20091224 debate
This is the text of an informal and impromptu debate which occurred on Twitter on December 24th, 2009


This website has a twitter account. Frequently one of us will watch a twitter search on the term "2012". Occasionally we will respond to people asking questions about 2012 doomsday beliefs.

Every once in a while, someone makes a statement that we challenge.

The Debate

On Thursday December 24th, we saw a statement made on twitter where the author of the tweet questioned the intelligence of people who doubt that the scenario portrayed in the Roland Emmerich movie "2012" is valid.

We chose to engage him on this issue, and the debate recorded on this page ensued.

Page Layout

There are 156 entries in the table shown below. Each one represents one 'tweet' on twitter. The first three entries were sent by my opponent to nobody in particular. I responded beginning with #4, which is a reply to #1.

There is no easy way to see which entries go together, which ones are replies to others. The table is in chronological order, but sometimes several entries intersperse between a statement and its reply.

Any additional commentary I have added will appear in the 'Comments' column.

# From To Text Comments
1 onikrulz Are people retards or what, the movie '2012' only conveys a message validated by many sources and historic references. This is the tweet that I responded to, beginning the debate. My opponent appears to question the intelligence of people who doubt that the scenario portrayed in the movie is correct.
2 onikrulz How can people criticize that. Are they too lazy to simply search '2012' in Google at the very least to see how many results come out. My opponent here asserts that because of the number of results returned by google for a search on "2012" that his claim in #1 is supported
3 onikrulz Yeah we humans take it likely to the very end till our back's against the wall. And till today there's no guarantee 2012 won't happen. My opponent attempts to 'shift the burden', by asserting that there is a lack of proof against his proposition.
4 2012hoax onikrulz oh? Which sources and references would those be? Here we engage our opponent by asking for the references and sources asserted to exist in #1
5 2012hoax onikrulz a count of google hits is hardly "research". most google results for "2012" are repeats of the same misinformation. Here I respond to #2 above, where my opponent equates a count of hits in a search engine with support for his premise.
6 2012hoax onikrulz There is zero evidence that any cataclysmic events will occur in 2012. Here I plainly state my premise.
7 onikrulz 2012hoax The ancient Incan calendar carved on mountain sides ends in the year 2012 My opponent's response to #4. Here he asserts that A. The ancient Inca carved a calendar on 'mountain sides' and B) that it ends in the year 2012. I am unaware of any calendars being carved in mountainsides, but then again I am not a meso-american archaeologist. So my opponent's assertion that the Inca carved calendars in mountainsides might be correct. However, I would like my opponent to support this assertion. I am also unaware of any meso-american calendar 'ending' in 2012. The Long-Count calendar ends one cycle and begins another in 2012, but that was not my opponent's assertion. From here on I assume that my opponent was actually referring to the Mayan calendar, and not the Incan calendar.
8 onikrulz 2012hoax If you're not a scientist or someone with solid evidence that 2012 won't happen please don't give hollow consolations. Here my opponent again attempts to shift the burden. He challenges me to not "give hollow consolations." if I am not a scientist, or unless I have "solid evidence that 2012 won't happen". Since my opponent is the person making the positive claims (#1, #2 and #3 above) then the burden of proof rests with him. I could equally challenge my opponent to "not make wild assertions" unless he is a scientist or has solid evidence that 2012 will happen. Since the burden of proof rests with my opponent, attacking a lack of evidence against his assertion is a particularly weak argument. I could easily assert that my opponent is an extra-terrestrial alien from delta Cygnus, and that failing his providing "solid proof" that I am wrong, that he should be arrested for illegal immigration.
9 onikrulz 2012hoax If you say 'zero evidence', there's no evidence it won't happen. Once again my opponent claims that a lack of evidence against his assertion is comparable to evidence for his assertion. Not only is this wrong (there is in fact evidence contradicting his assertion) it is bad logic.
10 2012hoax onikrulz No, the Incan calendar does not end in 2012. The Inca did not even use the long-count calendar. From what I am able to gather, the Inca did not use the Long Count calendar. Instead their calendar appears to have consisted of only the 360-day 'civil' calendar, similar to the Mayan "Ha'ab"
11 2012hoax onikrulz how about you provide some evidence for your claims instead of trying to shift the burden of proof? Here I challenge my opponent to produce evidence instead of shifting the burden of proof.
