No support for this was found in any other source * BAD ASTRONOMY: Was the History Channel purchased by the National Enquirer tabloid? * The channel's representation in Israel: The channel presents different opinions
A lot of nonsense has been written about end of the world What is apparently expected in 2012: that a nuclear war will break out, that a comet will hit the Earth, thatPlanet X or Nibiru will approach the inner solar system, that the earth's magnetic field will disappear and this will cause natural phenomena, and what not. The interpretation that ascribes excessive wisdom to the prophets of the Mayan tribe is not enough, now Michael de Nostradamus also enters into this vortex.
It turns out that the blame fell precisely on a factor that usually helps promote science in the face of all the ignorance - the history channel. Last Friday, April 3, a film that was broadcast for the first time in early January on the original channel in the USA was screened on the History channel in Israel. "Nostradamus: 2012" (22:30 p.m.) examines the chilling prophecy that on December 21, 2012, a dramatic change will occur in the history of the earth, if we rely on the preliminary text of the "City Mouse" website.
Looking at it reveals that the film tells about a lost book of Nostradamus which was apparently discovered recently and contains prophecies about a third world war, some of which date it to 2012. In an extensive search, no scientific source for this claim was found. Also on Google, all the links concerning a new book by Nostradamus lead to a movie by the History Channel. This in itself should be puzzling. The film describes the investigation of the book in an unknown forensic laboratory, where it is claimed that the book has been hidden for hundreds of years, and that its last page was written separately from the other pages in the 18th century, according to the concentration of zinc in the ink, illustrating the forensic experts who participated in the investigation.
One of the surfers in the forum shared by Universe Today and BAD ASTRONOMY dealing with issues between Science to mysticism He wrote after the broadcast of the film on the original channel in the USA in early January: "The entire production is based on hitherto undiscovered writings of Nostradamus. That in itself is suspicious enough, but when both the manuscript and the drawings were shown in the film they appeared to be relatively well preserved for a document that is hundreds of years old. It was amazing to see how the illustrations were vivid and colorful, and there was no sign of age on the paper. Not to mention the fact that the paper they were drawn on appeared to be mixed, washed paper, which had marks of colored cotton fibers on it that added to the effect of the texture, and this is how it appears to viewers in HD."
The more serious thing appears in the 12th minute or so of the film: the narrator announces that, as in the previous books, hidden messages have been discovered in this book as well. A significant part of the rest of the film tries to stand on them and predict what will happen, and of course to link them with events that are supposed to take place in 2012. Because all the real experts (and not those who want to make money on the backs of stupid believers) believe that even in the well-known and well-known books of Nostradamus there are no hidden messages for the future, And he only intended (as we have already written before) to write his impressions for his little son who he knew he would not get to see reach adulthood. Those who attributed hidden messages to them are all kinds of "we told you so" who found them in hindsight after catastrophic events such as September 11. All the more so, that a book on how to delicately say 'suspicious' even if it really was written by Nostradamus, and certainly as is likely, it was not.
In order to pull off a two-hour film, the film's producers also brought up the 13th zodiac sign - Ophiuchus or "the bearer of the snake". This is an old constellation that, when the astrological sky was mapped in the 2nd century AD by Ptolemy, was outside the orbit of the sun, and was therefore not considered part of the "signs". Today the sun passes through it, and according to the film the sun reaches this constellation when in the background - the center of the Milky Way galaxy, the alignment of theastrologers So loved that she was not known to Nostradamus.
And for that, one of the surfers in the Bed Astronomical forum asked, "Were the Discovery channel (the competing channel that aired a similar film, apparently without claiming to have discovered a new book) and the History channel purchased by the Inquirer?" (a yellow newspaper that is distributed in supermarkets in the USA and specializes in scandals, some of which are made up).
The History Channel is produced in Israel by the Telad company and is based on films purchased from the American History Channel and other entities, including, by the way, the Israeli channels such as Channel One and educational television. The company's spokeswoman said on behalf of the channel's manager Yael Michaeli in response to a question from the science website: "The History Channel is a knowledge and enrichment channel that presents, through quality documentary programs, a large variety of topics that are part of the public discourse. The History Channel has no pretension to prove or disprove the truths of Nostradamus, but to present the belief of many in the world in his theory. As with all topics covered by the channel, programs are sometimes broadcast that present opinions and theories that do not necessarily correspond to the opinion of the viewers. The added value of broadcasting the program is the discussion and public discourse it provokes."
Our response to the channel's response: "It is probably cheaper to give every viewer what they want than to hire a gatekeeper in the form of a scientific editor. One could easily check reviews of the film's broadcast in the US, look for scientific articles dealing with the discovery of the book (and see that there are none). It's a shame that the teen channel chooses to impoverish its viewers instead of enriching them. There is only one science, and it should be the starting point. What would the surfers say if, say, 5% of New Age articles appeared on the science website?
Of course, even without the history channel, the Internet is full of all possible nonsense about 2012, and also a site dedicated to this strange link Between Nostradamus and 2012. Here is a short quote from him and his responsibility: "Many prophets speak of a great armed conflict. Even bigger and more destructive than the Second World War. Will World War III turn into a nuclear apocalypse? Nostradamus predicted a war with 'camels'. We all know what he means. In many of the quatrains he wrote that a camel would come to drink from the water of the Danube. But there are no camels in Europe, only those in zoos. When someone says camel, the association is the pyramids in Egypt. Israel is in a secret war with Iran and the Israeli ambassador spoke to the camera about a war against Iran, not during 2012 but in the spring of 2009." Later, the website owner suggests keeping up to date with news regarding Israel and Iran on the website.
66 תגובות
Mr. Blizovsky: Was your answer a cynical mockery or a fact-finding about that prophecy of Nostradamus? If so, could you quote me this passage and also what the different verses of this passage say about this passage?
To the previous commenter (Jews and you), you are wrong. Nostadromus was not talking about a leader who only had a spot on his forehead but also a spot on his back and a shining silver hair in his tail.
Where is it indicated by Nostrum Q: There will be a second antichrist state that will last 73 years and 10 months and that the man Michael with the red spot will end it and that he will also conquer (or destroy Israel)?
