Dark Mission: NASA's dirty little secret.

[facelift]

Shouldn't you be more concerned about the lies being feed to us by NASA rather than my opinion that that the physic on one planet is different that the physic on another?

Christ sake they can't even agree on the color of the sky and they TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS.

 

[Pops]

All this worrying about government conspiracies, NASA lying to you, alien probes,etc. is going to cause massive anal spasms. I suggest a massive enema to cleanse your brains and eliminate worry from your system. Anyone who thinks that David Wilcox(who has NO scientific background) is a credible source, needs to be on Prozac and strapped into the short bus for the trip to kindergarten.

 

[Guest]

All this worrying about government conspiracies, NASA lying to you, alien probes,etc. is going to cause massive anal spasms. I suggest a massive enema to cleanse your brains and eliminate worry from your system. Anyone who thinks that David Wilcox(who has NO scientific background) is a credible source, needs to be on Prozac and strapped into the short bus for the trip to kindergarten.

They can sit by me, Pops. None of the other kids will.

 

[Pops]

That is because you are ugly and smell like pot!( The drooling doesn't help either)

 

[newbgrow]

Beez, you have to understand I am not ashamed of myself for not believing in the scientific evidence for Santa Claus and his red-nosed reindeer. You can put anyone on the pedestal and hail him as the next Jesus Christ - but most of us with common sense will rebuke that fantasy. Anyone can talk up some fancy words and explanations and pretend that as "scientific fact", but that doesn't make it true. For you to believe all that without skepticism makes you either completely ignorant of scientific procedure, or outright delusional.

I did not want to believe it but perhaps the LEO were right. Weed does produce schizophrenia in some users...

 

[newbgrow]

Darwin's model is so wrong it is unbelievable...

You're a Young Earth Creationist. Just admit it.

 

[Babombeez]

Beez, you have to understand I am not ashamed of myself for not believing in the scientific evidence for Santa Claus and his red-nosed reindeer. You can put anyone on the pedestal and hail him as the next Jesus Christ - but most of us with common sense will rebuke that fantasy. Anyone can talk up some fancy words and explanations and pretend that as "scientific fact", but that doesn't make it true. For you to believe all that without skepticism makes you either completely ignorant of scientific procedure, or outright delusional.

I did not want to believe it but perhaps the LEO were right. Weed does produce schizophrenia in some users...

There you go again, misrepresenting my argument... you assume I don't have skepticism, then again you assume a lot of things...

A young earth creationist? because I disagree with Darwin and his flawed model of evolution?

Yet again you still dismiss the fossil record and the 62 million year evolutionary cycle that Sepkoski and Rhode discovered...

You are old world thinkers, not I...

Revel in your skepticism, enjoy!


Beez

 

[Kirby]

I happen to believe that we are on the verge of paradigm shift on Earth, a shift of the ages, if you will.... The Mayan long count marks this shift in consciousness...

Interesting. I'm still skeptical about the Mayan calender marking the advancement of human consciousness. I believe you have to see an Ian Xel Lunghold presentation in order to fully grasp the supposed purpose behind the Mayan Calender. The "5th day" [bad stuff happens, paradigm shift] is coming up in 2008. Hold onto your hats and head for the hills if hear of a dirty bomb in the U.S. You're ignorant if you don't believe concentration camps aren't a reality in the U.S. Many have already been built.

 

[Kirby]

You're a Young Earth Creationist. Just admit it.

Ah. Since when has Darwinism been accepted as accurate? Sure, some aspects are widely regarded as true, but it's about as accurate as the Global Warming swindle.

 

[Guest]

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)

 

[Pops]

At least, with Jack Sepkoski, you are looking at someone who has a scientific background, instead of a crackpot like Wilcox. Maybe there is some hope for you after all.

 

[newbgrow]

Ah. Since when has Darwinism been accepted as accurate? Sure, some aspects are widely regarded as true, but it's about as accurate as the Global Warming swindle.

First, it's not that Darwin is completely accurate, it's the way he juxtaposed Darwin next to Wilcox that's offending. Second, global warming is as proven as gravity; perhaps we need to put your name on a mural so a couple generations down they can say, "Ah hah! These are the people who denied the inevitable and drove those SUV's while the whole world was going to shit."

 

[newbgrow]

Whenever I hear words like paradigm shift, change of ages, or the awakening of consciousness, I cringe. What's with these new new-ager's tendencies to tie everything to the end of the world? The Mayans didn't anticipate this, I bet. Nothing happened in the year 2k, and nothing will happen in 2012. It's amazing to hear you spout crap like astrology as science and be so serious of it at the same time.

...

