Hadron Collider And Unusual Earth Events Theory - Your help needed

reply to post by elouina


My best friend periodically keeps having the same dream....in the dream she is in the location where the Hadron Collider is...and she realizes that it is a Stargate.

I personally don't know much about it. Thank you for this thread. Now...I will study!

reply to post by LonelyGuy


And why would you be more con-cerned with Iran than Cern? Is it because of what you know personally from what you have witnessed firsthand or is your concern influenced by the bs that you are force fed?

Ignorance. I cant help but feel disgusted because i used to feel the same way though my way of thought was heavily influenced by events particularly the 911 incident.
One day you will wake. Lets not hate others based on what they show you in order for them to gain personally.

I dont hate a soul.
Take it back


Oh and you may also be interested in this thread Iran

How come no one compares stephan king the mist with the LHC? Cause I'm nuts? Well besides that, lets consider it

So let us consider the fact that "Power" Does not always equal control. How much power does it really take to open up a portal to another dimension? A lot? A little? A few wiggle room? The real issue is lack of security in cern imho because we are also in uncharted terror-tory

The thing that is relavent is the opening of hell in the end of days the apocalypse of peter mentions this very situation happening, caused by man? Well, we have always caused our own problem in history




Also let me relate some of my personal information about the collective conciousness of mankind, not saying its fact, cause where is the pic?

Majority of our myths/fables/tales/stories are done in the format of video games, movies, books and other forms of media. Some poets, who have had a knack of the spiritual world would of been Dante (through the grief of beatrice), John Milton (A blind man), and Mark Twain. Let us not forget the stories of aliester crowley as well or the prophetic vison of the final pope in the end of days. These are all done in the format of media "books, poetry writings, before TV.

Now we have TV, stephan king a man connected in supernatural lingo such as in the movie "the shineing ". He also keeps very much to himself and many have consider him to have some sort of "psychic abilities" We can see throughout history that prophets/the knowing or other forms of media may be delved into movies nowadays. such as the mist, the knowing, Legion, etc

Weird that we have so many of these "Caused by LHC" events are happening at a time when the LHC is in winter shut-down mode, i.e. LHC is switched off. People are running around in the tunnels doing maintenance .....

until med Feb. when recomissioning begins, and science will only start in March
pdf of 2012 schedule

Originally posted by Hellhound604
Weird that we have so many of these "Caused by LHC" events are happening at a time when the LHC is in winter shut-down mode, i.e. LHC is switched off. People are running around in the tunnels doing maintenance .....

until med Feb. when recomissioning begins, and science will only start in March
pdf of 2012 schedule

My main concerned is the rippling of time, or a tear. That is the main issue, Not like it is a on or off thing. You stretch time when the machine is on (like a plastic bag) and it stretches out. When the machine is off the bag is still stretched but there is no more tension

Let me revisit the Norway Spiral for just for a moment. I know there were a lot of theories. And the Russian rocket made sense to me, and I accepted this. But did anyone think to look into the events at LHC during that time frame? The LHC was just put back into operation a few weeks prior. This is what made me take a peek around. This may not even be associated, but I think it should be mentioned so that you can make your own conclusions.

The Norway Spiral occurred on Dec 9, 2009 at 8AM.

World-Record Energy Collisions Achieved at Large Hadron Collider

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — On Tuesday evening, December 8th, thousands of physicists around the world cheered as CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) smashed together subatomic particles at the highest energies ever reached by a human-made accelerator and the giant ATLAS detector observed the products of the record-breaking reactions whizzing through its sophisticated tracking devices.

I would like to post two diagrams on this subject that may be worthy of further investigation. Without the diagrams, the point I would like to alert you to does not come across quite as strongly. There is however no image URL for these but I have almost completed a YouTube Video that explains how these diagrams were created.

The diagrams show a very odd connection between 20 very powerful but unexplained explosions and "precession intersection areas". The latter relates to Einsteinian precession, which explains how Earth's orbit varies in relation to the Sun. The result is a pattern of intersections which is quite distinct and which I have tried to further explain in the 2nd diagram. This is necessary because even Wikipedia only has a very rough diagram of these intersection areas which is not correct. It appears that nobody has bothered to investigate these more thoroughly because it is believed that they are of no importance.

All 20 explosions fit the precession intersection pattern exactly. Because precession is directly related to the passage of time, this would appear to imply that there is a temporal link. Further research I have conducted links not only the positions in orbit to the precession intersection areas, but the events to actual sites which appear to be related to them. These sites are surprisingly less often the LHC, but appear to relate to SLAC and the ILC (yes, I know, of course it hasn't even been built yet... But if we are looking at temporal phenomena, we would be seeing the events, because it will be built.)