At the time in the 70's I heard something like this perhaps from the astrologer Ilan Pekar, but if this argument existed then Gog is Gorbachev and Magog which includes Rosh (Russia) + Meshach (Moscow) + Toval is from the biblical Gog from Ezekiel 10 + 3 combined with a prophecy The prophet Daniel that at the end of history there will be two kingdoms (whose origin is from the 'iron beast' is Rome) one of which is made of porcelain will destroy the second kingdom through a bluff like no other in history as it is written in Daniel above the fourth life with 3 horns (which constitute the kingdoms-empires that will emerge from the disintegration of Rome , but let them continue their character) a small and unimportant horn will emerge and knock down the other XNUMX (USA+China+European Union?>) and then it will be able to evacuate in order to destroy and conquer "Am Kaddish Aleinonin" (=Israel) (as described in chapters XNUMX + hand + hand XNUMX in the prophet Zechariah) and one will fall. See there. And this is communicated by the prophet Nostradamus who was actually a Jew and tried to hide this from the Inquisition and who was sent by God at the beginning of the Renaissance period by God (even though since the destruction of the Temple the prophecy has stopped But according to my claim, the explicit prophecy was stopped, but not the implicit one), because the Renaissance brought with it the idea of democracy, which later allowed the Jews to re-establish their state, etc., etc.) I just need the quote about "Michal the man with the red stain".
What remains is to wait and see if the world will end then it doesn't matter who is right and if not then it's all nonsense
I think that there are people here who say that the Mayan tribe did not predict wars, it means that they cannot predict the end of the world.
Perhaps their ability to predict was only related to natural things related to nature and the earth only.
Maybe by looking at the stars they knew when there would be a tsunami or another natural disaster but not when a war or another human disaster would break out.
Because the disasters that are called by the people are solely the responsibility of the people.
Despite this, natural disasters will happen in any case no matter what we do, that's why certain people who are really dedicated to this can predict natural disasters from the sky and the stars.
What is the chance that a war will break out in the daytime on 30/1/2010
Whatever comes is welcome 🙂 Thank God very much.
It's true that it seems like nonsense, but 3 interesting things:
1. It was stated there that the Hebrew calendar ends in the year 7,000 and that we are exactly in this area now.
2. Nostradamus accurately predicted the fire in London in 1966 (when he also predicts the year):
The blood of the just will be demanded of London,
Burnt by the fire in the year 66
(Century 2; Quatrain 51)
*The part of justice may refer to the fact that the fire burned the millions of mice that transmitted the black plague in the city.
3. Nostradamus had a prophecy about a man named Hyster who would come from a poor family from Western Europe and sway crowds with his speeches and whose reputation would grow in the Eastern Kingdom (Japan?).
He describes that the "animals" will cross rivers when they are hungry and there Hester will lose to a bigger opponent (the Allies? The hunger of the Nazi soldiers in Russia?) and in addition there he will find himself drawn into an iron cage (bunker?)
and the last one:
**The shocking and infamous armed one will fear the **great furnace,
First **the chosen one**, the **captives not returning
The **world's lowest crime**, the Angry Female Israel – (Israel?) – not at ease,
Barb, Hister, Malta, and the Empty One does not return.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think it's simply amazing, an almost accurate description of the Holocaust (the chosen one = the exact expression for a Jew, the furnace = incinerators, the captives who will not return, the lowest crimes, Viral - again the literal proximity...)
There is not much chance that the best scientist in the world could predict things that will happen in 400-500 years or even 100 years exactly like this man did.
You are all sick people who need urgent treatment!!!
The end of the world will not come in 2012...
Are you so bored in life that you are waiting for the end of the world?!
start living…
For thousands of years people have been talking and believing the same nonsense... and nothing happens except wars...
It is possible that the end of the world will come if there is an atomic holocaust...and this too will be because of a self-fulfilling prophecy and because every second ruler of a country thinks he is the Messiah...
Just because there are so many crazy people in the world doesn't mean you should join them!!!
Nostradamus like a good Jew used Kabbalah and therefore reached the same conclusions
When using the same information base, the same conclusions are reached
Gillian,
I don't want to use hurtful words, but something is wrong with you:
* I never researched what your background is - where did you get it from?
* I didn't lie even once - and therefore, you didn't vote for even one lie
* I am not a fan, and I do not have any clear opinion on the subject, nor did I present any opinion
My only "sin" is that I brought data from a reliable source, which at first you dismissed with contempt, and then you "revealed a secret to all of us" that you also use data from the same reliable source, but what to do with the data from that source casting doubt on the "only correct" data you brought.
In addition to that, I politely asked you to explain your theory and direct us to additional sources. You never did.
It seems to me, and not for the first time, that you don't read what others write at all, and you also forget what you write, and therefore you get entangled in your own feet, contradict yourself, and your way out is to spitefully insult and slander like the last of the bullies in the market.
Gillian, it's disrespectful, it's embarrassing, you're only humiliating yourself, and a little pitiful.
Noam,
Thanks for the recommendation to go to the website, but that means I will have to register for the website and I don't really want to read the nonsense there (it will lower my value).
I also saw the location of her "article" on this website and understood what we were dealing with, even though hints of this were abundant even before (mainly her evasion regarding her own article).
Gillian,
I don't know how you define a scientist but I can tell you that apart from an academic background I have little experience in research itself (real, not what you call research).
I didn't say a word that wasn't baseless. If you call our doubting your sources and assumptions childish, it means that you are not ready to put your "theory" to the test. In addition - "background and experience in data processing" does not give you any background to develop a theory that requires a background in geology, advanced physics, etc. I doubt you have any science background. On the other hand, I and others here have, besides stubbornness to stick to the scientific method. So if you believe so much in your "theory", then stop sending us looking. Because I searched and did not find it, and behave like a civilized person (or as a "scientist" as you claim to be) and bring us those articles.
