Never heard the phrase "Total tube", but if someone were to randomly say that I was a "total tube", it would sound like an insult, in which case I would laugh hysterically at the failed attempt of insulting.

I was worried about 2012 so my dad (a professor of earth sciences) gave me this site. He warned me though that Juju was a
"total tube". What does he mean "Total tube".

I hope that you can spot the sarcasm.

Or so the fantasy goes. DD, SOS.

The connection between the end of an age and the 'end of the world' needs to be established by ALL (or any would do) of the 2012 authors before any concern is justified.

Beehive, you are obviously sincere, as are we. Do you think you might see your way clear to let us get on with our work here, until you have something more concrete for us?

No, I'm not saying "just wait, you'll see".

Yeah, you are. In fact, you said, "Keep smiling (or laughing). But it will all become apparent. Noting is concealed which will not be revealed." Prior to that you said, "The tsunami? Don't panic, it's not now. But when it becomes more common knowledge….believe it and respond. You will have plenty of time."

In other words, "Just wait, you'll see."

I'm saying that unless someone can come out with a connection between precession and destruction then the 'just wait' is a meaningless stance.

"Just wait" is a meaningless stance in any context that precludes evidence and some logical analysis thereof.

ALL the ancient texts refer to the Great Year ie one precessional cycle. The end of that cycle is referred to as the 'end of an age'.

You still don't understand the "evidence" bit.

The connection between the end of an age and the 'end of the world' needs to be established by ALL (or any would do) of the 2012 authors before any concern is justified.

2012 authors agreeing on "the end of the world" does not "[justify]" concern about their ideas. Moreover, many of them do agree: 12/21/2012, though some consider it an approximation or tipping point. For further information, see the various articles on this website, where many such claims are addressed.

So I repeat the question… how can the precessional position of the earth possibly cause a destructive event? Does anyone have any ideas? Peer reviewed or not.

That's the point. ALL of the 2012 books have the precession of the planet CENTRAL to their 'belief' in global catastophe. (hence the galactic alignment thing).

No, actually they don't. Some do, but 2012 has essentially become the catch-all repository for every doomsayer coherent enough to know what year it is.

Your objections to these books and tv progs are flawed.

O rly? Can you tell me what my objection is, first?

There is nothing wrong with making money from a belief that one holds even if it does panic children and adults, but clearly they do not even believe these theories they put forward (hence the pension comment) and that IS immoral.

I never objected to people making money. I object to people lying and spreading unsubstantiated b.s. pertaining to widespread catastrophe and death, which can and does scare kids and adults alike.

Until an author comes out with a causal connection between these disaster scenarios and the precessional position of Earth then they are not saying anything. (apart from earth and the galaxy are a bit unpredictable) That is why you cannot convincingly attack them…. because they are not saying anything.

Beehive, how many times have I written some variation of "Evidence?" in this thread alone (and been ignored)? How many times have numerous people here asked, "What is the significance of X?" Hmm?

So if you have any ligitimate attack on the 2012 authors (which you do) this is it.

Apparently, you haven't bothered to spend much time perusing this site or forum.

As for all of my claims, actually they are all true but that does not change the fact that I cannot come out with a causal connection between all of them and the precessional position of the earth, ie no time frame is established, so it could be all be 1000 2000 780,000 years into the future.

Ah, so we're back to ""Just wait, you'll see," with the inevitable added caveat of "…or maybe not, because it could be a trillion years from now. But it's all true, I swear!" Nice cop-out.

"Repeating a claim does not establish why it is significant."

Eureka

That's the point. ALL of the 2012 books have the precession of the planet CENTRAL to their 'belief' in global catastophe. (hence the galactic alignment thing). They ALL claim that when the earths axis tilts directly away from the galactic center there is a catastophe and similarly directly towards. BUT non of these books ever give a causal mechanism for such a corellation. 99% of each book goes on about volcanoes or galactic superwaves or solar flares or comets or planet x or tsunamis or mag field failures and then conclude that we should THEREFORE all panic. But how can the sun or a planetx or a galactic wave or volcanoes or the magnetic field possibly know what the earths precessional position is? So they are left with lots of possible disaster scenarios with NO connection to the earths precession or therefore the Mayan calendar. It is a literary trick. If they claim that the eg comet or galactic superwave is NOT related to the precession of the earth then it is not related to the Mayan calendar so again no time frame is established.

Your objections to these books and tv progs are flawed. There is nothing wrong with making money from a belief that one holds even if it does panic children and adults, but clearly they do not even believe these theories they put forward (hence the pension comment) and that IS immoral.