I don't know... you might be on to something Beez. My fortune cookie says good things will happen soon. Maybe that's the Aquarian Age thing you're talking about, and all humans will spontaneously evolve to a higher mental being, like the "brain", and awaken our true consciousness...

As I'm writing this, it's 7 o'clock. And the year is 2007. 7 is an omen of good luck. It's the fated hour. We must be right on this one. Peace Bro. We are one with the Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind... And it's all scientifically proven. Anyone who doesn't believe this truth is ignorant of the coming age of enlightenment. It says so in Zeitgeist, so it must be true!! The Christians are the old age, we are the new!!!

Praise Be To Wilcox!!!

 

[Kirby]

First, it's not that Darwin is completely accurate, it's the way he juxtaposed Darwin next to Wilcox that's offending. Second, global warming is as proven as gravity; perhaps we need to put your name on a mural so a couple generations down they can say, "Ah hah! These are the people who denied the inevitable and drove those SUV's while the whole world was going to shit."

Global Warming is as proven as gravity? Ah, well, in that case, do us a favor, fight the cause and stop breathing. Co2 is regarded as the main cause. Do you not realize how foolish such a statement is? The Sun & the position of the planets are the prominent factors in temperature change. Temperature change is prevalent all around the solar system, in case you haven't heard. People who believe that Co2 is the main cause of this temperature increase are as fooled as the one's who believe there are holes in the O-zone. They claim theres holes in the Ozone yet this is only measured at the poles. Why? Because this is the ONLY place it would ever occur. Ozone is created when the Oxygen of the planet hits the radiation from the Sun at a certain height. If theres no Oxygen due to lack of plants, etc., then there's a hole. Think about it, there would be holes all over place by now especially NY, LA, LONDON and so forth if it was as they claimed. They then use the pathetic excuse that well it travels to the poles and makes holes there. Take into consideration of where the major tests for Co2 levels are being taken as well. As you should know, volcanoes are the biggest cause of pollution on Earth. This talk about how industry is changing the atmosphere is nothing more than instructive manipulation of the masses. Fear mongering, if you will.

Global Warming; Science trumped by politics and activism. The activists and the scientists proposing global warming point to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time. Unfortunately, there are no records of long term monitoring available except at one station in the Hawaiian Islands. While those trying to prove global warming point to the station as proof of increasing carbon dioxide, a crucial error was made in location. In the 1950s, the Scripps Institute thought it would be a good idea to have a carbon dioxide monitor in a place far from other land and possible interference from industry, such as the “Big Island” of Hawaii. A reasonable idea, but their choice of location was very poor. What the Scripps Institute didn’t take into account was that volcanoes produce enormous amounts of steam, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and other gases. Compounding that, the Big Island’s volcanic eruptions have increased in recent years to the point where they are causing air pollution on Oahu, some 200 miles away.

The placement of the station next to major carbon dioxide sources like this and then claiming that the entire world’s carbon dioxide levels are increasing is similar in principle to putting a sensor next to a steel mill’s smokestacks and then saying that the air in the entire U.S. is filled with soot. It’s dishonest and misleading. I digress, but Oregon’s DEQ did the same thing in the 1980s to prove that the Rogue Valley (southern Oregon) had high levels of carbon monoxide. They placed a carbon monoxide sensor half a city block from an old factory whose inefficient boilers were producing large amounts of carbon monoxide. When the factory closed, the levels of carbon monoxide dropped by half and the DEQ claimed that the levels had dropped for the entire Rogue Valley when most of what the sensor had been measuring was the gas from the factory’s boilers. A true measure would have been to have sensors all over the Rogue Valley. Carbon dioxide is the same. To get a true measure of world levels of carbon dioxide, one needs sensors in many places and over a long period of time. We simply don’t have the data to indicate that carbon dioxide has decreased or increased over time.

More can be posted on this subject, if you would like to know more. I'll say it again. Darwinism is no more accurate than the Global Warming swindle. There is a massive amount of evidence which directly contradicts Darwinism, specifically in the area of human existence.

 

[Kirby]

Whenever I hear words like paradigm shift, change of ages, or the awakening of consciousness, I cringe. What's with these new new-ager's tendencies to tie everything to the end of the world? The Mayans didn't anticipate this, I bet. Nothing happened in the year 2k, and nothing will happen in 2012. It's amazing to hear you spout crap like astrology as science and be so serious of it at the same time.

Just like color vision, writing/art, reasoning, decisions, etc. They were all further development of our brain or "awakening of consciousness". This 'pattern' was recorded by the Mayan people, yet at one point, all their books/writings/records were destroyed. Y2K is nothing like the theory behind the Mayan Calender.

I don't know... you might be on to something Beez. My fortune cookie says good things will happen soon. Maybe that's the Aquarian Age thing you're talking about, and all humans will spontaneously evolve to a higher mental being, like the "brain", and awaken our true consciousness...