12 2012hoax onikrulz obviously you don't understand how this works… if you make the claim (i.e., a "doomsday" in 2012) then you provide the evidence. I try to lay out one of the basic 'rules' of science and logic.
13 onikrulz 2012hoax Incans carved their own format of calendars on mountain sides. Again an assertion with no evidence provided. I don't particularly care where the Inca did or did not carve their calendars, I care that my opponent has not provided any evidence for his assertion that the Incan calendar ends in 2012.
14 onikrulz 2012hoax And archeologists who found those carvings calculated that the calendar ended in 2012 This is a very interesting point, and much of the rest of the debate consists of my attempting to have my opponent provide evidence for this assertion.
15 2012hoax onikrulz uh-huh… when you claim "there's no evidence it won't happen" you just lost the debate. I once again remind my opponent of where the burden of proof lies…
16 onikrulz 2012hoax Debate? Lol! Why don't you just say you can't prove it's fake … but he does not appear to understand it.
17 onikrulz 2012hoax I have my belief that it could be real because there's no proof against it But there is… and I provide it below.
18 2012hoax onikrulz Can you name an archaeologist who says that? Because I can name several who say that is false. I challenge his assertion (#14) that archaeologists have calculated that the Incan calendar ends in 2012.
19 onikrulz 2012hoax I didn't even know a debate was going on. Stick to your debate victory. December, 21, 2012. My opponent appears to be signaling that he does not wish to continue the debate. Yet he continues below. This raises an important issue in my mind: Should we allow nonsense to go unchallenged? Just because someone says something but doesn't want to 'debate it'? My answer is usually "live and let live", but where this hoax is concerned, the lives of children are at stake, so I take a more aggressive posture.
20 onikrulz 2012hoax And where's their proof that 2012 is false. Once again an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
21 2012hoax onikrulz Let's start with Johan Normark: http://bit.ly/88gxIf I link to Mayanist Johan Normark's blog where he says definitively that the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012. I have therefore supported my assertion (#18) that the archaeologists disagree with his assertion (#14). I actually tweeted the names of other archaeologists during this time frame, but because I did not prefix the tweets with my opponent's twitter handle, he did not see them, so they will not appear in this debate timeline.
22 onikrulz 2012hoax Show me solid evidence against 2012. For validity of both sides, everywhere, proof matters. This claim is also false. The rules of debate and evidence are fairly straightforward. The party who makes the positive assertion (e.g., x exists) bears the burden of proof. Otherwise the null hypothesis, which is the opposite of the assertion (e.g., x does not exist) "wins".
23 onikrulz 2012hoax That's just a calculated assumption of proving 'one' of the many reasons of 2012 wrong. This tweet appears to be in reference to #21 above. Implicit in this is a change of subject. I provided the reference above as support for my assertion (#18) that archaeologists do not think that the Mayan calendar (remember, I assume that my opponent means "Mayan" but is saying "Incan") ends in 2012. My opponent has yet to provide any evidence of archeological support for his assertions. The phrase "calculated assumption" is also interesting. If something is 'calculated' is it an assumption? I think that in science, an assumption is something that you have accepted without testing, perhaps for the moment, or because it is a basic, valid assumption (e.g., that the rules of physics operate the same way everywhere, or that a theory which has enjoyed overwhelming observational support can be de facto considered valid.)
24 onikrulz 2012hoax And I bet 500 bucks you yourself didn't read the entire article Lol He would lose that bet. I read every one of Johan's 2012 related posts. I consider Johan to be a very valuable colleague in dealing with claims about the Maya, and a personal friend (as 'friendly' as you can get on the internet, having never met him or spoken with him on the phone)
25 2012hoax onikrulz no, that was your claim. Please name the archaeologist who supports your claim. This is my response to #23 above. I reiterate my request (#18) that he provide support for his assertions (#1 & #14)
26 onikrulz 2012hoax And for your information, sorry to break it I'm not one of those followers and fanatics of 2012. I simply consider it's existence. This runs completely counter to my opponent's statements made up to this point. Is he recanting his prior statements, or is he just trying to create some 'wiggle room'? Regardless, he made the statements above, and I continue to hold him accountable to those statements.