Understand, evidence is not enough, even though it was also refuted by the previous commenters, a theory is also needed to explain. You have neither of these. Can you tell me what your training is that gives you the ability to link the weak magnetic field to earthquakes? And so, what is it? Is the relationship empirical and if so what is it? I want calculations and formulas and science, not gibberish and evasions. The site is called "The Scientist" not "The Inventor" or "The Stealth"
For the last time, Noam and Oren, since I have no intention of continuing to repeat myself like a parrot:
Indeed, the articles you brought do not interest me, nor the descent to the level of a 5-year-old boy and the lies of our friend Noam, which are no longer worthy of any reference.
The investigations regarding my background (which is only for a general education, supported by studies and many years of experience in the field of information and data processing), are also out of place - since the honorable Mr. Noam does not bother to reveal to us what his background is (and of course I do not ask because it is quite clear to me that he has none at all - His reactions and his basic lack of understanding clearly indicate this).
I will conclude by saying that the data is not only in my possession but also on the USGS and EMSC website and several other geological service websites in the world - all you have to do is go and see, but it is absolutely clear that you are not interested in everything because then you will have to face the reality, which is not convenient for you.
What is left for me to say? To bother you, you are not scientists - at best, people motivated by baseless private beliefs and at worst, it is better not to say.
For me, the issue is closed.
Pine,
Take a look at her "scientific" web site, and you will see the level of science there.
The repeated evasion + the dirty language + the thickets + the conspiracies
Create a salty soup, but it must be admitted that it is very unique.
What doesn't interest me?! This is not a proper response in any respect - whether you claim to be a scientist or just a human even. On the contrary, all your "research", which increasingly seems fictitious and biased to your needs only (interests to present something influence the collection of information and its analysis) - I don't understand where you got the training and experience in collecting information and analyzing it yourself. Your theory is from those "internet articles" only - which will not appear in any scientific monthly, let alone serious, self-respecting magazines.
Your results are published only by you and only on the Internet and not a website/magazine with minimal criticism, and certainly not controlled by a series of scientists and institutionalized factors.
Those "uninteresting sites" were written by people who had training, a degree and experience before they started collecting information let alone analyzing it. If they even try to draw conclusions it is by supporting it not only with dry information but also with mathematical and physical proofs (and not according to " feeling"). And each of them underwent a review not of "feelings" but a serious review of the data, the test method and the conclusions drawn.
Why can't you bring one article (from a serious source) that supports your theory accompanied by explanations for the correctness of the theory (mathematically it would be "nice"), and again not according to acquired "feelings". Don't say "search for yourself" because that's evasion. Anyone here who really pretends to say that he uses the scientific method, is able to provide with any theory that he also brings existing supports and not just send the people to search for themselves.
What is your background that allowed you to accidentally start in the field?
Just understand that today it is impossible to start research in any field and not to mention develop far-reaching theories without going through years of studies on the subject (I speak from experience). So what is your background?
You are the one who shows ignorance and arrogance - pretending to present yourself as a "scientist" who is able to grasp things that scientists and educated people with backgrounds are not able to, without the need to explain the theory, without the ability and yet insulting them that they are not able to understand you even if they wanted to.
Gillian,
You wrote about the data that Roy brought:
"The website you brought up really doesn't interest me - stop being blunt. I'm not referring to what is written on the internet - I'm referring to my own research which clearly shows that the above information is clearly wrong"
And now suddenly you remember that you are also relying on the same source that Roy and I relied on... interesting
I will remind you again what you did not answer:
You did not explain the connection between multiple earthquakes (allegedly) and the reversal of the magnetic field.
A simple, obvious question that I'm repeating for the third or fourth time, and instead of simply answering, you keep repeating it.
It is not clear why you think that if you label me "a liar, a cucumber, the intelligence of a five-year-old", your position will be strengthened, you are basically exposing your smallness.
Pine,
I not only answered all of Noam's questions a long time ago but also more than once and you are welcome to come back and read all my responses below.
In addition, it's time to reveal a secret to Noam: all the data I have is based, among other things, on the USGS data (I hope he knows what it is), so his claim that the "well-known American institute" knows "better" also falls flat. The data comes from the exact same source.
It's amazing how people jump to conclusions without checking data, and without knowing at all what they're talking about - full of ignorance, but arrogance...
Indeed Noam - and on this occasion they will also judge a liar. The answer is of course obvious...
Gillian
You respond without reading - and this all the way through. You don't answer what they write, but slander non-stop, in the hope that they won't notice that you don't have answers.
Already in your first comment you showed that you don't read carefully, you wrote:
"Interesting, my father, on the basis of which you state that the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field is "nonsense"
My father did not write anything about pole reversal, nor was he "confused" as you tried to confuse us.
My father stated in the article that some of the nonsense that is said about the year 2012 is:
"That the Earth's magnetic field will disappear and this will cause natural phenomena"
Later, you provided data on a dramatic increase in the number of earthquakes in the world in recent years, and stated that there are no years at all of a decrease in the number of earthquakes, and claimed that these are phenomena that support the hypothesis of the reversal of the poles.
I pointed out that your statistics of 4 years on phenomena that have existed continuously for billions of years, cannot be considered significant, and you immediately pointed out that I am a "cucumber next to the gardener".
Both Roy and I pointed out that data published by a reliable source (see Roy's link) cast doubt on your data. You immediately stated that everyone is wrong and only your data is correct.
Although we asked, both Roy and I, that you explain where the theory of the connection between pole reversal and the increase in earthquakes came from, you did not do so and advised us to search on the Internet, and also determined that I was ignorant.
Let the readers judge who is the slanderous and cursing idiot here.
Gillian,
Ignore for a moment the defamations that you seem to see from the words of Noam and others. Just address one of his questions. Do you see the need for people to understand how you developed the theory as defamation? If not, then this is how you sound to any reader from the side.
So if you would be so kind as to address (without arguing) Noam's questions. I would like to know your answers to them.
Noam,
You continue to bewilderment - let them perfume you, just sit back and prove all the words of Kabal with a committee.
Ignorance has always been among us, you are the living proof of that.
Gillian,
You really are a strange creature. You don't stop slandering and insulting anyone who disagrees with your opinion, with much more extreme religious fanaticism, you declare that the information you have is the only one that is correct, and a famous and well-known American national institute is next to you.
