Thiaoouba Prophecy?

I have a need to butt-in occasionally. get some adrenaline out through rational debate, ya know?
haha..

so it is as I say, and I don't actually care, this is all in good fun for me. either way, I'm confused as to why it matters if I'm concerned or not..

I'm here for an argument, and so far I haven't been rebuttled >.<

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dunno

So?

That's question and an opinion. Can you prove they're not concerned? Not that it matters one way or the other.

If you say so.

Nothing specific to quibble about there.

Okay, then don't.

Can you give proof that it's not an self-induced hallucination?

That's what they say.

Okay. You said it's your opinion, I'll take it as such.

Try and stop me.

You won't get it. For a rational debate BOTH parties have to be rational and you've shown little evidence of any rationality so far.

It doesn't, but isn't strange how you keep saying you're not when no-one suggested were in the first place.

You've said nothing to argue about so far.

Of course not. We have no idea when you were "buttled" in the first place. You're probably good for another few months before it needs doing again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You said there "isn't any need for proof" and admitted that you're an irrational believer. What is there to rebut? My posts alone in this thread have thoroughly trashed the book as both a work of fiction and non-fiction. I've successfully demonstrated that, contrary to the nutters that claim it is, the T-Prophecy is not a work of non-fiction. The events the author wrote of couldn't have occurred the way the author described and the evidence is that the author is nothing more than a gullible significance-junkie that has bought into previously debunked claims of Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's similar to waiting in the dark for your eyes to adjust. the more often you do it with intent of seeing, the quicker it comes. if you see something in the dark, then turn on the lights and the object is there, you can trust your eyes in the dark, correct?

search kirlian photography for scientific value.

you've demonstrated that according to our sciences the book is fiction.
but, you don't admit the idea that our sciences could be wrong, so of course you think you've disproven it.

the book gives examples of many blanks that have been filled for me by reading and reflecting on, that our science CANNOT.

 

Which PROVES what?

Search? I was reading that stuff 30 or 40 years ago.

"Our" science works, so how can it be "wrong"?

Yeah, there are some "blanks" you have that science can't fill. Education maybe could.

 

Of course science can be wrong. All scientific discovery and explanation is tentative and conditional. Someone else could come along and produce better evidence or more complete data at any time. But for you to say that the T-prophecy is believable because science could be wrong is just laughable. Indeed, its scary that there are actually people that gullible and ignorant who are willing to register at a science board.

There simply is no reason *not* to accept the facts of science and there is *no* reason to accept that the T-prophecy is non-fiction rather than simply bad fiction.

 

Y'know, If I wasn't already too far gone that might scare me off.

 

I like this sentence... "The Herai reference one that claims that because there are some similarities between an ancient Japanese chant and ancient Hebrew, that this is "proof" that Jesus moved to Japan and died there."
ROFLMAO this is really really utter poppycock!!! It's absolutely frightening to even try to imagine, how you come up with such nonsense.

Well, I don't care about what is the subjective opinion of some experts on that Japanese chant and the methods and resonings behind their conclusions. It can be fraud or not. One point is clear though, if you give a 0000.00000009% probability that the book might be true in that Joshua (rofl not Jesus) is buried in Herai and decide to take that as if true and look at the chanting with that perspective then you find a set of things that make sense as Chalko reports. Well it can make sense in all kind of ways ofc, depending on what are your assumptions first place, so it depends... and I agree the (tsk tsk) decoding of the chanting by Chalko is not a proof of anything. But wait a second... there's a guy named Joshua buried there... and there's a whole damn 1900 year old document about that a -whoever he was- Joshua is buried there. Intresting, no? if you find it not intresting then just pay attention how you distort facts with whatever mantra you love to knock yourself out.

Opps you did it again... I guess you were all high by the time you made that paragraph, so strong, so brilliant, such an Iron fist against the fools around here. *cough *cough I won't go into discussing your shady neurologists since I'm not as highly educated as you in those fields

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but why do you make lies? huh? why do you lie eh? you can't pull anything you want out of the book and say "Look this is evidence" and then yell "now witness how I smash it". I do not recall the book bringing forth AnY evidence regarding people living before. As a matter of fact if you read the book again Desmrquet explains (without bringing evidence) that people review their next life before death, the same as he had narrated those parts about reincarnation and backs his reasoning (not evidence) with some comments from other people (not presenting evidence either) and a few illustrations (remember I already said the book never brings any evidence of people reincarnating). Mind stuff you see? not a single piece of crystal evidence for you to smash. Poor boy, I promise the first piece of evidence I find, I'll bring it for you to smash so you'll be happy again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

good? cheers... oh btw have you smashed the GDV camera yet?