27 2012hoax onikrulz Sure, run away now. You have no evidence, just admit it. This is my response to #26. At this point I thought he was going to beat a hasty retreat, and I was calling him on it.
28 onikrulz 2012hoax It's my opinion that it is real, not a claim nor a fanatic oath. Actually no, my opponent has made several claims, e.g., that people are "retards" if they don't accept the 2012 movie scenario as real, that a count of search-engine hits on the term "2012", that the "Incan" calendar ends in 2012, and that archaeologists support this idea. This appears to be a retreating claim, that the claims he has made are his "opinion" only, not a "claim" or "fanatic oath". Regardless of his trying to remove his claims from critique, he in fact made them (see above) and is attempting to support them in this debate.
29 2012hoax onikrulz I'll take that bet. In fact Johan and I converse frequently. My response to #24 above.
30 onikrulz 2012hoax Run away? Who contacted who? You call it a debate, then show a calculated assumption of the future. My opponent wishes to redefine the 'debate' as 'not a debate'. Regardless, it became a 'debate' when he began responding to my challenges to his assertions. The fact that I challenged him first does not negate this, nor does it excuse his attempt to preempt the 'debate' by recasting it. Once again he tries to change the subject by hand-waving at Johan's article and dismissing it as a "calculated assumption".
31 onikrulz 2012hoax And that article is a solid evidence or a calculation of equinoxes and assumption of 2019? My opponent once again misunderstands and mischaracterizes the article as an attempt by myself to provide "solid evidence" against 2012 in toto. While I consider the article solid, it addresses only part of the entire 2012 mythos; that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. I proffered the article as support of my assertion that the archaeologists do not support the idea that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, nothing more.
32 onikrulz 2012hoax It's never harmful to be alrt and no human is perfect only God is. You just worried My opponent apparently wishes to redefine his position as only "being alert". I continue to hold him accountable for his prior statements which he has not recanted or corrected. The only thing I am 'worried' about is that people (such as my opponent) are spreading this hoax, which I consider to be dangerous and a threat to the well being of children and other vulnerable populations.
33 onikrulz 2012hoax While you circulating calculated assumed assurances to see kids smile, a noble deed, don't call an unsure thing 'False' My opponent wishes to mischaracterize my position as "circulating assumed assurances to see kids smile", which I categorically reject. I 'circulate' the fact that the various ideas of a doomsday in 2012 are false, because they have no evidence, and because their claims run counter to established evidence and science.
34 onikrulz 2012hoax No offense intended if you're someone much older than I am. I am not easily offended.
35 onikrulz 2012hoax What you doing for kids is something major. The Incan Calendar I saw in my course teacher's slides I cannot specify. My opponent appears to be having a difficult time in deciding whether to compliment me or oppose me.
36 onikrulz 2012hoax And also another unnatural source that nobody will believe. So ok I rest my case. I wonder what "unnatural source" that would be?
37 onikrulz 2012hoax If you can really prove it's fake, not just calculational articles, I'd be happy myself trust me. I believe that we have provided sufficient counter-evidence at 2012hoax.org to show that the idea of a "2012 doomsday" is false. While we obviously cannot give an iron-clad 100% guarantee that nothing will happen in 2012, there is no evidence that any such doomsday event will occur. My opponent appears to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of science: i.e., that everything in science is provisional, and nothing is 100% settled, ever.
38 onikrulz 2012hoax I want to believe it's fake but nothing yet has convinced me 100%. And if it's real, I'll save you alll. The nature of mankind's 'salvation' at the hands of my opponent are unspecified.
39 2012hoax onikrulz I would like to see your source regarding the Inca calendar Having already given him Johan Normark's article, I'm not sure what else he wants. However, I dig through the references at the Mayan Calendar page and tweet these, although I fail to send them as 'replies'.
40 2012hoax onikrulz once again you misunderstand how this works. In science/logic you have to show proof for your *positive* claims. I once again attempt to educate my opponent on the rules of science and logic.
41 2012hoax onikrulz if you say something *will* happen, then the burden of proof rests with you.
42 onikrulz 2012hoax It's from my teacher's slides how must I get them? My opponent here admits that his 'evidence' consists of a set of slides that he viewed at some point in the past.