You made some unfounded assumptions, and you are really angry that your opinion is not accepted with closed eyes.
In the meantime, I claimed two things in total:
1) that your data contradicts the data of a well-known and serious institute (this is the same source that Roy also cited)
2) You did not base your hypothesis on the possible connection between earthquakes and the reversal of the magnetic field, nor did you bother to provide a link to another scientific study that explains the connection.
A real scientist, does not start insulting those who disagree with his opinion (Cucumber, age five) but simply substantiates his arguments.
Apparently you are not capable of that, and therefore you choose the path of slander, and most brazenly accuse me of slander.
On the other hand, a real scientist also doesn't bother with the nonsense of strange conspiracies when he fails to base his delusional stories on monsters and aliens...
Noam,
You can think what you want - to my great joy, everything is documented so that any reasonable person can check for himself and does not have to rely on my word. You obviously didn't bother to check the data I provided.
What I missed in the whole matter is your really religious-fanatical behavior, perhaps appropriate for a 5-year-old child - but I'm not surprised at all, because as soon as the logical (or in your case, the illogical) arguments fall away, then you move to a distraction of a kind of joking laughter, And of course false accusations.
Roy,
We are far from proving anything at this stage - at the same time, there is definitely supporting evidence, the question is to what extent it supports and that is actually the debate between us. I claim, based on my very individual measurements, that the testimony is very supportive.
By the way - Avhila also refers to the reversal of poles in 2012, my father made a salad between the reversal of poles and the disappearance of the magnetic field, that's all.
Happy holiday. 🙂
Gillian,
According to the information I found, the field has weakened by ten percent since it was first measured in 1845. I could not find any indication that the rate of weakening has actually increased in the last decade.
but it does not matter. Let's go back to what you said or didn't say. You said in the last message that there is a possibility of a circumstantial connection. Well, wonderful. I said that too. Now the problem is to prove it. And we're just discussing here what can be considered supporting evidence and what can't.
By the way, reading back through the messages, I see that you scolded my father for writing that the reversal of the magnetic field is nonsense. I believe that if you read the article again, you will see that my father referred to the prophecy that in 2012 the magnetic field of the Earth will reverse, and not to the idea of the general reversal.
Happy holiday etc
Roy.
------
Come visit my new blog - Another science
Gillian,
Your argument that your earthquake count is more accurate and reliable than that of the US National Institute (not just posting on the internet), is pathetic. Really, how come we didn't know that Gillian's expertise put everyone in her little pocket.
For your information, I have no preconceived opinion on the subject. I'm just looking at reliable data and not just some site that specializes in aliens and aliens.
You obviously don't understand what is being explained to you: 4-year statistics on natural phenomena that have existed for billions of years do not foretell anything and nothing can be concluded from it. A great scientist like you should have realized this a long time ago.
(By the way, has it occurred to you in your learned mind that there is a connection between alien visits and an increase in the earthquake tax?)
Even if your count is correct, and the government institutes are wrong, still
Everything you wrote with so much determination, does not explain the connection to the reversal of the magnetic poles. There is a big difference between an electromagnetic signal, which some claim is picked up in certain earthquakes, and the phenomenon of pole reversal.
and one last thing:
For my part, you can also go on to insult market abuse and harsher curses, it certainly contributes to your credibility as a well-known scientist there.
Roy,
Again - you are wrong, because the most significant weakening of the magnetic field happened in the last decade and not in the last hundred years.
In addition, I no longer know how to explain to you and how many times to tell you that I am not claiming that there is a circumstantial connection - I am claiming that there is a likelihood of a circumstantial connection and therefore the possibility should not be dismissed outright - after all, I have already written this at least three times, why do you continue to insist and present it as if I claimed Other? Do you think that if you continue this, things will become correct?
In light of all of the above - it seems to me that we have exhausted the discussion, I see no point in debating with someone who ignores the facts and looks for excuses for excuses to justify his words and every time one argument falls he hangs on by the teeth and claws with a weak argument that lacks compatibility with reality, not to mention that he distorts the claims the other side.
You are of course allowed to continue believing in what your heart desires, just keep in mind that in this case it is a private belief, not science.
Gillian,
I try to ignore information that has only been obtained in the last three or four years, as it is difficult to regard it as significant. The number of tremors every year is not constant, and it is likely that in a certain year there will be more or less tremors. It also makes sense that every now and then, out of luck and nothing else, there will be a few years in which there will be more tremors, or less. This still does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship.
As an example, you are welcome to look at the following website: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/info_1990s.html
Note that in 1992 in the USA, there were 3,500 earthquakes. In contrast, in the years 1993-1998, the average number of tremors per year decreased by almost a quarter, to ~2800 tremors each year.
If you had followed the earthquakes at that time, you would have come to the conclusion that the weakening of the magnetic field leads to a decrease in the frequency of earthquakes, and this was probably a mistake, because the number of earthquakes per year returned and increased afterwards.
This is why I prefer to rely on long-term data. We know that the magnetic field is getting weaker over the last century, so I want to see how the frequency of earthquakes has changed over the course of the century, and not just in the last four years. This is also why, in all my points, I refer to the increase in earthquake frequency that has occurred over the course of the century, and not just the last four years, as this could simply be a statistically insignificant jump.
Roy.
------
Come visit my new blog - Another science
Unfortunately part of the last response was omitted, and it is:
And at your request - I can provide a "sample" of a daily count for the last three months:
http://www.eura.org.il/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1184&sid=d8543f1ae83d210f98b58fa4c89f0e66
Roy,
Counting errors? Well, I admit and confess that I did not expect to hear such an argument. The possibility of making a mistake in counting upwards simply does not exist - in particular when I am cross-referencing information from several geological institutes in the world, so beyond the mistake of two earthquakes a day that I may have missed (but of course I did not add by mistake), there is no chance that I made a mistake in counting. Furthermore, according to your own arguments, if I do have a mistake, then it can only be downward and not the other way around (although here too the matter is very doubtful since some of my sources are indeed the US Geological Surveys which publish this detailed information every day).
