CREATION MATRIX of 188 **PART 3** Ley-Lines connected to SACRED GEOMETRY & ALL Historic Quakes!?!? (

reply to post by truthseekr1111

And perhaps one day you'll realize it has no bearing on the context of the videos merit in conventional terms.

It is very on point.

You are using another form of fallacy called arguing from ignorance. You are being a naysayer because you do not understand what this is about. That is okay not to know. I did provide a link trying to give you some incite into why it is very relevant. I realize it wasn't in the form of a deadbeat video like the one in the OP. At some point in time reading is essential.

To restate the issue in vulgar terms, ley lines are no different than something plucked out of someone's @$$. Mathematically they are the same. In math when the difference between 2 things is 0, then they are the same. This means ley lines are not special since they have the same behavior as random crap. Thus ley lines are random crap.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

To summarize what has been established so far:
1. Ley lines are meaningless - been established since the 1920s
2. Human constructed ley lines are indistinguishable from randomly constructed ley lines
3. Platonic solids as being the bass for everything has been shown to be wrong - been established for 400+ years
4. Scientists do not consider lower intensity M7 quakes as being mega-quakes
5. M7 and up quakes happen more frequently than every month on average
6. There is no 200 years of quake data supporting a 188 day cycle
7. Not a single thing in the video has ever been singled out as being worth watching
Every time you claim it is my opinion you lie.
The reason it is a lie is that I have shown material establishing each of the issues.
It is likely that the reasoning was over your head. Fine. It is what it is.

you can keep ignoring my responses that refute your claims if you wish. Fine. It is what it is indeed.

AH, so glad you finally agree with the point I was trying to make earlier!
We are pretty closely now in agreement.. but again, you asked for me to post where mega quake is being used for M7's. I would agree not every type of M7 should be classified as a megaquake... but then the overall point is that there is technically no OFFICIAL SCALE or globally accepted standard all seismologists use.

Thus the video is not scientific. It is an idiotic exercise intended to appeal to the gullible.

The video has been very clear that most of the concepts and evidence to support the ideas and claims, DOESN'T conform to CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE because the concepts being presented, are based on a far more advanced lost science of Sacred Geometry that current science is too primitive to fully understand yet.

so your vague claim about the video not being "scientific" in that context, somehow means the video is idiotic and appeals to gullible people implying its not credible, is a FALLACY. Thanks for that gem though! lol

Please show evidence to support that specific claim. Which would also include showing how ALL M7's fit that parameter/stat.

I have already posted the link. Obviously, you are not reading anything I posted. There are on average 17 M7s a year. That is much higher than 1 a month.

But since you want to play semantics about quake types/category etc, you're gonna need to provide specific statistical data for various sizes in the 7 and 8 range for better context and parameters in which to measure and gauge frequency since there's a BIG difference between a 7.0 and a 7.4 or 7.9 etc.

Good luck buddy.... you've certainly got your work cut out for you.

and maybe once you start digging into the stats, you'll realize why the 188 DAY CYCLE/PATTERN and the quakes hitting on it, do not happen all the time and is far more significant than you're willing to admit.

I've already explained and addressed that inaccurate claim which is out of context

No. You have repeatedly referred to this lie that the data exists.

In the context I've explained, it does. But I've also asked you to elaborate on your argument for which you keep refusing to do so.

which has no bearing on the merit of the videos, nor does it prove they aren't worth watching.

Yawn.

i'll raise you 2 of those.

Nothing has been shown to be worth watching.

100,000 + people feel differently

but then, since its only your opinion and your opinion doesn't prove or disprove anything, WHO CARES that you think its not worth watching.

As quakes keep hitting the 188 day cycle and ley lines, your OPINION will continue to be that much more foolish and insignificant.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

The video claims (I believe this is very close to what was stated), that according to his research so far, it appears that most, if not every/all MAJOR/MEGAquakes/Great Quakes etc (which as I've said appears is still not defined fully), have hit on or around the ley lines within 300 miles (might be less not sure the exact statement thats been made in other thread/forums).

and the video creator has also posted detailed explanations and measurements of the ley lines in response to those who have asked and needed more clarification.

That's a pretty stupid situation isn't it?

A 300 mile swath each side of a line means that the line is 600 miles across.

How stupid is that?

whats stupid, is anyone that makes claims its stupid without first educating themselves on whats been presented and explained before criticizing... otherwise you run the risk of looking foolish and ignorant.

ooops, too late.

The ley lines width is stated to be approx 70 to 100 miles tops as I understand it.