As I'm writing this, it's 7 o'clock. And the year is 2007. 7 is an omen of good luck. It's the fated hour. We must be right on this one. Peace Bro. We are one with the Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind... And it's all scientifically proven. Anyone who doesn't believe this truth is ignorant of the coming age of enlightenment. It says so in Zeitgeist, so it must be true!! The Christians are the old age, we are the new!!!

Praise Be To Wilcox!!!

My fortune cookie says your rhetoric is royally foolish.

 

[Babombeez]

Whenever I hear words like paradigm shift, change of ages, or the awakening of consciousness, I cringe. What's with these new new-ager's tendencies to tie everything to the end of the world? The Mayans didn't anticipate this, I bet. Nothing happened in the year 2k, and nothing will happen in 2012. It's amazing to hear you spout crap like astrology as science and be so serious of it at the same time.

...

I don't know... you might be on to something Beez. My fortune cookie says good things will happen soon. Maybe that's the Aquarian Age thing you're talking about, and all humans will spontaneously evolve to a higher mental being, like the "brain", and awaken our true consciousness...

As I'm writing this, it's 7 o'clock. And the year is 2007. 7 is an omen of good luck. It's the fated hour. We must be right on this one. Peace Bro. We are one with the Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind... And it's all scientifically proven. Anyone who doesn't believe this truth is ignorant of the coming age of enlightenment. It says so in Zeitgeist, so it must be true!! The Christians are the old age, we are the new!!!

Praise Be To Wilcox!!!

You are making yourself look childish up here, you simply resort to ad-hominem attacks 90% of the time...

I have been following Wilcock's material for 4 years now, you make fun of something in which you hardly understand, or have spent very, very, minimal time looking over David's scientific material and dismiss it with a prejudiced mind. You assume way to much and it completely ruins any argument you present, and your presumption that I am basing my viewpoints from watching Zeitgeist. I was only recently (within 2 months ago) shown the first 30 minutes of the film, but til' this day I have not finished watching it... I already knew about most of the material they presented, since I've done much study in the field of metaphysics and by studying Mayan calendrics, along with other ancient civilzations, combined with religions studies, I've come to the solid conclusion that Wilcock's material is completely accurate. I notice most of the criticism and skepticism is coming from the "spiritually dead" people, who are trapped in this box of old world thinking... Science is telling us so much more these days, but instead you choose to ignore. Wilcock has simply put the dots together that no one has pieced together, he is using Russian scientific studies in which you still ignore, especially about the science of Torsion waves.

Your knowledge of the Mayan calendar proves minimal, as y2k was a media hype and had a loose connection to the "end of the world"... As for the Gregorian calendar, Jesus scholars debate the birth of Jesus as it could have been 4 BCE, instead of the year zero, ( evidence of Herod's rule). That would mean that our calendar is approx. 4 years off, if not more... Interestingly, the Masonic calendar corresponds to era 2012, which would be the year 6,000. The Mayans knew when the sun would align with the Dark rift of the milky way galaxy, and there is evidence that an older portion of the calendar could be as old as 32 BCE.

You pretend to know about this science, but you do not know and make incorrect assumptions.

You are the one who keeps inferring that David Wilcock should be deified, what is wrong with you?

This stuff just plain freaks you out..

As for global warming, it is real. Whether man has caused it, is making it worse, or has nothing to do with it is up for debate... however, it is a known SCIENTIFIC FACT that the sun has increased in brightness in the past 30 years, and the solar constant has been changing. There also has been a vast increase in dense matter flowing into our system, and basically 2 galaxies are ultimately coming into proximity of each other (the Milky Way and Canus Major dwarf), more matter means more density and more friction against the sun's magnetic field--- there has been a DOCUMENTED energetic increase, and NASA also knows about this, but they aren't saying much...

Cringe away, I won't stop talkin!


beez

 

[newbgrow]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with you people. Science has nothing to do with spirituality. Science has nothing to do with religion. Period. What's foolish is you claiming otherwise. You may not be YEC Beez, but you are a same face wearing a different mask. There is no point in even providing counterarguments to whatever David Wilcox preaches. You can't attack fantasy and science fiction with empirical logic, and I refuse to be dragged down a philosophical match over your spirituality and idiocy. Quit flailing around the word "science" like a catch-phrase to make your claims sound more legitimate.

Ad hominem attacks? I'll admit to that point. However, you fail to justify your points with third-party sources and factual evidence. Quoting one guy, especially when he isn't even a reputable science practitioner, isn't valid evidence. You fail completely on the scientific process. Like I said of Stoned2Death, you 2 are like Bible salesmen. Everything you preach is derived from one source our similar sources that quote each other.