Your supposed explanations regarding the reason for the increases are also clearly irrelevant:
A. It is not about publications in the media, on the contrary - the media does not publish these data, it is about the data of the measuring stations themselves and the information coming from the various geological services in the world.
B. Increasing the number of stations has not happened in the last 5 years, so the argument is irrelevant.
third. Come on, the last section is simply ridiculous - we're talking about from 2004 until today, where did you suddenly pull 1900 from?
In the bottom line - neither bears nor forest, it is an effective forest and not a simulated forest.
By the way, your arguments are indeed consistent with the publications in the media since it ignores many earthquakes with a magnitude of 5 on the Richter scale and above, which occur at least 2-3 every day around the world (yesterday, for example, there were 4 of them). This fact was probably not known to you...
Just for example - did you know that yesterday there was a very strong earthquake in Russia? (6.9) Or that there was a magnitude 5.2 earthquake in Brazil? I'm sure not, this was not published anywhere, and hence the source of your mistakes and of everyone who believes, completely wrongly, that there was no real increase in the number of vibrations. In fact, not only was she sick, but she was monstrous.
I see that I responded while you already wrote the response to me.
I repeat my words: I would love to understand why the information you have is more reliable than the one available to the United States authorities. In addition, as I have already explained, there is a simple and technical explanation for the increase in earthquakes with intensities between 2 and 6 on the Richter scale. Why are you unwilling to accept this explanation?
Roy.
------
Come visit my new blog - Another science
Gillian,
The site I cited shows the results of the earthquake registration, according to data collected from 8,000 separate measuring stations, by a peer-reviewed government body. If you choose not to believe the information presented on the website, I would be happy to understand why you are in such a hurry to dismiss it. In any case, I am also curious to know what of the information presented on that website is clearly wrong, and cannot be attributed to counting errors on your part (since it seems logical to me that one person, however diligent and efficient he may be, would not be able to count the earthquakes per day with the same level of accuracy as a government body does which receives information from 8,000 different sources).
And last but not least - since the website of a US government office is not reliable enough for you - could you show the results of the count you have?
Thanks and happy holiday,
Roy.
------
Come visit my new blog - Another science
And my response to Roy:
I'm sorry, but as I also explained to Noam - the data you brought is wrong.
In addition, if you re-read my previous response - I did not refer to earthquakes of magnitude 6 or higher but to earthquakes of magnitude 2.0 or higher. Regardless - an increase in the number of tremors with an intensity of 6.0 and above definitely also applies, but that's not what I was talking about and it amazes me how two people make the same basic error: are you not reading the things written here? Or is it a selective reading?
I believe that the debate is a shame, since both you and Noam are fed by publications and not by observing the facts on the ground. The aforementioned publications are not relevant and do not reflect reality.
In order to know what is really happening, you will have no choice but to count the vibrations yourself, just as I have been doing for 5 years.
A correction to my response which of course referred to Noam and not to Roy - and with it the forgiveness.
Roy,
The website you brought is really not of interest to me - stop being blunt. I am not referring to what is written on the Internet - I am referring to my own research which clearly shows that the above information is clearly wrong.
My data is not loose, your understanding is loose - again: who talked about strong earthquakes? I clearly stated that this is a total number of tremors of magnitude 2.0 and above on the Richter scale, but here it is again - you are on your own, insisting on turning my words around and misrepresenting them even though the things are documented and written in black according to Talkback. Apart from that, the data you brought here also regarding the strong tremors (above 6.0 on the Richter scale) , are clearly wrong, but I have no intention of arguing with you because there is no doubt that you insist on defending a private belief even at the cost of twisting the facts and findings. It's a bit funny that you try to teach me how many tremors there were in the world, how strong and where when not only do you have no idea about What are you talking about except that you are considering a cucumber to beat the gardener in this case.
With all due respect to you - there is a limit to selfishness and manipulativeness, so please don't complain about my aggressiveness in the comments, on the contrary, you should thank me for my patience and tolerance towards you because considering the facts - I am very gentle.
Considering all of the above - it's a bit sad that you still call yourself a scientist.
Jimmy,
Our sources tell a lot of stories without any factual basis.
You are of course entitled to assume that outdated information that does not correspond to reality and facts is more reliable than all the updated scientific studies.
Everyone is entitled to fight for their right to remain ignorant of the land.
Gillian
First, thanks for the advice to use Google - I would never have been able to think of it on my own!
The reason I asked you for references is to understand which sources ** you rely on **.
As we know, the Internet is full of unreliable and delusional websites, which publish baseless news. There are those, for example, who count the number of alien visits per week, and then tell us that there is a conspiracy to hide the information.
Of course, there may also be a conspiracy to hide the increase in the number of earthquakes.
Regarding the number of earthquakes - according to a publication by the American National Institute for Information on Earthquakes in the World, in the last 7 years there have definitely been decreases in the number of earthquakes per year.
In 2003, for example, there were 16 strong earthquakes in the world, and in 2004 and 2005 there were only 14 of them.
So your data is also pretty loose, as is the theory about the connection to the magnetic field reversal.
Links to scientific and reliable information on the subject, on which you are based, will be received with sympathy.
And a last word - being a little less assertive, and a little less aggressive in your responses will certainly not harm you.
Even if normal matter makes up 5% of the universe, it does not mean that for us, who are made of it, it is not an important factor that needs to be investigated.
I would also ask modesty from the supporters of the occult who try to interpret for us what we do not know based on ancient writings. If we don't know, all the more so our ancestors knew less than us, so a little modesty won't hurt you either.
Gillian,
Please take a look at the following page, which records the number of earthquakes in the world and in the USA in recent decades:
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html
You can see a number of interesting details there:
1. Although at first glance it seems that the number of earthquakes is indeed increasing, it is important to note that the frequency of strong earthquakes - starting at 6 on the Richter scale - has not really changed in the last twenty years. We would expect that if the weakening of the magnetic field does affect the frequency of earthquakes, then there would be more earthquakes of all types. Why, then, does only the frequency of the small vibrations increase?