Until an author comes out with a causal connection between these disaster scenarios and the precessional position of Earth then they are not saying anything. (apart from earth and the galaxy are a bit unpredictable) That is why you cannot convincingly attack them…. because they are not saying anything.

As you point out "asserting .. is one thing. Showing .. is quite another."

So if you have any ligitimate attack on the 2012 authors (which you do) this is it.

As for all of my claims, actually they are all true but that does not change the fact that I cannot come out with a causal connection between all of them and the precessional position of the earth, ie no time frame is established, so it could be all be 1000 2000 780,000 years into the future.

So what is really wrong with the 2012 authors? … no time frame is established for their catastophy scenarios so all their work is meaningless.

Such a person might be the parent of a child who was physically injured or demonstrably affected (i.e., dropped out of school, started taking drugs, committed suicide) by viewing the programs. As such it would be a very difficult case to prove.

Their retort would probably be 1) nobody has to watch and 2) it's just entertainment. In fact I'm not sure that they don't have several disclaimers in place to guard against such lawsuits.

All that being said, I still think it is morally repugnant to put this kind of programming on the air, regardless of the time of day (have the never heard of DVRs?). Let us take the 'kids' argument out of it. Consider an adult, in the 18-20 year old range. Many people visiting this are in that range, and come here after viewing one or more of the History channel programs. If one of these people takes those shows as a documentary (which they are clearly designed to appear as) instead of entertainment (which is what HC says they are) then what responsibility does History Channel bear?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I am guessing that the answer is "not much".

The History Channel is NOT accountable for what parents let their children view. There is nothing obscene in the program, but with children's vivid imaginations could easily be scared. There is no reason for a lawsuit.

Has 2012Hoax.org sought legal advice on this issue? The argument that "nobody has to watch what we broadcast" fails in some cases other than obscenity (e.g., defamation). But does it hold in this case?

That is some diet.

It's not solely a matter of diet, but surely you know that living things on Earth go the way of carbon.

And what happened to the high levels of iron found in the layer (and nanodiamonds)?

Why don't you ask them?

But this article was dated June 21 2010. How had you come to your conclusion BEFORE this?

I tend to accept prevailing scientific consensus unless I have cause to do otherwise. In the absence of consensus, I simply say, "I don't know" — which is a somewhat cliched response since no one can really know in any event, but some issues entail more data to work with than do others. I never had a "conclusion" on the Younger Dryas period, nor do I purport to have one now, except to say that the Atlantic thermohaline explanation has been the best explanation for the cooling to date. The impact hypothesis was not a matter of consensus even before being called into question. Also, that fire is readily identifiable throughout the geologic record is hardly news that just came out last month.

Scientifically you should have believed the impact theory until june 21 2010.

Why? And what is "[scientific]" about "[believing]" something? The impact hypothesis has never been established to the satisfaction of any scientific majority. Younger Dryas studies have long been controversial and will probably remain so. Welcome to Scientific Inquiry 101.

Is this site just using convienient science only when it is supportive?

I post here, but I don't have anything to do with the policies of this site. I'm not even sure what you mean by "[convenient] science only when it is supportive." It seems to me that you're really trying your best to avoid actually defending your claims.

This astronomy article ha at least two ommisions in it's examination of the debris layer.

The Astronomy Magazine article doesn't "[examine]" the debris layer. It is an article reporting on the conclusion of someone else's study. In any case, you are aware that nanodiamonds qualify as "carbonaceous," aren't you? The whole point is that the particles, even those that were correctly identified, are not unique to the time period necessary for an impact event or widespread burning over a short time to suffice as an explanation.

If you would like to examine the actual paper, which I strongly suggest if you're going to engage in criticism thereof, it is available here. After reading, if you're still convinced that the study conducted by Dr. Scott et al. is flawed (e.g. iron levels and nanodiamonds), you can contact him here with your concerns.

But IF you ignore its errors it does support your pre determined belief.

I have metaphysical and operational presuppositions, as do we all, such as assuming existence, consciousness and causality so I can make sense of the universe, but I don't operate from "predetermined beliefs" if I can help it. I still strongly suspect that you're trying to avoid supporting your own claims.

of a ‘wide spread fire’ of terrestrial origin.

That isn't my belief. Rather the conclusion in "Fungus, not comet or catastrophe, accounts for carbonaceous spherules in the Younger Dryas ‘impact layer’" includes, "The spherules are not unique to a single layer but occur associated with charcoal resulting from periodic wildfire events (Auxiliary material). Fire is an important Earth System Process (Bowman et al., 2009) and fires may occur frequently. A global compilation of Younger Dryas fire studies (Marlon et al., 2009) does not support a single major fire at the 12,900 year horizon, nor do studies from Europe (van der Hammen and van Geel, 2008)."