Smash thIis before making more "safe conclusions"

Not that the article supports any single dollop of what Desmarquet claims but... I bet it will disprove most, if not all of your Evidence as to the creation of the great pyramid to say the least. Enjoy...

 

What's interesting is that you created a lot of words and didn't actually say anything that wasn't some sort of ad hominem. Not a single word above provides any sort of evidence that Desmarquet's book isn't simply bad fiction. Which it is.

With regard to your link to The Book of Thoth website, I clicked it and noticed a lengthy, probably pseudoscientific, page of pyramidiocy. Perhaps you'd like to create a thread, summing up what you feel is "evidence" of some alternative hypothesis for the creation of a pyramid. I'm certainly not arsed enough to wade through that sites lengthy drivel.

 

Really,

So everyone is about running around and deciding which might be true to believe or might be untrue to disbelieve. The fact that after you answer a simple question or two you might want to reconsider your suggestions or thoughts. Of all the information in the universe that there is and the information that you know which is greater? Then the tough question is by how much, by what percentage?

Now that you have reviewed your memory banks and still don't have the slightest idea who or what you truely are, maybe it would be a good idea you exercise your free-will to determine that the best you can do is add new information to your memory bank to be weighed evenly without judgement against what you think you already have stored.

Once you have done a little introspection and realize that all of your thoughts and thought patterns keep you from knowning yourself and thus 'truth' you might want to consider to be less of a babbling brook of pointless arguments.
The fact that our knowledge is so very limited to rebute reasonable explanations because 'I don't believe it' just means that your choice is based on such an infantesimal percentage of true knowledge it is actually worthless to you except for an emotional an outburst.

Enjoy the book, for what we are capable of dreaming is possible - not in this lifetime or this dimention maybe, yet still possible. Thinking you are the knower of random thoughts is a bad dream, wake up.......

 

To you, I'm not providing any evidence of anything, I just cant' find enough words to point out how you lie and twist the context of the book to debuke it as bad fiction, you simply take from here and there, make incoherent sentences and then sit back and laugh at your own sentences, calling them bullshit as they are.

Now tell me, how do you expect me to belive you are right when you base your conclusions on incorrect data, inexact and machinated assumptions? you totally exhaust my trust in yourself by obviously fabricating biased arguments, which you enjoy to push forward only through sheer mockery and force.

 

Debuke isn't a word. Are you attempting to say "debunk" or "rebuke?"

But please, list my "lies" so that I may defend myself from your claim. Or at least apologize for them if you can show how I'm giving bad information.

 

Now that is truly an awesome and meaninfgul word!

 

I meant "debunk" yes, sorry.

First before everyithing else the lie that irritates me most is that you take things that "can be verified individually by the person" as "unverifiable" there are several examples of this type of falsification in your posts.

The latest of your fabrications I've pointed them out already in my pre-previous post about joshua, where you take Jesus and Joshua smash them together and make pseudo-arguments about it. Also about the book allegedly containing evidence of some sort regarding reincarnation that can be "debunked". There are many other things way too much to list. Please the same as you expect me to speak english words correctly, be precise and as flawless as possible in citing your sources and argumenting them.

 

Am I to assume that the following is an example?:

A "pseudo-argument?" I think my criticisms and questions are valid. The core claim involves an ancient Japanese document written in Kana syllabary which dates to about 100 CE. Kana wasn't introduced to Japan until around 800 CE (Seely 1991), which means one of two things: 1) the document is a forgery; 2) Kana was introduced earlier than any verifiable evidence shows.

This alleged document was to have a Japanese chant written in Kana syllabary, which is supposed to be in Hebrew but "modified to fit Japanese phonology" (Newbrook 2007). To quote Newbrook directly: "Bergman's reading of the chant can be made to seem plausible only by very special pleading. In 20 minutes I devised a Latin reading which is closer to the Japanese phonetics than Bergman's Hebrew is and also fits the situation better ('Dark Age' missionaries in Japan). The most plausible analysis is still that this is a normal Japanese folk-chant with some sequences that display accidental rather approximate similarities to Hebrew words."

Not only is the spurious reading by Bergman (and, subsequently, Chalko) a problem as outlined above, but Newbrook makes one additional point that cannot be dismissed: there is no epigraphical artifact for examination. Let those that claim the document to be genuine produce the full provenience of it and make it available for examination. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe it is anything except a forgery.

You're going to have to be more specific here. There is simply no reason to believe anything like "reincarnation" actually exists -there is no evidence to support such an outlandish and fanciful claim, so there is no reason for me to comment on it further. If you have evidence for "reincarnation," please publish it and step forward to receive your Nobel prize, sir!