2. The reason, according to those involved in the field, is the increase in the number of measuring stations around the world. If in the past there were only 300 stations, today there are 8,000 measuring stations on all continents, which are able to distinguish even the 'marginal' tremors that in the past would have gone unnoticed.
3. Another reason is the streamlining of global communication. Today, every station that notices an earthquake, even the smallest one, sends an electronic e-mail, and the information is accumulated in the central system within a few seconds. In the past, it was necessary to rely on letters and a great deal of bureaucracy, and it seems likely that some of the reports about the tremors were lost along the way. Maybe not much - maybe only ten percent - but it's enough to get a significant decrease in the number of reports.
4. And of course, the last reason is the efficiency of the measurement means. Since 1900 there has been a huge improvement in the sensitivity of the measuring instruments and in the reliance on advanced algorithms to analyze the information received and produce meaningful data. Considering all of this, it would actually seem very strange if the number of small earthquakes measured each year had remained the same since 1900. On the other hand, we would expect the number of large earthquakes (which are also felt without sensitive electronic equipment) to remain constant, and this is what happened.
In the end, when we check the number of major earthquakes per year, which is impossible to ignore, we find that it has remained the same since 1900, and it currently stands at about 18 earthquakes between 7 and 8 on the Richter scale.
As a final note, it is important to note that it is possible to follow the Earth's magnetic field changes in the past, according to the signs it leaves in the geological lava layers. If the weakening / strengthening was accompanied by an increase in the number of earthquakes, we would expect to find in those layers remains of evidence of the increased tremors: perhaps more fossils, especially of large trees that would have collapsed more frequently, or a volcanic eruption manifested in a large amount of volcanic glass. I am not aware of any findings of this kind, despite a quick search I made.
In short, if you have more evidence that supports the idea, I'd be happy to look at it. But the claim that the frequency of earthquakes is increasing does not seem credible given the explanations given.
Pay attention to an important point: I agree that the idea that the magnetic field affects the stability of the crust does seem plausible (and really, kudos to you for investing your time in documenting the number of earthquakes in the world). The problem is that in science there are a lot of reasonable ideas, and many times we find that even though they sound intuitively correct, they are disproven in the field. It is very possible that the magnetic field has a negligible effect on the crust, just as its effect may be enormous, and that it drives streams of molten iron below the surface and helps the volcanoes to erupt. At the moment, the evidence points in the direction of the negligible effect, so I tend to be cautious about accepting your claim without further evidence.
happy holiday,
Roy.
------
Come visit the new science blog - Another science
To all the dear souls who express an opinion on this site with so much determination and diligence. Have you ever stopped for a moment and pondered why we came to this world. Who created this world. Is this the only world? Who created us? Is what we see, feel, hear, taste, smell, with the help of the various senses and devices all that exists or are there things beyond that that we have no idea about. A little modesty and humility and looking inward and not only to the visible, not the material alone makes up our world and it is already known (things that have been known for a long time in our sources) that the material on this site is a few percent of the universe and the rest is still covered and unknown.
With the blessing of a happy and kosher holiday, we will soon have a complete spiritual and physical redemption in these days.
And by the way, without any connection - I don't think my father or anyone else has the right to criticize the history channel and/or any other channel, while the science website often sins with its own nonsense.
Roy,
I have no idea if anyone but me has counted the number of tremors in recent years (I can only assume that this is indeed the case), I can only testify that I am not only counting, but also publishing the measurements online on a daily basis since 2005.
At the same time, in a very puzzling way, the standard academic claim is that there has been no increase in the number of earthquakes in the world in the last decade - a claim that is clearly not true. It is enough to check the data to find out that the opposite is true.
Regarding the weakening of the magnetic field, there are countless sources on Google, it is not clear to me what prevents you from searching for them yourself.
Some of them are concentrated on this site:
http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/20617.aspx
The connection probably exists...though of course the reason and the turning point
(If I understood correctly..) turned over.
There may be some basis for Gillians claim about changes in the strength of the field
The magnetic near an earthquake. This is a piezo-electric activity
of quartz crystals found in rocks that are crushed due to seismic activity,
There is a claim (I don't remember where I read it) that animals can
to feel this electrical activity.
Reasonable in my opinion, because if such a possibility exists, then the field
The electric generated due to the piezo-electric activity will have an effect
on the local magnetic field.
Gillian,
Thanks for the interesting explanation.
Maybe I'm wrong, but surely the Earth's magnetic field has been measured for over fifty years, and it's likely that the earthquakes have been counted for a long time as well. Hence, it is possible to check the sequence of events in the last century, and make sure that the number of earthquakes does increase in the years when the magnetic field weakens. In fact, if a study came out linking earthquakes to the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field (and I assume there is, since you write that there is an estimate, etc.), I'm sure he would check the records to show the context.
Can you link to this type of research?
------
Come visit the new science blog - Another science
So that's it - there are no "ups and downs" - there are only consistent ups. To explain the ear: an average of about 25 vibrations per day in 2005 became an average of 60 vibrations per day in 2008.
There is no lack of scientific studies on the weakening of the magnetic field, a short Google search will bring you several of them. If you still can't figure it out, I'd be happy to refer you to such studies.
By the way, as I explained - the above sign is not effective since it is usually a weakening very close to the time of the earthquake, within a few minutes.
For the last time I am explaining to you in the hope that the third time you will finally understand - there is no drawing any conclusions here, there are supports. I hope that at least you can recognize the difference between these. I cannot understand why you twist my words and turn things into black and white senselessly and contrary to every word I have written here on the subject.
I will repeat things again to prevent misunderstandings later:
When there are supporting events or signs, such a hypothesis cannot be dismissed outright as "nonsense".
The earthquakes are indeed related to the tectonic plates, but it is estimated that the temporary weakening of the magnetic field contributes to the movement of the plates (and thus to a higher probability of an earthquake), even though it is not yet clear enough whether the earthquake is the cause, or the cause of the weakening of the field.
In conclusion, I can say that both their and my father's approach to the subject is not scientific - to say the least, and is fueled by private and baseless beliefs.
