as I understand it, is that none of these 2012 ideas could possibly be true.

No.

THERE CAN BE NO HARD FACTS UNTIL AFTER THE DATE HAS PASSED.

Spouting a common falsehood in all caps still leaves it a falsehood. For example, the Mayans predicted eclipses. People have been predicting eclipses, tides, and other phenomena with great accuracy for a long time. You don't have to wait for the event.

You can run all the simulations and make all the predictions you want, but we won't know until the date comes and goes. [./quote]
Not true. Many predictions can be made with great certainty. We don't have to wait and see.

Science in its current form cannot possibly describe anything even remotely close to what we are talking about here. It encompasses religion, science, anecdotal evidence, intuition, emotions, thoughts, history, alternate concepts of time and space. Science does not and in its current form can not even begin to touch on these subjects, because by its very design it denies they exist (e.g. religion) or sweeps their existence under the carpet as though they don't exist (intuition and emotion).

False. The hoax of 2012 is fear mongering, lies, frauds, and a huge heap of ideas tossed onto the pile of disinformation in an effort to steal money from people. It is based on the realization that there are those that distrust entities out there, real or imagined, to such an extent that they will throw their money away.

This is not about alternatives, but about lies and subterfuge. It is about fake planets that are demonstrably false, appealing to paranoia, cooked up hocus-pocus mathematical functions, misrepresentations of ancient writings, ludicrous rewritings of archaeology, and the list goes on and on.

So coming into the 2012 forum and using science as a way to discredit it will not work. Move on, we get your point, there's nothing for you here, so move on. Unless you do have another agenda for being here?

Are you making money from people by telling lies? Does it smite you where it hurts - in the wallet? If all you can do is spread nonsense, then so be it. Then move along. We understand your intentions. The damage to people's educations has been done. So move on.

I hear you. I spent 3 hours today research, and discovered NASA either owns/partners with/funs/parents of/etc every original sources website referring to comet Elenin over in the "Comet Elenin PIC/DATA!" thread.

I referenced every original Comet Elenin website source, and every original Leonid Elenin website source, and showed their connections to NASA being their parent, and given that I cited approx 2-3 pages of info(a lot!) I was pretty proud of myself when I finally pressed 'reply' sending it onto the board.

I did get a few positive comments on the information I posted, however I was also basically deemed a crack pot by a few members, and even worse in the next 2 pages that built up after my post, no one seemed to notice because a) i guess anyone that actually researched and posted 2/3 pages of facts must be crazy, or b) people are too lazy to check the facts like I invited anyone to about the information I gave.

So that's it for in actually trying to uncover/bring forth information to people here. I'll still put my two sense in here and there, but the rebuttals being fired back that in no way actually debunk what you've stated, but rather nit pick over a grammatical error you made are quite sickening. It's become a waste to try and prove any point even if you have sources to back it up with someone, as the OP said, is just going to sit their all day and call you a liar with nothing to back up their claim.

reply to post by loagun


Could you at least post a link to the thread in question?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Cecilofs
1. Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru.

OMG stereologist give it UP already. I would actually love nothing more here on this thread then to see you backup that statement you just made. In fact I would love for you to create your own thread entirely based on the sentence,

" Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru."


Please ignore all the other 20 threads you have going on right now where your rebutting everything with copy and pastes from NASA and Wikipedia, or at least put them all on the back burner for a moment, and backup that statement you made.

Don't give me a link, because I will just call you a liar without reading it like you did to me when I disproved you on a few things over in that Brown Dwarf thread(whatever the proper title was), but rather with supporting evidence give me, and everyone else a detailed, straight forward, without a doubt answer proving " Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru.".

Pretty please put your 'knowledge' where your type is, and lay it on on me/us. Since you obviously believe this without a doubt as seen in your cocky sentences, prove " Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru.".

No 2/3 sentence answer. No 'here read this' link(s) answer. No copy+pasting off topic information(like you occasionally do to add size to your posts), or copy+pasting off gov. sites. Use your brain, and efficiently answer your no-it-all reply that you didn't give 1 reference to support, and prove the statement you made without of all the the disinformation garbage you love to throw around.

"" Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru."" Prove it.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by loagun

 

Could you at least post a link to the thread in question?

Did you even read the OP's post? Or even know what this thread is about? If you did then you would know that my post was in response and agreement to the subject of this thread. It is not about me reposting every single detail about the contents I mentioned in my message, or trying to change the theme of this thread into one that would be all about me now, and my subject matter.

I answered a question. Your relpy as absolutely no barring at all with my post, and just goes to show exactly what kind of a negative person you are just waiting to start their next rant. So go p*ss up a road.

PS instead of waisting your and everyone else's time with posts such as 'could you at least post a link' type garbage where your sticking your nose in, and move your lazy right hand thats on your mouse up towards the top of the page, and click the text 'search'. I think you can take it from their....

reply to post by loagun

Don't give me a link, because I will just call you a liar without reading it like you did to me when I disproved you on a few things over in that Brown Dwarf thread(whatever the proper title was), but rather with supporting evidence give me, and everyone else a detailed, straight forward, without a doubt answer proving " Our model of the universe would have to be amazingly wrong to allow for the existence of Nibiru.".

