The Secrets of the Indigo Children and what 2012 REALLY means for humans

Originally posted by Samuelis

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Samuelis

 

Which of the multitude of Sirius hoaxes are you planning to discuss? There are so many it is easy to lose count.

Scientific Proof

This will help.

Seriously, that was a good one, and yes I'm laughing with you, Sammy!

reply to post by Balkan


the higher we go the better this gets

I siriussly should go get some food.

KFC anyone?

we are always laughing together

reply to post by Profane22


Anyone claiming that the Sun rotates around Alcyone is not telling the truth.
Anyone mixing Aztec and Mayan mythologies is not telling the truth.

You want proof that modern technology hasn't been flipped on it's ears..!? I think I addressed that with the "earth is flat" or how about the earth was the center of the solar system!!! HELLLLOOOO!!!

And you were very mistaken weren't you about the flat Earth weren't you? It's a rather common mistake that is perpetuated that even in Medieval times people though the Earth was flat. You repeated it even after I told you that was wrong.

A flat Earth is a reasonable model as long as people do not travel. As soon as people travel they quickly realize that the Earth is not flat.

A heliocentric system was proposed thousands of years ago, but did not catch on until the evidence was indisputable. Even by the times of the Greeks it was clear that a system with the Earth at the center was problematic. The retrograde motions of planets was observed and known to not fit with a geocentric system. Part of the reason it did not catch on was that there was no practical application as there was with a round Earth. Part of the reason was political. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

Modern science is just starting to proove the existence of other dimensions. Esoteric/Spiritual knowledge has known about this for THOUSANDS of years... some day they will catch up... some day you will be wrong.

When scientists say dimensions it is not the notion of esoteric/spiritual knowledge. They are very different. The term dimension was borrowed from science to pretend some legitimacy of these other areas.

I wasn't even alluding to anything rascist in ANY sense! You misunderstood my comment... all I said was your sources are no more correct than mine.

Actually you wrote,

Ok, a mayan descendant doesn't understand the knowledge passed down to her...?

That is an overtly racist comment. Many people do it thinking that this makes the info better.

Ultimately, linear and cyclical calenders do the same thing.

False, false, false. You should try reading "The Sacred and the Profane" by Eliade. It is an easy to read text on religion and will clarify the difference for you.

It's STILL BASED ON A CYCLICAL MOVEMENT AROUND THE SUN!!!!

Why are you screaming mistakes? The calendars are linear. The counting of repeating events does not make the calendar cyclical.

I'm tired of being called childish names and a liar... grow up.

I never called you a liar. I stated that your sources lied to you. So please don't make false claims yourself.

Let's just agree to disagree about our philosophies.

Making mistakes about precession and Alcyone and Aztecs and Quetzalcoatl and other factual issues is not philosophical.

reply to post by Samuelis




Hopefully, stereo can make some more one-lined, extreme left-brain filler posts to get us to 50, so we can get on with this...

You know, I'm not against being skeptical, scientific, left-brained, etc, etc... I also think it's bad to be to open minded... but CMON!

It's like,

One of us: "So how about Sirius?"

Stereo: "It's been scientifically proven Sirius doesn't exist! Your a liar, A LIAR!!!"

One of us: "wait... what?! It's.... right over there!"

/sarcasm

reply to post by Samuelis


That's a bad link. Why not introduce the material you are posting? It helps the flow of the thread.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Samuelis

 

That's a bad link. Why not introduce the material you are posting? It helps the flow of the thread.

I did but that 3.0 link doesn't work in 4.0

Try this one

11.11

reply to post by stereologist


Again... you've derailed.

We obviously have a very different perspective. You call mine wrong... Again, based on what? What we currently know scientifically? What this scientist said in this book?

You state your sources are "this" and mine are "that"... again, it's all based on opinion and the fact you have NO IDEA what my sources are. This is battle can go on for weeks and neither of us can win. Time will tell who is right. I'm willing to place a bet, but who knows if either of us will live long enough to see...

and you did say I lied... and my sources... go read your last post.

Whatever...

Let's just agree to disagree...

I read only the first part of this web page, but it seems to describe the differences between cyclical and linear time. That should lead you into the difference between a cyclical and linear calendar.

Mircea Eliade on Sacred and Cyclical Time
My earlier post made a reference to the book listed as reference 2.

Originally posted by Profane22
reply to post by stereologist

 

Again... you've derailed.

We obviously have a very Different Perspective. You call mine wrong... Again, based on what? What we currently know scientifically? What this scientist said in this book?

You state your sources are "this" and mine are "that"... again, it's all based on opinion. This is battle can go on for weeks and neither of us can win. Time will tell who is right. I'm willing to place a bet, but who knows if either of us will live long enough to see...

and you did say I lied... and my sources... go read your last post.

Whatever...

Let's just agree to disagree...

No it doesn't work that way.

again this is a 3.0 lesson that "we" need to complete.

I can do this all day

Originally posted by stereologist
I read only the first part of this web page, but it seems to describe the differences between cyclical and linear time. That should lead you into the difference between a cyclical and linear calendar.

Mircea Eliade on Sacred and Cyclical Time
My earlier post made a reference to the book listed as reference 2.