If there are so many hypotheses for the end of the world, which unfortunately will probably come in 2012, then one of them will eventually come true 🙂
Gillians
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a link on a scientific study linking a magnetic field to earthquakes (I realized that you claim this already in the previous article).
I did not claim that the data is false, but I know that there are increases and decreases in the frequency of earthquakes even without magnetic pole reversals, so I asked how you draw conclusions based on an increase in the frequency of earthquakes in only 4 years. I didn't get an answer to such a simple question
Earthquakes are mainly related to the movement of tectonic plates. What is the relationship between the movement of tectonic plates and a magnetic field?
To the best of my knowledge, to date no reliable warning sign that appears before earthquakes has been found. You, on the other hand, inform us that there is also a proven and reliable sign: a change in the magnetic field. This is shocking news to me, and here too I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a link to a scientific study on this matter.
Noam,
A. No one pretends to prophesy anything and everything - these are supporting facts, a prophecy you know who has been given since the destruction of the Second Temple.
B. My father did indeed write that the disappearance of the magnetic field will cause natural phenomena, but this is obviously nonsense - the disappearance of the magnetic field will not cause any natural phenomena but the extinction of all life on earth. He actually meant the reversal of the poles, and made a salad of the two issues in our iniquities.
The natural phenomena accompanying the reversal of the poles are, as mentioned, many earthquakes as well as unusual climatic phenomena, as certainly observed in recent years around the world - further support for the possibility of the reversal.
The statistics are definitely correct and I testify to this in the first person because for 5 years I have been conducting a daily monitoring and recording of all earthquakes in the world, starting with magnitude 2.0 on the Richter scale. As someone who has no idea what he's talking about and didn't bother to research the issue, your disdain is misplaced and I suggest that you conduct your own follow-ups if you believe that the data I provided is false.
third. FYI, studies and measurements have consistently proven the connection between earthquakes and the magnetic field. The field usually weakens a few minutes before the earthquake itself takes place, but sometimes also for a longer period of hours.
I come back again and offer to study the subject in depth, without any connection - fascinating.
Gillians
The article did not say that the magnetic field reversal is nonsense, and in fact nothing was said about the magnetic field reversal.
It was said that the claim "that the earth's magnetic field will disappear and this will cause natural phenomena" is nonsense
Indeed, please explain: what is the connection between the magnetic field and earthquakes?
Are 4 years of statistics (if they are even true) enough for you to predict a magnetic field reversal?
Oren - FYI there are 4 methods for scientific research and not one.
1. Research in which all variables can be fully controlled in the laboratory, measured and repeated. This is the most familiar type and what many mistake to see it as the only type of research.
2. Research in which it is not possible to control all the variables, but they can be predicted and measured when they occur: luminary defects, tides, etc.
3. A study in which the variables cannot be controlled or predicted, but it is clear that they will occur and sometimes in known places. That's why you can place measuring devices and wait for: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, solar storms in the sun, etc.
4. Research in which it is not possible to control the variables, not predict them and not always know where and when they will occur: car accidents, theft cases and crime. This science is included in the framework of legal science. This science is based on evidence, findings and data collected mostly after the event.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
droplet,
I believe that when he wrote "one science" he did not mean one scientific theory but that there is only one scientific method for drawing conclusions and theories. It is impossible to adapt the scientific method according to a current belief or trend that is more suitable and convenient for the user. It is rigid, requires proof, objective and requires the ability to repeat and even predict additional phenomena if possible.
It's interesting, my father, on the basis of which you state that the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field is "nonsense" when researchers and scientists a little more experienced and well-versed in the field than you, certainly estimate that this possibility is most likely in the coming years, especially since there is a lot of field data that supports this hypothesis (for example, on massive in the number of earthquakes every year since 2004 and the gradual weakening of the magnetosphere).
I believe that before jumping with such firm (and baseless) conclusions - it is advisable to study the subject.
I apologize in advance if I descend into subtleties, but the saying "there is only one science" is fundamentally wrong.
Even the explanation you gave for this statement ("Since at any given moment there is only one science, it should be presented as the correct knowledge." in response 11) does not "straighten out" it.
Because then the sun revolves around the earth, the world is flat and evolution is a fiction.
A nuclear holocaust is a plausible scenario in light of the race to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons by countries such as Iran and Co.
The end of the human race will come by him and not by forces of nature beyond his control
Man's nature is bad from his youth - very bad!!
Hanan, unfortunately I don't watch too much TV, but assuming you are right about National Geographic, this is not to condemn them, but to their advantage. You can say exactly the same thing about the science site (except, of course, for the topic of recycling). Since at any given moment there is only one science, it must be presented as the correct knowledge. I did not say that it is forbidden to present other opinions, it can be done as I did in the articles about 2012 or about Nostradamus that I wrote/translated.
For your information, the main article that explains about the alleged mystery of 2012 and refutes it while explaining what the Mayan calendar is on the one hand, but that also says nothing about this date on the other hand has received 12 thousand hits so far in six months.
I don't have a problem describing the stories, I have a problem of course if someone believes in them and even more than that - he pays money to all kinds of people who will rescue him from (nothing) that will happen that day and things have already happened before.
If you notice this time as well, the fact that they supposedly discovered a book, that's fine and dandy (although a bit suspicious due to the lack of other sources), but the one who ascribes meaning to it is the problem. Books that have been known for years have no meaning either, all the more so for a book that was discovered only now.
By the way, there was already a very important case of a book that was discovered in retrospect and changed the history of an entire nation and perhaps half of the inhabitants of the earth - the reference is to the book of the Torah (Deuteronomy) that was discovered in the basements of the Temple during the time of Josiah and happened to be suitable for the reforms he wanted to pass.