I don’t know, these peer reviewed articles can never be trusted.

Well, asserting that is one thing. Showing it is quite another.

The Mayan calendar ends half a precessional cycle away from the YD event. Try and keep up.

Repeating a claim does not establish why it is significant. You also used the term "exactly(ish)" and refused to qualify it, which is unsurprising since we both know it is exceptionally ambiguous.

Other issues that you have refused to address:

• Regarding "water" and solar energy — Is there any linguistic basis for this claim, or is it yet another product of your imagination?
• Regarding the Younger Dryas period — Are you a geologist? What, if any, peer reviews have your ideas been subjected to, and what is the general consensus among relevant experts?
• Regarding 2012 being not a disaster but a "revealing" — "[A] revealing" of what, exactly, and how did you reach this conclusion? Evidence, please, not claims.
• "The 'seven days of creation equate to 7000 years. ie 7000 + 6000 = 13000 years old. That is, since the last creation destruction cycle. The Youger Dryas event." — Evidence?
• The last geomagnetic reversal was 780,000 years ago.
• Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible.
• "The hostile aliens are subduing out human intelligence for their own benefit, hence the mess. — What mess?
• You've failed to provide any evidence for the existence of hostile aliens, benevolent aliens or alien conspiracies. In fact, the term "aliens" as you use it has no defined positive ontology or connection to anything in "objective" reality.
• You've failed to explain how a species that is allergic to electromagnetic fields can exist, and you have failed to explain the mechanism behind the claimed "[failing]" of Earth's electromagnetic field.
• You said, "You will not find any of this in books because our 'knowledge' is controlled and filtered by the elite hostile aliens." Jim Smith replied, "Then can you tell us how you came by your own 'true' knowledge?" You ignored him.

I think there are other evasions, but that's most of them. Please deal with these issues before making new assertions. Thanks.

“nothing more than fossilized balls of fungus, charcoal, and fecal pellets”

That is some diet. And what happened to the high levels of iron found in the layer (and nanodiamonds)?

But this article was dated June 21 2010. How had you come to your conclusion BEFORE this? Scientifically you should have believed the impact theory until june 21 2010. Is this site just using convienient science only when it is supportive? This astronomy article ha at least two ommisions in it's examination of the debris layer. But IF you ignore its errors it does support your pre determined belief. of a ‘wide spread fire’ of terrestrial origin. I don’t know, these peer reviewed articles can never be trusted.

What do you think is the significance of being "half a precessional cycle away?"

The Mayan calendar ends half a precessional cycle away from the YD event. Try and keep up.

You will have to read the Enoch texts to understand why the 'flood' was solar.

You aren't answering the question. Is there any linguistic basis for this claim, or is it yet another product of your imagination?

It talks about people hiding in caves and holding out sticks until they did not catch fire.

The flash point of wood is around 300° C, three times the boiling point of water. Think about it, then produce some evidence that such an event occurred.

Then they knew it was safe to come out. Other sources talk about molten metal fronm the sky Zoroastrianism.

Still waiting for your evidence that any such thing could occur, let alone did.

If the Younger Dryas layer (incineration and high magnetism/iron deposits ) was not caused by field failure then what do you suggest?

What matters here is that the last geomagnetic reversal was 780,000 years ago, so it was not a causal factor in the brief Younger Dryas period. I'm not a geologist, but oceanic causes make sense to me given what we understand today about sea effects on the atmosphere. The incineration hypothesis, stemming mainly from the impact hypothesis but presumably relevant to your claim also, has serious problems.

[The] group studied the amount of light reflected by the fossil spherules and wood charcoal from the sediment layers that included the Dryas period. The researchers used the reflectance of the organic material to determine the amount of heat to which it had been subjected. They found that the fossilized matter was unlikely to have been exposed to temperatures above 842° Fahrenheit (450° Celsius). Radiocarbon dating also showed that the particles taken from several layers ranged in age from 16,821 to 11,467 years ago. Proponents of the impact theory had reported that the spherules they found in the Younger Dryas sediment layer dated to a very narrow time period of 12,900 to 13,000 years ago.

"There is a long history of fire in the fossil record, and these fungal samples are common everywhere from ancient times to the present," Scott said. "These data support our conclusion that there wasn't one single intense fire that triggered the onset of the cold period."

Given the huge time range, relatively speaking, there apparently was not even a series of fires within the period that could explaining the cooling. Moreover, extinction records of the period do not support die-offs in conjunction with the short Younger Dryas cooling (just over a millennium).