A Large or Major Quake has an affected area/radius ranging between 50 to 200 miles and up to 300 miles depending on the size.

So for such a quake to hit on and/or within proximity of that 70 mile line of 100 to 200 miles makes the
approx range 300 miles tops but usually an average of 100 to 200 tops which totally contradicts your claim of 600 miles.

and given the size of Earth, these parameters/measurements are quite specific and narrow which only further validates or at least is compelling evidence supporting the concept of these ley lines and theorem.

In which case, the significance and implications are incredible if not something worth of a nobel prize when primitive modern science advances enough to understand and measure what these videos present.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

you can keep ignoring my responses that refute your claims if you wish. Fine. It is what it is indeed.

I do not pay attention to the pointless unsubstantiated commentary - that is true.

You have made no effort to address any of the issues including providing the 200 years of data.

So far your claim has been that it appeared in an idiotic video.

The video has been very clear that most of the concepts and evidence to support the ideas and claims, DOESN'T conform to CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE because the concepts being presented, are based on a far more advanced lost science of Sacred Geometry that current science is too primitive to fully understand yet.

Now that tops the idiotic comment made about the existence of 200 years of data.

Here is some bumpkin with obvious little understanding of anything who claims they have access to something better than models that don't resort to errors of 300 miles.

so your vague claim about the video not being "scientific" in that context, somehow means the video is idiotic and appeals to gullible people implying its not credible, is a FALLACY. Thanks for that gem though! lol

OMG, thanks for filling me in on more lunacy from that idiotic video.

But since you want to play semantics about quake types/category etc, you're gonna need to provide specific statistical data for various sizes in the 7 and 8 range for better context and parameters in which to measure and gauge frequency since there's a BIG difference between a 7.0 and a 7.4 or 7.9 etc.

If you are interested in that information go find it for yourself. I'm not your researcher.

and maybe once you start digging into the stats, you'll realize why the 188 DAY CYCLE/PATTERN and the quakes hitting on it, do not happen all the time and is far more significant than you're willing to admit.

Your argument from ignorance is loud and clear.You have no idea what the stats on quakes are. You have no idea about short term patterns. You have no idea what the probabilities involved are. You are simply arguing that these issues are too much for you.

100,000 + people feel differently

but then, since its only your opinion and your opinion doesn't prove or disprove anything, WHO CARES that you think its not worth watching.

As quakes keep hitting the 188 day cycle and ley lines, your OPINION will continue to be that much more foolish.

With a world of millions there are 100,000 gullible? Is that all?

Videos appeal to those that have closed minds and won't look into what is stated.

Quakes are not hitting this cycle.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

it definitely doesn't stop those claiming to be intellectuals, from parading around claims that something is the wrong idea based on opinions.
I am basing it on evidence. You are using opinion. Your opinion is that the video is factual. That is pretty gullible don't you think?

Yes, the data and evidence presented in the video is factual and I have yet to see any prove there's any false or inaccurate data and claims being made.

So if the video contains facts supported by evidence, how is that an OPINION?

and if its not an opinion, then how am I or anyone gullible if the claims and evidence can be verified as factual?

LOL

Again, provide the 200 years of quake data supporting this idiotic video.

Again, I've already addressed that issue.

Hardly a miss... 60 miles given the size of Earth, parameters of the lines and unique array of the grid, is quite amazing.

A 60 mile miss is pathetic. Real science can locate fault zones, something that actually exists, with a tiny fraction of that. 60 miles is pathetic and you have enlarged that to 300 miles.

The fact you THINK 60 miles is pathetic and not an extremely narrow parameter given the size of earth and whats been presented about the lines etc, is BEYOND PATHETIC and whats really laughable.

And how is 1 degree of width 300 miles?

I think you need ask for a refund from your geography class

reply to post by truthseekr1111

whats stupid, is anyone that makes claims its stupid without first educating themselves on whats been presented and explained before criticizing... otherwise you run the risk of looking foolish and ignorant.

Watching that video is not education - it is a lesson in becoming a close minded fool. No wonder you didn't want to reveal the contents of the video. Every comment about the video is about idiocy from 200 years of data which you still have not presented to moronic claims of ancient advanced knowledge.

The ley lines width is stated to be approx 70 to 100 miles tops as I understand it.

So where does the 300 mile limit come into play?

A Large or Major Quake has an affected area/radius ranging between 50 to 200 miles and up to 300 miles depending on the size.