Hanan:
In contrast to the police and the court system that discriminate against honest people - politics actually presents a more balanced approach and also allows criminals to be elected to the leadership of the country
The last anonymous user was me (again I came to visit the parents - using their computer)
tilapia,
Regarding the date ending in their calendar - this is equivalent to the 2K bug that was in computers. In computers in the past, only the last 2 digits of the year were used to indicate a year, i.e. from 1999, which was indicated as 99, to 2000, i.e. 00. Indeed, this is a lack of thought for the "distant" future. There, too, this created panic beyond the need, but nothing compared to the nonsense that is invented around the end of the Mayan calendar (which also had some "scientific" basis for the 2K bug, mainly for systems and software that depend on dates such as banking systems, but nothing critical there either).
The main reason for the noise around the Mayan calendar and the year 2012 is because people are looking for such things. We have enough examples of this on our site unfortunately in the comments of different people (I believe I don't need to mention names/nicknames).
Indeed, the History channel as well as various programs on channels that supposedly represent a clean scientific front, are not clean in their hands. They want to dip their hand in Breitnig. And what to do that a very large part of the population is not among science enthusiasts (even though they can delude themselves that they are) - especially when they are offered the possibility to glimpse "Doomsday". The rating, a concept equivalent to money for the various networks, leads to deterioration and "selling their soul" and scientific objectivity.
I have to give a favorable mention to the website "Hidan", which despite the brainwashing and the "United Front for Nonsense" that constantly tries to destroy the scientific and objective image of the site and tarnish it with all kinds of "New Age" nonsense, spirituality and more - in spite of all this, it stands firm in his principles and maintains his clean scientific image (while still giving freedom of expression to everyone).
And I will add, something I have mentioned several times recently, that although I am against gagging and giving voice to every opinion (yes, even nonsense) - when the freedom of speech harms the freedom to live and the freedom to know, one should know how to limit it.
Just as a democracy knows (not that it always activates it) to put a limit on any freedom before it harms the people and their rights due to individuals who decide to take advantage of their freedom in a selfish way without knowing who they are hurting, so the limit must be activated on the site to maintain its scientific appearance. We have the right to learn as much as they have the right to talk nonsense. If they can't control them then they can go to sites that don't ask for a scientific position.
But again, that's my opinion. And by the way - I came to this conclusion after recently dozens of "New-Shits" (let's say Agers) started to flood the site and prevent interesting and educated scientific discussions and made us all concentrate on protecting our right to learn and for the site to exist as a clean scientific site, instead of really learning - the purpose of the site .
Compared to National Geographic, which recycles the same films and series for years and years and sometimes presents a distorted, one-sided and deliberate picture of certain events or studies, the History Channel can be said to be the only channel that presents a variety of opinions, a variety of information and renewed material All the time and usually - more reliable information in terms of presenting the image here and there. And I'm not going into the subject of Nostradamus' "prophecies" at all, but rather the importance of knowing the man and his books, since he had a very big influence (including on the Nazi regime, for example - a detail that many are not aware of).
The History channel does not take a one-sided approach like the NG channel and therefore presents programs and series in a more correct way, bringing all the opinions on the subject - both for and against. Adutz NG, for example, specializes in a one-sided and deliberate presentation of various issues, without giving the correct weight to all opinions on the same issue, while sometimes distorting data and while endless and exhausting circulation of material for years.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
National Geographic also has quite a few films trying to establish
the stories of the Bible and the New Testament in a seemingly scientific way.
I prefer to ignore these movies, because any discussion about it
Gives them free advertising.
The Maya did not even foresee the end of their own culture.
The day I meet a fortune teller who won the lottery, maybe I will listen to his opinion, until then I have to endure all the delusional programs that are broadcast on the "science" channels about ghosts and other fairies.
The Mayan culture did not speak of a "huge energy shift". Nor were they talking about a global catastrophe. They actually didn't talk about it at all - it's just that their calendar is over for this year. We discovered this discovery only in retrospect, after this culture was destroyed and all its writings (except for exactly 4 documents) were destroyed by the Christian missionaries. We may never know exactly why their calendar ended in 2012, but it could very well be that they simply didn't find it necessary to name years in the future that far from their point of view, just as we aren't really busy thinking about the state of our community in the year 2500.
But such a hype was created from this story that was integrated into all kinds of other sources, some of which are invented and some of which were simply taken out of context, until this mythological story about the end of the world was created in 2012.
Did the Mayan culture "predict" World War I? And what about the second one? And what about the rise of US power? What about British colonialism? Communism in Russia? Were any of these important events mentioned in the Mayan culture? No. So how do people conclude from their calendar ending in 2012 that the end of the world is coming? I want to make it interesting More - let's make an intervention in a country where everyone will invest $10 on what their opinion is on the question of whether the world will end or not. I'm sure I'll make a nice jackpot from the matter...
Don't fall for the trap and don't let them work on you!
You are nice, you, an optimist.
Let's say you have a field swarming with pests and I tell you that tomorrow at 7 am the field will be clean, spotless, of any pests.
What can I do to clean the field apart from exterminating all the pests.
There is no other way than global and total destruction, it is the magic solution to all existential paradoxes.
This is how it is with us, this is how it is wherever life has been or will be created.
extermination.
There is no doubt that this is a cynical attempt to get ratings...
We know these attempts quite well from among the Jewish rabbis who every time find a line from the book of Ezekiel and believe that this is the proof that the war of Gog and Magog will break out this year!
I personally treat the 2012 issue with curiosity.
The Mayans were not talking about destruction and annihilation but about a huge energetic change.
Even the Jews, in the Kabbalah and other books of Razim, mention the fact that during this period "the spirit of impurity will depart from the world" - this can be understood as an energetic change.
The key word is change. No extermination, no extinction, no destruction. change
Maybe for the better? Has anyone thought of this?
I remember that the History Channel (or maybe it was Discovery Channel?) broadcast a program in the early nineties about the "prophecies" of Nostradamus. Beyond all the usual mountains of nonsense ("Hyster" and his friends) the program provided an attempt to predict what will happen in the near future following the writings of Nostradamus.
They predicted medical breakthroughs such as a cure for cancer in 1996 (following discoveries related to chaos theory...), an encounter with extraterrestrials in 1998 and a third world war in 1999 or 2000. They had a few more predictions in there and needless to say, none of them came true. That's how it is with mystics/rabbis/Kabbalists/prophets - they only know how to predict events that have come true...