Mircea Eliade is a CHARLATAN I tell you!!!! She is wrong!!! Her perspective has been outdated by a thousand years... (of course this is only MY opinion and I base this on absolutely nothing)

/sarcasm

Seriously... dude... I know the difference... but AGAIN... it's in what perspective you use the linear calender... if your talking dates in history... 1980, 2001, then yes.

IF your looking at it in a manner years, decades, and millenia in relation to the rotation around the sun...

you know what? Nevermind...

I'm going to bed.

reply to post by Profane22

We obviously have a very different perspective. You call mine wrong... Again, based on what? What we currently know scientifically? What this scientist said in this book?

You mixed the Aztecs and the Mayans and then made some excuse about proximity.
You made false claims about the flat Earth ideas being considered hundreds of years ago.
You claimed that precession's cause was unknown when it was worked out first by Newton.
You claimed that the long count calendar was cyclical when it is not.
You confused cyclical time with counting repeating events.

This is battle can go on for weeks and neither of us can win.

Not true. These are facts that can be checked. No time is needed to figure any of this out.

and you did say I lied.

No. Apparently you are confused on that issue as you are on these other issues.

go read your last post.

I did. You are mistaken.

reply to post by Profane22

Mircea Eliade is a CHARLATAN I tell you!!!! She is wrong!!! Her perspective has been outdated by a thousand years... (of course this is only MY opinion and I base this on absolutely nothing)

Sorry. Have to point it out. The person is male. With a 50-50 chance at getting it right who would have thought you'd make another mistake.

But why do you say that? Please provide facts to support your position? Can you do that? I can support all of my claims just as I did with the ridiculous story that the Sun rotates around Alcyone.

alright i'm so hungry my stomach is eating me.

ill be back soon

Try to unite some very far away dots.

...

reply to post by Samuelis


Is this just more spam? I see nothing you've posted has had anything whatsoever to do with 2012.

So far we've learned that the 2012 connected thought to exist by 1 person was incorrect.

reply to post by stereologist


You know dude, I admitted I mixed up the two... I also admitted I wasn't sure what we as a solar system rotated around...

All I was getting at was I believed we rotated around SOMETHING... Alcyone? Who knows... it's just a theory... I told you that guy wasn't my source... it was just a webpage that was similar to what I read 10 years ago... forgive me for getting some terminology wrong.

You keep attacking the couple of mistakes I admitted to making... and called me and my sources names. It's like the boxer who goes after the broken rib of the opponent that admitted a broken rib... cheap.

Some how, you've made the fact that my arguement that science was wrong a thousand years ago sound wrong... when it WAS...!? Kudos to you... but fact is... they were. When the Sun was discoverd to be the center of the solar system... people were proven wrong. Fact. When we found Pluto, people were proven wrong. Fact. When we went to the moon, skeptics were proven wrong. Fact. When computers advanced beyond 8 bits, skeptics were proven wrong. Fact. Yet you manage to spin my words making me sound wrong about these things...? No... Science WILL be proven wrong in the future about a LOT of things.

Again, right from the start I said I'm not a skeptic and I'm not a believer... I'm hovering in between. I do believe something is going on... what? I don't exactly know... I'm a truth seeker... My picture changes daily... and I'm glad I'm not so narrow minded. My puzzle is a little closer to what's being talked about on here based on MY experiences in this life. Yours obviously is very different. Be a skeptic, great.

As I said, you believe what you want. I'll believe what I want... to each his own.

reply to post by stereologist

reply to post by Xemplar


I believe a more correct interpretation would be that two people make a voting majority,or it takes more than one selfaware human to manifest things within our physical realm ,we need to co-operate to create and maintain our agreed upon or cumulative reality.

In the world as we deal with it the principal is identical wether it is two or two billion humans,we all struggle to be a part of a part of a part of that cumulative reality within which we can excercise a small amount of our free will to satisfy our need to self-substanciate our individuality within the cumulative group of realitys .

The defacto meaning is that it takes at least two people to agree to share their reality in a communal manner within our cumulative reality to gain a foothold or to begin to manifest yet another new reality,two is the minimum but the more the merrier--just ask the christians or the muslims or any other large self-sustaining entity represented by like minded humans willingly supporting the growth and maintenance of said growing reality within the cumulative reality we all share by proxy.

This may not be what we need to foster,it may be what we need to prevent,we may need to aknowledge that the very idea of a divine right to individuality is a wrench thrown in our operation.It is what keeps us seperated and unable to all GET ON THE SAME PAGE AT THE SAME TIME--see tower of babel idealism.

hence we must re-evaluate the ramifications of the propogation of religons or other large groups that need to use economic and fiscal ability to ensurre their IDEAS self-sustainment or survival---ALWAYS at the cost of other humans free will being stolen,bought,or coerced through material as opposed to spiritual means and methods,religon isnt wrong,its how it has been bastardised that is wrong.

It takes two alright,I guess.

reply to post by falconspark


Elton Jhon and Jhon lennon were flirting with disclosure issues many years ago as were others ,friends of theirs,see princess Dianna,there are literally hundreds of songs that reflect topics here on ATS and it is seriously erie that this was all done before the conspiracy theorist moniker even became mainstream,these artists were working in concert with actors and producers to let the story out to us in a concerted unified and VERY ORGANISED movement and are still continuing to do so,many have suffered and become martyers in this movement ,history will recognise and cannonise them.