Are you a geologist? What, if any, peer reviews have your ideas been subjected to, and what is the general consensus among relevant experts?

Bear in mind that it was exactly(ish) (sic) half a precessional cycle away. Was it a coincidental comet?

The impact hypothesis has serious problems. What exactly does "exactly(ish)" mean? Kind of like how Terrence McKenna's date was so "exactly(ish)" that he had to change it in order to match the ending baktun?

What do you think is the significance of being "half a precessional cycle away?"

Don't worry I'm just discussing this I do realise that all the 2012 authors have pension funds.!!

And growing bank accounts.

They considered that the next (to them) two thousand years were the end times and so covers a long period up until … well thats the discussion point isn't it.

You will have to read the Enoch texts to understand why the 'flood' was solar. It talks about people hiding in caves and holding out sticks until they did not catch fire. Then they knew it was safe to come out. Other sources talk about molten metal fronm the sky Zoroastrianism.

"And filled it with fire of the alter,
And cast it onto the Earth"

you know the sort of thing

If the Younger Dryas layer (incineration and high magnetism/iron deposits ) was not caused by field failure then what do you suggest? Bear in mind that it was exactly(ish) (sic) half a precessional cycle away. Was it a coincidental comet? Some coincidence.

Don't worry I'm just discussing this I do realise that all the 2012 authors have pension funds.!!

it also says "and shall command a golden image of Caesar" ie that is all in the past. It is an overview of things that will happen from the date of writing.

That's not what it says, padawan. It says, "Hear thou, Thomas, the things which must come to pass in the last times: [insert list of calamities here]."

The line you are referring to is apparently not clearly translated, but it reads, "Again another king shall arise, a crafty man (?), and shall command a golden image of Caesar (?) to be made (al. to be worshipped in the house of God), wherefore (?) martyrdoms shall abound." Prior to that we have, "And they shall claim (vindicate) for themselves many [things and] places that were lost and that shall be subject unto Caesar (?) as also they were aforetime…." This is probably a reference to Matthew 22 or Mark 12, wherein Jesus purportedly says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

The text rather obviously assumes that the apocalypse will occur in the time of a Caesar. Of course, to admit that would be to admit that it has no predictive merit, so your denial is somewhat understandable, though no less sad.

But what do the final years sound like they are describing from an earth science view point. Tectonics, volcanoes a failure above?

Considering a fairly limited range of options in that regard, even if you were to extrapolate that from the text, it's really not surprising. Still, your imagination is hard at work, and you've offered no reason to take anything you've said seriously.

Well there are only two stances here. Either ALL the ancient texts are just making it up and you are a genius or what they were trying to convey was so important that they all tried to write about it over thousands of years…

Again, declaring doomsday by natural disaster is pathetically unoriginal. It takes very little effort to proclaim apocalyptic earthquakes or volcanoes. Curiously, when tasked with providing evidence that any of these doomsday writings have any connection with reality, save for making fiction of dubious quality, you don't seem to be up to the challenge.

and you are not a genius.

No, I'm not a genius and never claimed to be. The imaginary nature of the events depicted in apocalyptic literature does not demand such, despite your insistence to the contrary.

Your stance that all the ancients were just making up stories for the sake of it (and yet all have a common theme) is just not credible.

See "A Brief History of the Apocalypse."

Doomsday as a "common theme" is perhaps only slightly less broad than love as a "common theme."

You are basing your opinions on confidence.

I'm basing my opinions on the fact that you can't provide any evidence for anything, despite being asked to do so repeatedly.

But you keep making too many mistakes/misjudgements.

Well, let's see if you can point them out. Here we go….

Eg There is no evidence of a flood

In my last post, I wrote, "So 'waters' means 'solar energy.' Is there any linguistic basis for this claim, or is it yet another product of your imagination? Also, how would people in the time of Genesis' authorship have measured 'solar energy?' And what kind of energy? Our Sun runs the gamut."

Emphasis added.

You ignored and now accuse me of making a "mistake," when you can't even answer a few simple questions about your claim. Not that I can blame you for evading, really, because your whole view here is tantamount to an ad hoc fantasy, and your behavior seems to at least imply that you know this.

or 'the Wilhelm text starts with …

It does. You just don't understand it (or don't want to).

but you miss the point you just don't take the time or the care.

I think you're the one who misses the point, and you've given me no reason to care.

and that will not change.

As long as you confuse assertion with argument and claims with evidence, probably not.

You confuse confidence with intelligence and that will not change either.

You're welcome to think that, but you still have not provided any evidential support for your claims about apocalyptic literature and alien conspiracies. Regardless of your opinion of me, that hasn't changed.