Be careful what you wish for. Now, please cite sources to support the drivel you claim to be fact with regard to the fanciful fictions fastidiously flung from Desmarquet's fantasy.

Since it is clear that the only fabrications presented are those which you support as fact from the Desmarquet text; and since your claim that I have "lied" has not been supported, I demand that you retract your words and revise your position on this matter. I do not, however, require apology, since I recognize that Desmarquet is something of a cult leader and you undoubtedly have some sort of other online-community that you participate in where cult-followers get together and discuss their new-found religious cult. This is evident by the nature in which you and your followers appear in this science forum ever-so-often, you being the only repeat poster -the others just one or two post wonders. I'm guessing that you are an admin or moderator for an online community dedicated solely to providing reverence to "his holiness" Desmarquet.

References

Bergman, Bruria (2006). Japanese - Jewish Research. Found at: http://emol.org/nihongo/japanlinks/japanesejewish.html [last accessed 8/6/07].

Newbrook, Mark (2003). Old-time religion, old-time language. Found at: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~atheist/OLD.htm [last accessed 8/6/07]

Seeley Christopher (1991) A History of Writing in Japan. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill

 

"There are no theories in this book. No wishful thinking or products of imagination of the author. This is an exact report of the Reality of the Universe."

- taken from the introduction page to the Thiaoouba Prophecy book.

"Exact" report on the reality of a universe we haven't fully discovered? Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical.

 

No, I just didn't want to go through old posts again, you can safely ignore that comment anyway, I really don't think It's worth it to go over some of your lenghty old posts which in fact don't make sense at all.

True, no lies. Seely is quoted, also nice. Yeah I agree there's not enough evidence to give a deterministic answer.

So what we got are:
1) two graves with 2000 year old contents.
2) people who dance and sing around it obviously for 2000 years already, using the same chant which has nothing in common with any known up to today Syllabary of Kana.
3) a document about the graves.

The point is that if 3 is a forgery then 1 & 2 don't make sense and one can not explain 1 & 2.

well if you ask me, then please explain how could someone forge a document as such and seduce people to dance and cite to a meningless chant from that document for more than 2000 years already?

no need to be more specific here. I said there's no evidence presented in the book, and even more, I said there's no evidence that reincarnation is true. Even in desmarquet's book it is written that information about past lives is erased from the memory of the person and the dragon in desmarquet's cellar is that (as expalined also in his book by the alien Thao) such information can only be accessed through the psychosphere of the planet by any individual who would undertake the necessary special training in extracting that information, details of which are left unexplained.

I never said nor I ever claimed anything from that book to be fact except than the obvious, such as facts regarding Drugs and Money to be of the greatest evils of our civilization or facts about the russians really having found out a way to photograph the aura using the GDV camera, or fact about the hydrogen engine being the best method around to fight pollution.
You see I'm careful about what I take as facts. Therefore what 'you' take as "fact" with the help of your own imagination and understanding is your responsibility, and what "evidence" you bring to either prove or disprove what 'you' have taken as fact is also your responsibility.

and yes, I am a moderator of the goldenplanetforum where practicing cults of any form is banned and incoherent nonsense like the posts you make here Mr.Skinwalker are moderated by the likes of me. We are dedicated in solely discussing the book. I am also happy to inform you that none of the posters here except me are members of the goldenplanetforum. As a matter of fact none of our members and none of the people of our board are intrested in posting here, the very first evidence of it is that noone ever posted any type of confirmation to my posts, not even a small support sentence. I personally am/got intrested because I wanted to hear good arguments against the books which seems your intelligent community is not able to provide.

No other post from me will ever follow on this forum again, I'm so sorry to say you truly made me sick of the whole idea.

 

Right. Nice cop out.

Please cite the archaeological or historical journals that have dated these alleged graves and rituals. I've yet to see the evidence that there is a grave dated to 2000 years. But even if such graves do exist, then epigraphical forgeries make complete sense for someone who wants to sensationalize them or create undo mystery. Such hoaxes were once common practice at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Sure. Its called the Bible. Or Mahabharata. Or the Koran. Such documents are created entirely out of oral traditions that are, in turn, based on mythical explanations of non-existent supernatural entities and events. People to this day "dance" and "chant" about these and many, many other documents, texts, and doctrines forged to explain the universe. Most of them have very different and even contradictory explanations, so clearly they can't all be right. Thus, at best, only one is not a "forgery" making the "dances" and "chants" of those remaining the exact explanation you're asking above. QED.

I said there's no evidence presented in the book, and even more, I said there's no evidence that reincarnation is true.