To say I have a prejudiced mind would like saying non-Christians are unscientific because of their biased approach to the evidence of Jesus Christ. In other words, it's moronic.

 

[newbgrow]

I already knew about most of the material they presented, since I've done much study in the field of metaphysics and by studying Mayan calendrics, along with other ancient civilzations, combined with religions studies, I've come to the solid conclusion that Wilcock's material is completely accurate. I notice most of the criticism and skepticism is coming from the "spiritually dead" people, who are trapped in this box of old world thinking... Science is telling us so much more these days, but instead you choose to ignore. Wilcock has simply put the dots together that no one has pieced together, he is using Russian scientific studies in which you still ignore, especially about the science of Torsion waves.

Let's focus on this statement right here to expose your contradiction. First of all, you pretend to base all your statements on scientific fact, when in fact you have twisted the definition of science to fit your own needs. Science tests empirical evidence; it does not intrude on the spiritual or ontological aspects. Making a point of "spiritually dead" people ignoring science is non sequitur, and irrelevant. You can preach your spirituality all you want, but do it in a context of religion, not "science".

Secondly, even though metaphysics do end with the word "physics", it is not a branch of science, but a branch of philosophy. By definition, metaphysics extends beyond what is empirically observable, which is out of the scope of science. Studying metaphysics, Mayan calendrics, religious studies, or any other other things you listed does not make you a student of science, but a student of fantasy, or archeology, if anything. You're a historian with religious undertones at best; a religious preacher masquerading historical knowledge at worst.

Such subjective studies do not give you the position to confirm the accuracy of Wilcox's material scientifically.

 

[Pops]

Newb, be careful,you are talking to a brilliant 21 year old who almost has a degree in Religious studies. His years and years of study in the field of metaphysics and his absolute devotion to Wilcocks drivel makes him so far advanced that we can never hope to understand what he is talking about. You need to understand that being on a thread with him is like trying to help a kid win the Special Olympics. No matter how much you help him or train him, you have to realize ,in the end, that you are working with a retard.

 

[newbgrow]

Temperature change is prevalent all around the solar system, in case you haven't heard. People who believe that Co2 is the main cause of this temperature increase are as fooled as the one's who believe there are holes in the O-zone. They claim theres holes in the Ozone yet this is only measured at the poles. Why? Because this is the ONLY place it would ever occur. Ozone is created when the Oxygen of the planet hits the radiation from the Sun at a certain height. If theres no Oxygen due to lack of plants, etc., then there's a hole. Think about it, there would be holes all over place by now especially NY, LA, LONDON and so forth if it was as they claimed. They then use the pathetic excuse that well it travels to the poles and makes holes there.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Do you actually believe o-zone holes occur because of the lack of plants in a given area on the surface?

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), along with other chlorine- and bromine-containing compounds, have been implicated in the accelerated depletion of ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were developed in the early 1930s and are used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and household applications. These substances are non-toxic, non-flammable, and non-reactive with other chemical compounds. These desirable safety characteristics, along with their stable thermodynamic properties, make them ideal for many applications--as coolants for commercial and home refrigeration units, aerosol propellants, electronic cleaning solvents, and blowing agents. Production and Use of Chlorofluorocarbons experienced nearly uninterrupted growth as demand for products requiring their use continued to rise.
Not until 1973 was chlorine found to be a catalytic agent in ozone destruction. Catalytic destruction of ozone removes the odd oxygen species [atomic oxygen (O) and ozone (O3)] while leaving chlorine unaffected. This process was known to be potentially damaging to the ozone layer, but conclusive evidence of stratospheric ozone loss was not discovered until 1984. Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in March 1985 prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons. A complex scenario of atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime. Recent expeditions to the Arctic regions show that similar processes can occur in the northern hemisphere, but to a somewhat lesser degree due to warmer temperatures and erratic dynamic patterns.

A primary objective for researchers in addressing this issue has been analysis of Measurements and Trends in Ozone and Chlorofluorocarbon Levels. Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown statistically significant downward trends in ozone at all latitudes outside the tropics. Measurements at several ground-based stations have shown corresponding upward trends in CFCs in both the northern and southern hemisphere. Despite rapid phaseout of CFCs, ozone levels are expected to be lower than pre-depletion levels for several decades due to the long tropospheric lifetimes of CFCs. These compounds are carried into the stratosphere, where they can undergo hundreds of catalytic cycles involving ozone before being scavenged by other chemical species.

Replacement compounds for CFCs have also been evaluated for their Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP). Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potential replacements for CFCs that contain no chlorine, have been evaluated for potential effects of fluorine compounds on ozone destruction. McFarland and Kaye give an overview of the CFC-ozone issue in the 1992 paper "Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone."

Source: Columbia University