Any research that is not conducted with scientific rigour is flawed and eventually useless. Heck, a lot of scientific research turns out to be useless, too, but the reason we realize it's useless is because it was conducted in a scientific fashion.
In a world where six billion human beings are interacting each and every day, even coincidences with a staggeringly small chance of happening will occur.
Strange, I don't see very many references in the material to AGW, overpopulation, and the increasingly unsustainable usage of the earth's resources.
On other words, you need more time to amass yet more material and find even more "coincidences." That approach could fail you completely: you'll have so much material that whatever clarity you hoped to gain would be lost in the noise.
I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like the above, and then post things like "Last year we saw the exit of Michael Jackson ( exit of Sun King) and this year I expect San Adreas activity, but it might aswell find momentum next year or 2012 ( not later) , who knows"
You mean by waiting until after things have happened to decide if they are important and by posting such vague notions of the future that you can sometimes fit things to them.
Then stop misusing scientific terms and pretending you have any idea about higher dimensions or the motion of astronomical objects.
Well they will, especially if you wait until after the event and use any of a large number of initially unspecified and readily mutable rules.
Then stop pretending it is when you talk about it.
HDD can't even decide who the magical Sun King is (or was, as he's always dying)
First, I've just explained that what you show isn't, in any way, hyperdimensional.
So the same HD tetrahedron, in the same position and orientation relative to the same planet, will have a completely different meaning simply because a different calendar is used? Doesn't that say all that needs to be said about the validity of such a system?
Nobody here has come to the same conclusion as you. Why does this lead to a belief that you are correct and we are just not trying?
Except for the coincidences you keep saying it is about:
Originally Posted by Mister Earl
Mister Earl, the answer on that question has been given in the 2 threads at BAUT forum. It has been explained that the 3D shape of the orbit is irrelevant as the geometrical interference points are determined by degrees corresponding with duration on the orbit, expressed in our system of dates. Read your own questions at baut again and make sure you read all my answers. With your first post here you are accusing me of not giving answers while it appears now that you have not read my answers at baut, or you are deliberately ignoring them for whatever reason.