Even in desmarquet's book it is written that information about past lives is erased from the memory of the person and the dragon in desmarquet's cellar is that (as expalined also in his book by the alien Thao) such information can only be accessed through the psychosphere of the planet by any individual who would undertake the necessary special training in extracting that information, details of which are left unexplained.

Complete and utter fantasy. But as long as we both agree on that... Like I said (and like you appear now to admit), Desmarquet's book is fiction. If all we disagree upon is whether its bad or good fiction, then that's a difference that's acceptable. Until now, I thought you were claiming that Desmarquet's book is an account of reality, which is the only reason I've bothered to post in this thread.

Except these aren't facts that are as obvious as you might want to believe. Drugs and money have given much to the world, indeed my wife's life depends on a daily dose of medication that she cannot miss. Ever. Drugs have healed millions and prolonged the lives of millions. Money has made it possible to introduce these drugs to countries that disparately need them to help eradicate diseases like polio, small pox, and to fight life-threatening diseases like cholera, diphtheria, malaria and so on. Prenatal drugs have helped protect the health of mothers and their newborns, improving infant mortality rates in peripheral nations for the better. And money has allowed this to happen. Money has also allowed workers and relief personnel to help victims of crises like the 2004 tsunami and earthquake victims in Iran. Money allows those interested to gain quality educations in institutions that were endowed by philanthropists or funded by governments. And so on.

So, clearly, drugs and money aren't the greatest evils since they've so clearly been used for good. Its what people choose to do with these technologies that makes them good or bad.

With regard to photographing "auras," this is complete and utter pseudoscience and has been demonstrated as such. The "auras" are nothing more than electric discharges in the film itself. They aren't present if high voltage electricity isn't applied to the plate that the object is sitting on along with the film. Its bunk and only the most credulous buy into it. But if you'd like to cite scientific sources for "auras," be my guest. I'm willing to revise my opinion with evidence.

Finally, the "fact" that the hydrogen engine is the best method to fight pollution is questionable. Where do you suppose the hydrogen will come from? It takes electricity to make hydrogen ... surely you're aware of this. Granted, it could be produced using clean nuclear energy or hydrothermal energy -perhaps even wind or wave energy- but these processes aren't in place. And if the hydrogen engine suddenly became popular in American vehicles, you can almost bet that the method for producing hydrogen will be through burning coal since it is so plentiful and cheap. This would make its overall "pollution fighting" ability somewhat dubious at best.

Yes. We can see that.

Indeed. Lucky me I have an education and critical thinking skills to guide me into what I "take as 'fact'" so that I don't succumb to the same pitfalls you appear to.

and yes, I am a moderator of the goldenplanetforum where practicing cults of any form is banned and incoherent nonsense like the posts you make here Mr.Skinwalker are moderated by the likes of me.

Lucky you that I'm a much fairer moderator here than you are there, eh? Otherwise I would have moderated your complete and utter nonsense long ago. Clearly you seek to ban the practicing of any cults other than your own at that woo-woo forum. The cult of the Thiaboobs. Present company excluded from that ad hominem remark, of course.

Don't let the door hit ya, pal.

 

You know I pop by now and then to see how this thread is going and it is entertaining if nothing else.

Like I said, something does not become true/real because we say it is, trying to break each others minds though cheer logical and comparing scrolls changes nothing….Both parties sticking to their storeys, trying to out do each other, trying to make each other look stupid.

If it `s real, good, if it `s not, good, but be clear, it’s not real because we say it is.

This is a liberating place to be for the individual.

Skin Walker, seems to have a sizable investments in it not being true, so guess what? spends his life proving it is not true, I bet his whole academic life/ego depends on it not being true, I bet when he gets a good argument he sits at his computer with his heart racing , trying to get another angle, and then when he finally gets it off his chest, he sits back and marvels, then goes to bed, then gets up the next day and eagerly checks to see if there has been a response, and Even if you win the battle here, you manage to tie the other in a not, it changes nothing, zero.

It`s all about you!

Either you believe it or your don’t, or if your luckily, you know, but usually when people really know something, they don’t debate it endlessly, they usually conclude that other person that their arguing with has made up their mind and they allow them to find out for themselves.

People don’t waste energy on the obvious, unless you get off on that sort of thing…

Skin Walker will enter soon and have a shot, parade around, Robanan may enter again, and some one will win some will loose on paper, mean while the universe the very laws that govern our existence will continue….

Read this in full, sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51504
you will see that Skin Walker has his own thing happening, hey I respect it, in a lot of ways it’s almost beautiful...an astute mind that lives in it’s own four walls...out of choice....