Orwell, Huxley and Time travel point to 2016

[Lava_Lady]

I tried to read this about 3 times and my mind kept drifting...can someone paraphrase in bullet points? I'm in ADHD mode.

[Space Commander Travis]

I tried to read this about 3 times and my mind kept drifting...can someone paraphrase in bullet points? I'm in ADHD mode.

it needn't require that. I've been trying to seek clarification or some explanation as to what it's all about, but I can only assume that the people responsible for promoting it are ignoring me.

[prometheuslocke]

it needn't require that. I've been trying to seek clarification or some explanation as to what it's all about, but I can only assume that the people responsible for promoting it are ignoring me.

I answered the only question you asked that made any sense. The quote you are "questioning" is directly related to the person I was replying to, who incorrectly asserted that Faraday's workshop was not on Trinity Buoy Wharf. It's nothing more than providing proof of the location.

[prometheuslocke]

1 - Use incorrect evidence (location of Faraday's Lab)

2 - Use non-existent evidence (1317 7/21/2016 7 * 3 = 21 not mentioned)

3 - Make unsupported assumptions (The verse in Joel pointing to 9/1/2016)

4 - Reference fictional material as evidence (The symmetry is beautiful. Consider The Source.)

5 - if what you want to use as evidence doesn't fit properly with the hypothesis, mold it until it does.

1. The location is correct for his workshop

2. the fact that the point is not mentioned is irrelevant, it's not used in the theory either. the purpose of displaying it is to show that there is a linear pattern described by the days in daniel and revelation.

3. It's not an assumption, and I wasn't suggesting that Joel pointed to that date, rather that the event on the date was correlated to the statement in joel, which is true and valid.

4. Really? Are you kidding?

5. You display a prototypical pattern of attempting to lump everyones theories into a 5 point analysis. In doing so, you meld the theory to fit your analysis method, make incorrect assumptions, and change the meaning behind the theory, just so you can use the same 5 points every time. Your analysis is wrong on every single point. Now what? Am I proven right?

You are supposed to think critically, and analyze ideas and concepts. When you spend your time attempting to fit each and every theory into an "analysis box" that you yourself created, all you are doing is wasting time. The theory has merit, which you completely ignore by picking apart small details, not even attempting to glimpse the entire idea. Meanwhile, just for your own knowledge, just because one detail may be wrong, does not mean an entire theory should be discarded. Your attempts and holding steadfast to a world where "you know everything there is to know" by dismissing anything you do not believe or understand based on frivolous details will only keep you in the dark longer than most.

Edited April 27, 2013 by prometheuslocke

[Quaentum]

1. The location is correct for his workshop

2. the fact that the point is not mentioned is irrelevant, it's not used in the theory either. the purpose of displaying it is to show that there is a linear pattern described by the days in daniel and revelation.

3. It's not an assumption, and I wasn't suggesting that Joel pointed to that date, rather that the event on the date was correlated to the statement in joel, which is true and valid.

4. Really? Are you kidding?

5. You display a prototypical pattern of attempting to lump everyones theories into a 5 point analysis. In doing so, you meld the theory to fit your analysis method, make incorrect assumptions, and change the meaning behind the theory, just so you can use the same 5 points every time. Your analysis is wrong on every single point. Now what? Am I proven right?

2, 3 - You can not use non-existent data to show a progression. The missing point, if found could be well above or below the line showing a different pattern. Since it is a counting of days and not months or years, using days for some points and years for others does not show a pattern. Further to say that the event on the date is correlated to the statement in Joel, and by way of that inferring that the date is correlated to the statement in Joel is false since Joel does not give a date and it can be any date from when that statement was written until the sun goes nova and may well be outside the supposed linear progression.

You have, as I have alluded to in #5, molded the data to fit the progression and have thereby invalidated the progression. In fact, when you eliminate the non-existent data and the non-existent correlation and graph the remaining dates it does not show the correlation you have presented.

4 - No, since the source you linked to is "The Matrix", a work of fiction, it is not evidence nor does it support your theory in any way.

The 5 point analysis was because there were 5 points to address. it could just as easily have been 7, 10 or 15. Sometimes presenting them as points makes it easier to read and understand.

You are supposed to think critically, and analyze ideas and concepts. When you spend your time attempting to fit each and every theory into an "analysis box" that you yourself created, all you are doing is wasting time. The theory has merit, which you completely ignore by picking apart small details, not even attempting to glimpse the entire idea. Meanwhile, just for your own knowledge, just because one detail may be wrong, does not mean an entire theory should be discarded. Your attempts and holding steadfast to a world where "you know everything there is to know" by dismissing anything you do not believe or understand based on frivolous details will only keep you in the dark longer than most.

You have left out the most important thing to analyze and that is the evidence that is presented to support a hypothesis. If the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny then it does not provide any support. In fact I have concentrated on what you have supplied as evidence. Your reference to my analysis of the evidence as "dismissing anything you do not believe or understand based on frivolous details" because I do not show the evidence to be valid is quite interesting.

I also find it funny that you say I am supposed to analyze a hypothesis and then complain that I perform an analysis within a box of my own making. Analyzing a hypothesis without analyzing it is like baking bread without putting it in the oven.

Whether a hypothesis has merit is dependent on the evidence presented withstanding scrutiny not on the declaration of the person presenting the hypothesis.

My analysis though in error on some things is right on spot on others. What it shows is your hypothesis is lacking sufficient supportive evidence.