Thiaoouba Prophecy?

Sorta proves my point, neh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm.. i'll humor you and say that i was laughing *with* you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't laughing...
Read your PMs!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh sorry, you can't can you?
Insufficient posts...
Ah well.

 

psh. why are you *acting* like you care? XD

 

Assumptions again.

 

Oh and WTF is "XD"?

 

XD is a smilie used across the internet.
and honestly - if my assumptions are right, they arent assumptions.

 

Wrong on two points:
A) you still have to assume (because you have no evidence before you make the statement) and
B) you're now (re-)assuming they're right (again without evidence)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What if I told you that I *had* evidence? But - it's evidence you would not believe if you tried. So - I do not waste my time, but to point out my 'assumptions' to others. Yes, they are 99% of the time correct. Maybe this is that 1%.

Go ahead, and point out the lack of 'linear' thought to that, like you have been doing this entire conversation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This entire 'debate' is you using linear thought, and me contradicting it with free-spirited thought, and a failure of human processes (such as you are using) to look at simple, incontrovertible, crude 'logical' reasoning.

So amaze me, with your continued insistence that you would be able to contradict anything in that book with 'scientific proof', yet your absolute failure to actually show any of this 'proof' in your writing.

 

If it requires belief then it's not "evidence".

99% correct.
I would suggest that's another assumption.
Unless you have evidence....

Ah this is where we differ: you call reasoning "linear thought" and gullibility "free spirited thought".
The point is that there's no "thought" involved in what you're doing, you're just randomly putting disparate impressions together without actually considering them.

I totally agree that I have failed to so do.
But that just possibly might be because you have thus far failed to present anything at all to be disputed.
Not one single piece of evidence, other than your own impressions, which happen to be purely subjective and therefore hardly constitute evidence.
De gustibus nil disputandum

 

linear thought. surprise me with something new, and something that actually doesnt deny every bit of logical sense that i am speaking, and that that book holds.

how should it matter what im presenting? the book presents enough evidence *for* me. so why havent you posted any of your oh-so-amazing contradictions you are talking about? is there a possibility you dont have any? really, im curious to see what you think up.
humor me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yup, the old woo woo fall back.
"I believe what I believe because I'm a free thinker, you won't believe because you're stuck in state/ science/ society-induced mode of acceptance".

You haven't shown any grasp of logic, let alone displayed a logical argument.

Meaning you can't present any evidence yourself?
Or that you don't actually understand what you've read so you take it on blind faith?
Why should I bother to read a book that from its own publicity goes against facts, science and reality?
The FAQ twist facts to support its own contentions or makes unverifiable (completely unverifiable) claims.
Hoax/ waste of time.

 

actually, 99% of the time, the person will agree with my assumption. so theres your 'fact' right there. maybe you shouldnt have assumed that i assumed they were 99% of the time right, huh?

honestly - i havent read the book entirely. i just know what its talking about from other sources, that come from within. but i have read nearly everything on that site, and the FAQ a couple times.

it doesnt go against facts. thats just you being completely and entirely blind to what is around you, and that isnt the books fault. i do not believe it twists facts. have you ever tried to read anything else on new age? this book is not alone. they're all out there, and whether you choose to accept it or not, its real. your only making it more difficult by being in denial, but hey - to each their own choices. whatevs.

 

Which "person"?
And have you actually counted the agreements or do you just do the human thing and ignore the times you're wrong?

Maybe you don't actually have any facts and you're still using impressions, hearsay and personal anecdotes to back yourself up?

For crying out loud, you're advocating something you haven't read, just the publicity?
Are you professionally gullible?
Did you make it your career choice at an early age and study hard?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The FAQ lies, the publicity lies...

Okay how's this one:
From the FAQ

Sounds plausible to you does it?
How about we add up the weight of all the leaves in the world?
How is it possible for mere wind to lift that weight and blow it around?
Obviously, therefore, it's aliens that move the leaves and the wind does nothing.
The guy deliberately states the proposition in such a way that his conclusion rather than the real one seems likelier.
In addition to which:
We KNOW that things get moved by sunlight pressure, and how does moving 4 tonnes (even in one lump) presuppose "unsurpassed technology"? We can do it...

Too late I just showed that it does.

I've probably (yes I'm making an assumption here) read more new age crap than you've had hot dinners: none of it was valid, none of it was connected to anything other than people's need to be comforted, none of it was worth the paper it was written on or the time it took me to read it.

Edit: yup, this book isn't alone. But have you noticed how they don't agree with each even on the basics?
They can't all be right, and so far none of them are.

 

Well yes it was us putting those 4 tonnes of needles in that orbit first place. which means We could have put them in any orbit of our choice too and we could change their orbit ourselves if we wanted to.
One thing I don't understand though, how could the pressure of sunlight "clump" the needles together before moving them to another orbit, and why it couldn't move each needle gradually to another orbit therefore rather dispersing them even further?

 

oh Ophiolite I'm in most need of help! and I'm glad you are still here mate. Can you please tell me if the part of the book presented below can be explained by the paradigm of plate tectonics, and if not then why?

and

Thanks man.

 

It was stated that the most destructive form of pollution is noise pollution. With a little insight, truly shows the degradation of society. Before you respond to with something stupid, consider what it's like to live somewhere where other people have absolutely no consideration for the noise they infringe with on others. Try living in Thailand.