Please explain what affected means here. Is that known a building down? Is it human felt? Is it detectable by modern instruments? What do you mean?

So for such a quake to hit on and/or within proximity of that 70 mile line of 100 to 200 miles makes the
approx range 300 miles tops but usually an average of 100 to 200 tops which totally contradicts your claim of 600 miles.

Sorry. Thought you had passed math class. Here in second grade the kids learn that if you move up to 300 miles to the left of a line or up to 300 miles to the right of a line, then the range of places you can move to is 600 miles across or 300+300=600.

and given the size of Earth, these parameters/measurements are quite specific and narrow which only further validates or at least is compelling evidence supporting the concept of these ley lines and theorem.

A 600 mile swath is hardly narrow. In science it would be considered too vague a measure to be useful.

In which case, the significance and implications are incredible if not something worth of a nobel prize when primitive modern science advances enough to understand and measure what these videos present.

Maybe the video maker wanted to see how easy it is to dupe people.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

Yes, the data and evidence presented in the video is factual and I have yet to see any prove there's any false or inaccurate data and claims being made.

So if the video contains facts supported by evidence, how is that an OPINION?

and if its not an opinion, then how am I or anyone gullible if the claims and evidence can be verified as factual?

The video lied about 200 years of quake data.

The video lied about platonic solids being at the basis of everything.

Sounds like a lot of lies. Not evidence. Not opinion. A lot of lies.

The statement in the video are unsubstantiated. They are not evidence.

Again, I've already addressed that issue.

That's right you do not have the data you claim exists. It's a lie. You posted a lie.

The fact you THINK 60 miles is pathetic and not an extremely narrow parameter given the size of earth and whats been presented about the lines etc, is BEYOND PATHETIC and whats really laughable.

It is pathetic. Anyone that thinks 60 miles is accurate is foolish.

And how is 1 degree of width 300 miles?

Never stated that. Go back and read. Not the first time you have made a mistake of this nature.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

M7.4 and readings it had up to an 8.2 IS RARE and does not happen all the time or always better than once a month M7s are common. They happen more often than once a month..

OH REALLLLY?

So 7.4's and 7.9's happen MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH???

thank you for that pearl of wisdom mr genius. You've given me a good laugh this morning.

and when you consider there's 365 days in a year, for an M7.4 to hit on the exact date of a cycle or date/window that only occurs twice a year, makes the pattern and quakes that have occurred, that much more remarkable. Too bad the significance and implications are over your head.

Obviously you know nothing about stats and random distributions. All that is here is a short term pattern with a probability of occurrence that is reasonable. The claim of it being a longer pattern is a lie.

please show the stats for each Magnitude of M7's and be sure to include enough of a cross-section of data since you wouldn't want to lose that "scientific" edge you talk about now would you.

actually it does show a unique interest for the video. Does it necessarily prove anything? Not really in that context of needing to be proven, but to claim the interest was due to people being gullible is a FALLACY in the context of your claim since whether anyones gullible doesn't disprove the video as you're suggesting not to mention that people are gullible, is nothing more than your opinion which has so far been pretty much worthless. oh well.

The gullible simply accept the nitwit comments such as there being 200 years of data supporting the claim. The gullible never think to check if that makes sense. Being gullible is a lot easier than checking things out and being able to differentiate obvious nonsense from the plausible.

Do the words POT, KETTLE, BLACK meaning anything to you yet?

Forget earthquakes, it's the location of Woolworth stores in Britain (before they went bust and all closed, that is) that is the real mystery!!!

www.guardian.co.uk...

bengoldacre.posterous.com...

can we please have a mod tag the spambot off topic post?

thank you

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Forget earthquakes, it's the location of Woolworth stores in Britain (before they went bust and all closed, that is) that is the real mystery!!!

www.guardian.co.uk...

bengoldacre.posterous.com...

It's perfectly on topic - pointing out how you can make geometric shapes out of any dataset

Originally posted by stereologist
It is established that 200 years of quake data supporting the claims of the video does not exist.

It is simply wishful thinking by the gullible that it exists.

What is clear to anyone taking a few seconds to think about it that no such data can exist.

so you're claiming that there is no earthquake data 200 years ago? Just confirming again... he he

reply to post by truthseekr1111

OH REALLLLY?

So 7.4's and 7.9's happen MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH???

thank you for that pearl of wisdom mr genius. You've given me a good laugh this morning.

No moving the goal post.