Perhaps I should leave it at that for this first post, because it is quite a psychological step to expect anyone to follow. This is only the first stage of my research. I am now working on a third stage, but I can't expect anyone to understand that if nobody even understands exactly how precession, the basis, actually works. If anyone would like to assist in pasting the two diagrams to this thread, please email me, I'd be happy to supply them.
Cheers, Tom

reply to post by TomReOPIE


Please don't keep us in suspense too long....I fear what lies ahead for us if these time ripples and other theories are possible.

reply to post by Jordan River


one of my favorite movies....scary "what if" scenario....I don't think people take into account that we humans are pretty dumb when it comes to the workings of our universe.

reply to post by TomReOPIE


Welcome, and thank you for showing up. I am especially looking forward to your additional data and explainations.

Hi, I'm still trying to make that video I mentioned a bit easier to understand because it's very very complicated, but maybe you'd like to see the following diagram that perhaps shows at least part of the phenomenon I'm researching. There is of course another diagram about Earth position in orbit at the time of event that shows a similar, perhaps even "harmonic" relationship (I'm not an expert in that field however), but the precession intersection points are of course affected by Solar System Barycentre movement. Have a look where all the atmospheric explosions from which NO meteorite remnants hav ever been found happened, in relation to Barycentre movement. The striking thing is where they DIDN'T happen. Large areas where there were no such explosions, just where the Barycentre is furthest from the Sun. Can this be pure coincidence? Perhaps this could be a subject for discussion. I can't start a new thread however because this is only my 2nd post ever, so I hope you don't mind me posting the link here (which hopefully works, I tried to create one on Facebook).

a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Regards, Tom P. S. The effect is in line with a particular theory, which perhaps I should not go into the details of yet. That might be going a bit far too soo.

reply to post by TomReOPIE


Actually you may be best off starting slowly. (This thread died a fast and sudden death anyways. LOL...) Then make a new thread when you are prepared to have every detail picked apart. :LOL: Just let me know when you do, so I can visit it. I think it will be a much bigger hit than this one. Mine was just an idea, yours is actually a theory.

You will love it here. There are some truths mixed in here. You just need to look for them.

You know, your theory made a lot of sense to me. The diagram though, I will need to hit with fresh eyes tomorrow. I am curious about what else you may be theorizing though. Ah go ahead, hit me with it.

Hi, Sorry, but can't find the button to send a private message in this site. Oh well... Yes, that was what the video is about, it's so complicated however, trying to make it halfway understandable. The link is clear however. Of course those markers on the Barycentre diagram aren't where the events occurred, they are simply the dates and these show a link with Barycentre motion. As soon as I finish that vid, I'll post you the link. Oh, and scatterb rain strikes again... The marker for Tunguska hadn't been plotted yet. It's just about in the middle of the Solar disc. The text on the diagram was also a bit too hastily pasted, I have a better one now.. Even if some responses just confirm my favourite line from Monty Python, "..and I sure hope there's intelligent life out in space because there's sure as hell bugger all down here", I was only hoping for one or two intelligent ones anyway. I think I got one Cheers, Tom

You know I am very interested to see what kinds of experiments they will be doing with the LHC on May 9, 2012. So are you working on your thread info? Will it be soon? You have quite a bit of videos that you can put in your thread. It won't take long to get up to 20 posts.

Also, I thought some folks would like to see your Guatemala City 2007 Sinkhole video now. I was waiting for you to post it, but I think it is soo awesome, that I coundn't wait.

Evidence of a link between this first of the two Guatemala City Sinkholes and the Large Hadron Collider. Simulation of orbits in 2007 and 2010 proving that Geneva and Guatemala were in the exact same position relative to the Sun,

If it had created a black hole big enough, we'd all be dead.

Hi again, maybe I really will get enough posts together at this rate but I might prefer you to post anything if you thinks it's OK.

Here's a lower res version of the Barycentre diagram with slightly better text:

a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

The reason for no events in the outer arcs is that when the Barycentre is over half a million km outside the Sun, the precession intersections this produces make transfers extremely unlikely.

Thanks for the encouraging words, but I've given up trying to link any more giant sinkholes to sources, because the time factor is a huge problem. The Guatemala City one was the only one with a reasonable time fix because of the heavy rain from Tropical Storm Agatha, which probably caused the cave in very soon after it formed. Most of the others could possibly have been there for weeks or even months before cave-ins, which I now understand means that no link can ever be reliably be established. I almost took the Guatemala City video off again because of this. The strange thing however with the rash of giant sinkholes, the huge increase in the number of earthquakes (500% more than the normal yearly average since records began) since about ten or eleven years ago and the huge jump in the number of "very bright bolides" sighted (which astronomers tell us are supposed to be so very, very rare..) is that these increases more or less all seem to coincide. That's why I made the mistake of letting myself get carried away with just how wide the scope of this could be.