Were you one of the people making glaringly false statements about the contents of the Washington Post article? Were you purposely, willfully and knowingly telling lies? I can't recall if you were one of the people doing that. If pointing out lies is a problem to you then so be it.

reply to post by loagun

I answered a question. Your relpy as absolutely no barring at all with my post, and just goes to show exactly what kind of a negative person you are just waiting to start their next rant. So go p*ss up a road.

Are you telling us that you lied about your research?
Are you telling us that you never did the research?
Exactly what are you trying to tell us?

PS instead of waisting your and everyone else's time with posts such as 'could you at least post a link' type garbage where your sticking your nose in, and move your lazy right hand thats on your mouse up towards the top of the page, and click the text 'search'. I think you can take it from their....

You misspelled wasting.
You misspelled that's
You misspelled there

You had all of this time to write a rather poor long winded post and yet you can't provide a link to your post. Are you too lazy or does this post of yours actually exist?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by loagun

 

Were you purposely, willfully and knowingly telling lies?

Well look who's back accusing others of telling lies!

It's Mr. "there's been no increase in earthquake activity" himself!

I'm sure this serial liar also has a good excuse for another X-class solar flare yesterday.

If you hate professional liars as much as I do, just believe the EXACT OPPOSITE of whatever Stereologist says.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


There has been no increase in earthquakes. The math shows this. While minor quakes are being measured in significantly greater numbers this can easily be explained by the greater prevalence of seismographs in the world and more sensitive equipment. As for the flares, it is not that rare to get two X class solar flares in the same year, especially as we get closer to the solar maximum. In 1989 two X-class flares were observed close together and each one was much larger than the ones we have seen this year.

You know, I'm slipping off the fence and starting to really listen more to GoldenFleece and loagun purely because when I tried to post an intelligent, well thought out post that was actually kind to stereologist (twice in fact) and giving a different slate in a way he'd understand, I got nothing back but accusations that I know nothing about how science or predictions work (both of which are untrue).

Almost as if he assumes a defensive stance constantly or just enjoys getting people's backs up on purpose for his own amusement.

Sorry stereo, I was on your side but you kinda ruined our relationship there

reply to post by curious7

Thanks, but I certainly don't have all the answers. I just strongly object to people like Stereologist and Xcalibur254 who pretend that they do.

If I were to listen to anyone, it would be Lucus at Rabbit Hole 2, who was run off by Stereologist and other pseudoskeptics who've become ubiquitous to ATS.

Lucus created a brilliant and the most-watched YouTube video about 9/11 (20 million views) -- which was absolutely correct -- so I'd trust whatever he says about 2012.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


There is no increase in earthquake activity. Earthquakes happen.

Don't believe in what I say. Follow the evidence. You can find out who the liars are.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I didn't run off Lucus. He was chased away by logic and the evidence which showed that he was a liar and a perpetrator of hoaxes. Lucus is a well known liar. He as well as you purposely and wantonly posted glaring lies. Interestingly enough you both lied about the Washington Post article. Sounds like you just might be a sock puppet.

The reason you object to me and XCalibur254 is that you are afraid of the evidence. You hide from reality and knowingly misrepresent the truth.

Originally posted by stereologistThe hoax of 2012 is fear mongering, lies, frauds, and a huge heap of ideas tossed onto the pile of disinformation in an effort to steal money from people. It is based on the realization that there are those that distrust entities out there, real or imagined, to such an extent that they will throw their money away.

This is not about alternatives, but about lies and subterfuge. It is about fake planets that are demonstrably false, appealing to paranoia, cooked up hocus-pocus mathematical functions, misrepresentations of ancient writings, ludicrous rewritings of archaeology, and the list goes on and on.

Ok so here is your argument.

I have never bought or sold anything 2012 related, nor would I reccomend anyone does. If other people do that's up to them. I can agree that there are certain people trying to exploit the idea for personal gain. That happens with everything - it doesn't mean the whole idea is false and it doesn't mean that everyone who believes in it do the same thing.

Once again, the majority of 2012 theories are actually positive. So how is it fear mongering to be talking about positive changes for our planet?

The fact of the matter is, the world is in trouble. We have to change. Even if you don't believe in man-made climate change, we know that at some point the oil is going to run out. So we can't go on forever the way we are. 2012 theories are mostly about making that transition to the next stage of humanity. We have to really look at and question even our most base assumptions about human existance. We have to create a new system or the one we have will eventually collapse and it won't be pretty. I don't think you can argue against that.

Its not the end of the world - humans have always found a way and we will again. It will just be much easier the sooner we start.

Your argument holds no weight.

reply to post by Cecilofs

Your argument holds no weight.

Again you fail to support this conclusion from your statements.

The hoax of 2012 is not about anything other than stealing money from people. Your lack of support for the actions of these fiends is admirable. Too bad others do not do as you do. There are authors making money on misleading people.