You made a statement about the range of quakes involved and those happen with a frequency greater than once a month.

please show the stats for each Magnitude of M7's and be sure to include enough of a cross-section of data since you wouldn't want to lose that "scientific" edge you talk about now would you.

You want that info you get it. I've no interest in doing work for you.

So far we know that the claim of 200 years of quake data is a bald-faced lie.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Dang it! It used to be location of cucumbers on supermarket shelves.

reply to post by truthseekr1111


Actually this is exactly the problem with ley lines. They are indistinguishable from random garbage.

That is the point and making fun of the ludicrous nature of ley lines is par for the course.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

so you're claiming that there is no earthquake data 200 years ago? Just confirming again... he he

So you are lying about what I posted. No surprise there.

There is no 200 years of data supporting the video. That is the lie. You posted a lie.

Apparently, the big hint I gave showing why such data cannot exist was not enough.

I am a bit astonished that it was not a complete give away.

The current system of measuring quakes began in the late 1970s.

There does that help figure out why there can't be 200 years of data. I answered the first hint.

by now it should be painfully obvious why there can't be 200 years of data.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

I already explained that a day off and miles off isn't proof for me. That's my opinion and nothing in the video (and I have now watched it all) or anything you say is going to change that. If others feel the same they can forgo the wasted time and bandwidth associated with watching the video.

It's something that is being presented as extremely accurate so I expect the proof to live up to that. He claims that

physical reality is a holographic simulation based on a mathematical calculation within a Hyper-dimensional computer matrix

In my opinion mathematical calculations are exact. 2+2=4 and not 3.9 or 4.1. I know he includes something he calls "fluctuations" to allow him to include near misses. When was the last time you had a computer, running as intended, fluctuate on you? Sorry, I'm not accepting fudge factors in something that wants to pass as science.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

I have. seems the word "somewhat" and part I added about depends on the context of the issue, went over your head as well as my question to you... lets see if you can figure it out and why I'm asking.

yawn

evasion noted.

I think the article was unclear in fully clarifying that if thats what this particular set of scientists are saying and I think there would be many others who agree.

That is false. You are trying to cover up for the fact that you did not read the article and were dead wrong - again!

No, I read the article and I've explained below and above the point which is obviously still going way over your head.

but then I've also asked you to provide more than just ONE agency that says this... What other Geological societies and seismic agencies around the world agree with THIS article? Where's a consensus or official scale defining quake categories etc? Why do you single out this article as an AUTHORITY on this issue?

Instead of whining that common parlance is not a technical term why not supply some real evidence such as the 200 year data.

I've already addressed that question. Its getting old buddy.

well then using your argument, if you're going to use statistics, you can't equate an M7 to an M7.4

So now you want to move the goal posts because you were wrong.
M7s or better happen on average 18 times a year.

NO, I'm calling out your flawed logic and argument that you've set yourself up for looking foolish to show everyone why its IDIOTIC and misleading and not what you claim/imply or would like gullible people to believe.

So then, now that you've attempted to remove a method of defining or differentiating quake types/mag/size etc, Please respond to my request and challenge. THANKS

talk about BACKFIRING

he he

and what is that SYSTEM?
The Richter and the newer MMS.

that doesn't adequately or fully answer my question. Let see how your response progresses below...

please present a link or peer-reviewed explanation that defines the parameters and/or criterion for this SYSTEM you're talking about. Thanks

Everyone knows that this won't be in a peer reviewed journal. It is a definition and thus selected by a scientific society.

So how can you use that system as a gauge to adequately judge or understand the videos and 188 cycle?

answer and whole point.... YOU REALLY CAN'T using CONVENTIONAL science since conventional science doesn't have a proper method or SYSTEM... yet you want to use general statistics that have no defined parameters which suggests you think M7.0's are as common as 7.9's!

oh the irony of it all!

2 funny. you certainly bit off more than you can chew eh buddy?

But if you want a journal article have at it.
bssa.geoscienceworld.org...

and thats supposed to prove what exactly?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

why do you keep repeating questions that I've already addressed and answered?
I ask when you evade the question. The question in this case was based on your statement which is a known lie. There is no 200 years of quake data such as you claim.

After reviewing some data and doing some research myself... Yes, I claim what the video claims, is correct and think you're the one thats lying.

Claiming that the video made the claim simply shows you were gullible in accepting that claim. I don't care what "friend of a friend of a friend source" you used. I want to see the data.

It seems that it does not exist. You repeated the lie from the video.

I've already addressed this issue repeatedly and presented an argument that contradicts your premise.

moving on... if you can.