Because of how obviously totally crazy the result of this inevitably sounded to anyone who hasn't done the stats and seen the research, I decided to go back to basics and stick with one type of event that is very well documented, so as not to lose myself in such a messy quagmire of "unexplained events", because there are simply too many of them. That's why I thought it would be better to revisit the explosions I had first investigated, use strict criteria (like "only those over 1kT" and "no meteorite remnants found") and try to find other convincing evidence of a link. But even that is difficult. Do you stick with somebody else's supposedly comprehensive list of just over thirty "impact events" estimated at over 1kT, just to prove that you haven't simply picked certain events that "form a pattern"? They still form the same pattern even when I just stick to such lists. But leaving out events that are almost certainly linked isn't right either. The Vitim Event for example was estimated by American scientists to have had an energy of between 200 and 400 tons of TNT. Russian scientists however later estimated the blast to have been between 4 and 5kT. They had access to the blast site, so I included this one in the diagram as one that was "over 1kT" after all. The Russians referred to this one as a "mini Tunguska Event". Most people haven't even heard of it. It’s really difficult to draw a line and include some events and not include others.

The reasons for including the Banjarwarn Station Event won’t fit here because of the limited space, but there are similar reasons for at least including it marked with an asterisk.

The Ushuaia Events were also under 1kT, but I included them in the diagram, also marked with an asterisk however, mainly because there were two events. Who ever heard of two meteorites hitting the same area, one day apart? Both leaving no meteorite remnants whatsoever, only about 150 square meters of snapped off trees, but the explosions were heard and witnesses saw the objects fly toward the blast sites. The events were one day and about 30 minutes apart. That was significant to me, because the event site and source site do intersect again the next day, but only about thirty minutes later. That's how precession intersection works in this case. Nobody else understands the significance of this however. So how could they have just "made this up"? These events were in September too, the largest event cluster.

Anyway, some of that is what I'm trying to squeeze into a short video. You practically need a whole hour to do the subject justice, let alone explain how Barycentre movement causes a precession intersection pattern that matches these now almost forty events, unlike the uniform diagram on the Wikipedia page (based on a totally incorrect stationary Sun as centre of gravity) which gives a simplistic and false impression of how precession actually works. It might really be better to try and explain the resulting intersections in a series of diagrams, or perhaps I should just include these in the video. Thanks again for your encouraging words.

It appears that the URLs with my Barycentre Diagram and the 40 explosions over 1kT have disappeared. I may have to reload them elsewhere. Another diagram that may be of interest and may begin to explain the connection for at least some readers is this one. Not just using the 1kT plus explosions for simplicity, I made this graph using NASA data of ALL observed impact events, so the events have not been selected by me to "form a pattern". This striking spike in 1995 has never been explained. It fits exactly with a range of angular momentum from the Solar System Barycentre graph.
This implies a connection....

a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Hope this link isn's deleted as quickly as the others were... Cheers, Tom

The typo problem strikes again... The diagram in that URL states "since the late 90s".... It's supposed to read "since the late 70s" of course, because that's whenthe Vela satellites were deployed. Without the Barycentre diagram the match of the 18 month period with so many impacts isn't clear. Only the relatively slow Barycentre movement matches the long phase of this event. Will try and get a new URL for that one somewhere else because it appears that Facebook deleted the "photo" for whatever reason. Looks like these new diagrams aren't creating much interest yet. Perhaps I need to put them in context with a short explanation. Cheers, Tom

Hi Elouina,
There hasn't been much interest in this thread, sadly. I've thought about going back to basics and presenting some of the more understandable pieces of evidence in a new way. Mabye I should try and post this as a new thread (once I've clocked up 20 posts), or maybe you might like to? What do you think?


Are we already experiencing Time Travel?

Of course most established physicists flatly deny this. This attitude however is based not on any scientific evidence whatsoever, but purely on the belief that the only type of time travel that will ever be possible, if any, is travel into the future. The reason for such an assumption is little more than an unwillingness to accept the nasty consequence of time travel in the other direction, i.e. into the past. That consequence is the indeed very disturbing "reverse causality" it would imply, in other words, events happening before they would be caused. The implications of this would be so horrendous that the mere possibility is simply ignored or ruled out. But can such simple, plain old bias still be called "science"? Just because scientists "don't like" something, it can't be true?

Because they can at best only accept the possibility of time travel into the future, and because, to our knowledge, experiments re this have not been conducted, it follows, if you believe their logic, that time travel has never occurred. But has it?

Ask yourself the following question: What would scientists from the future do to test theories of time travel? According to Einstein, we know that time itself is relative. Experiments until now however have concentrated mainly on "time dilation" and finding proof of this. Time dilation, the slowing of time in clocks travelling at high velocity, has been proven many times. Today, it's an accepted fact. Satellite scientists even have to factor this in for the correct operation of GPS systems these days. But what about not just the slowing of time, but of the complete transfer of matter? What would such experiments look like?

They would require huge amounts of energy. Just like the huge amounts of energy already available in the world's most powerful particle colliders and accellerators today. But what would actually happen, for example, to a particle of matter, that were transferred in time? Where exactly would it re-appear, be it in the future or in the past? Not in the same location, so much is certain.

This goes to the heart of our current lack of understanding of this entire area of future science. The problem is, established science simply doesn't have a clue. It's because the mechanism of transfer is not understood and experiments to test theories haven't even been conceived. At least, not yet.

So getting back to the initial question, what would future scientists trying to work out where temporally transferred particles re-appear try and do? They'd have to make sure the transfers to another time, whether to the past or to the future, were at least observed and recorded at this other point in time. It's therefore no good transferring single particles. If they just appeared somewhere backwards or forwards in time, they wouldn't even be noticed. So those designing experiments would have to try and transfer more matter, perhaps blobs of plasma. Surely, something like that would attract attention in the past or in the future and be noticed, wherever such blobs of plasma re-appeared. Once the bare basics of transfer are understood, they could even try to cause transfers that would definitely be recorded because of their particular characteristics or even patterns.

The other question was, WHERE would such a transfer re-appear? One theory states that it would appear at the same point relative to the Sun, or perhaps more correctly, at the same point relative to the gravity focus of the Solar System, the Barycentre. That would mean that it would appear in empty space, at the point in Earth's orbit where the transfer were initiated, relative to this constantly moving Barycentre, but in an earlier or future time. We would only notice such a transfer into the past if such a ball of plasma were to enter the atmosphere, as Earth passed by in a different year, at a point where Earth in a previous or future year intersects that same point relative to the Barycentre defined by the time and date of the transfer. But what would this look like? It would look just like an asteroid entering the atmosphere or like an "Earth impact" and almost certainly simply be explained away by astronomers as just that. "Yet another meteorite". Could we ever tell the difference however? Yes, we possibly could.

Is there any evidence of such events already having occurred? There is ample evidence.
Con't in next post re 5000 word limit...

Part 2 of time travel reply:

Consider just one possibility of making sure impacts are not missed. Why not, once the transfer mechanism is understood, verify it by sending not just one but TWO blobs of plasma to the same location, but on consecutive days? Meteorites certainly don't strike twice in the same place, a day apart. Nay-saying astronomers who put every such event down to meteorite impact and nothing else would have a hard time trying to explain that away. Such a double event would definitely be reported and certainly raise eyebrows, even if it occurred in any safely remote location.

Has such a strange double event ever happened? Yes, in September 2004. On September 14th, 2004, at 20:30 p.m. local time, a bright object coming from the north exploded behind the mountains of the Martial Glacier just north of Ushuaia in Argentina, the southernmost town on Earth and also one of the most remote. It caused tree damage over about 150 square meters, but no meteorite remnants were ever found. The very next day, but thirty minutes later, the same thing happened AGAIN and was witnessed again at Ushuaia and also at Rio Grande, the next town to the northeast.

If a responsible scientist were to try and choose a location where there was virtually no danger of harming anyone, yet where an event like this would still be seen, reported and investigated, so you could analyse the result of the experiment in the distant future, you could hardly pick a safer one. But let's get back to that theory of transferred matter re-appearing at the same point relative to Sun and Barycentre: A location just outside Geneva will inhabit the same point relative to the Barycentre as the point north of Ushuaia where the object appeared, in the year 2021. Pure coincidence? The next day, in 2004 and 2021, this same location does intersect on the orbital path with the same entry north of Ushuaia area again. But only about thirty minutes later, due to Earth's rotation. The very same time delay observed for that second Ushuaia impact. Coincidence again?

Were the Ushuaia events matter transfers from the future? Are scientists from the future even trying to make us aware of them, by targeting the same location a second time? Will they hope that someone in the past will finally understand the significance of that thirty minute time delay on the second day as pointing to impact area and high energy facility area both inhabiting the same point relative to the Barycentre on consecutive days? Why would they be trying to make us aware of the possibility that these events were temporal transfers?

The next posting will be about the strange event at Esteban Echeverria in 2011. Again, one high energy site matches the position of the blast site relative to the Sun in the future, but not only that. In this case there is other very suggestive evidence linking both the high energy site and the blast site with a high degree of probability.