43 2012hoax onikrulz so, what evidence do you have that there will be an apocalypse in 2012? I reiterate my request for evidence.
44 onikrulz 2012hoax At least I'm being honest, not saying my dog ate it. The fact that he is 'being honest' does not relieve him of the burden of proof.
45 onikrulz 2012hoax Ok some info from a teacher, his slideshow, asked nothing to him He saw some slides, and did not ask the teacher questions, and this is his evidence.
46 2012hoax onikrulz OK, fine. Lets leave aside the Inca calendar bit then. I think you are mistaken as it is the Mayan calendar that supposedly ends Here I am attempting to abandon the 'Incan Calendar' debate, as my opponent has just admitted he has no evidence.
47 2012hoax onikrulz but let's move on. What evidence, aside from your teacher's slides, do you have supporting your claims?
48 onikrulz 2012hoax I didn't ask him any question in the topic, just rememebered his class now. Didn't know a month later you'd pop. My opponent wishes to mischaracterize my challenge for him to produce evidence as some kind of emotional outburst.
49 onikrulz 2012hoax Before that, can I know exactly what your occupation is? An interesting request, and irrelevant.
50 onikrulz 2012hoax I mean you sound like a senior professor I don't know if this was meant as a compliment or not, but I take it as such.
51 onikrulz 2012hoax Although I'm still not convinced by one article's calculation when even fortune tellers go wrong. My opponent compares the opinion of an archaeologist who specializes in meso-american (specifically Mayan) studies on a topic in his field to the opinion of a fortune teller. This is a telling comment on how credulous my opponent is.
52 2012hoax onikrulz I am not a professional scientist, if that is what you are asking. I work in Information Technology. My irrelevant occupational details.
53 onikrulz 2012hoax Information Technology? Then whose Johan Normark I explained this above (#18 & #21).
54 onikrulz 2012hoax I don't want to sound rude to a senior, may I know your age if you don't mind? I mean no offence What relevance is my age?
55 2012hoax onikrulz I also volunteer to teach astronomy. I am an amateur astronomer.
56 2012hoax onikrulz Johan Normark is a Mayanist… that is he is an archaeologist who specializes in the Mayan civilization. My redundant response to #53
57 onikrulz 2012hoax That's good. I'm just 20 so I'm obviously younger and we're taught to respect elders Sir/Madam I am not sure where my opponent is going with this. I am not easily offended nor am I easily flattered or mollified by flattery. Is my opponent suggesting that he is being 'easy' on me, or that I am being disrespectful to him?
58 2012hoax onikrulz Yes, I am considerably older than you, and I'm a 'he'.
59 onikrulz 2012hoax I'll finish watching the rest of the movie now, Superman/Superwoman. I'll be back in an hour.
60 2012hoax onikrulz I may or may not be here, but you are free to read 2012hoax.org and make comments.
61 onikrulz 2012hoax Yeah done watching the movie it was great.
62 onikrulz 2012hoax Oh and Nostrademus also predicted 2012 check up his predictions. He predicted Hitler…….
63 onikrulz 2012hoax Hitler, World Wars, Alliances, French Revolution, Napoleon's rise and fall
64 onikrulz 2012hoax All that was Nostrademus' predictions too and they real events in history. 2012 is Nostrademus' prediction.
65 onikrulz 2012hoax And anyways I don't know anything about Johan Normark is he a famous archeologist did he win any nobel prize. Here my opponent tries to marginalize Johan Normark. Regardless of Johan Normark's "fame", he is an archaeologist, he has studied the Maya, and he claims that the calendar does not come to an end in 2012. Oh, by the way, there is no Nobel Prize in Archeology.
66 2012hoax onikrulz Nostradamus said nothing about 2012 http://www.2012hoax.org/nostradamus After a delay of several minutes I respond to #'s 60-64. I provide a link to the page on 2012hoax.org discussing Nostradamus.
67 onikrulz 2012hoax He did Once again, an unsupported assertion.
68 onikrulz 2012hoax 2012 and end of the world is clearly indicated in his predictions
69 onikrulz 2012hoax 2012 and end of the world is clearly indicated in his predictions
70 2012hoax onikrulz really… I've heard that before. Which quatrain?
71 onikrulz 2012hoax He also predicted a black President
72 onikrulz 2012hoax Originally he predicted 1999 in his quatrain C10 Q72 but later assumptions lead to interpret 2012/3797 Later "assumptions"? What assumptions?
73 onikrulz 2012hoax If Hitler, World Wars, Napoleon, French Revolution, black president is there I don't see how 2012 is fake.
74 onikrulz 2012hoax An example, www.satansrapture.com/nostra2012.htm This is the first attempt in this that my opponent attempts to provide any evidence of his claims.
75 2012hoax onikrulz Yes, all that bit about 'reign with good fortune' sure sounds like the end of the world.
76 2012hoax onikrulz So, you identify the year 2012 from 1999?
77 onikrulz 2012hoax Lol so you counting out the ones that did come true?
78 onikrulz 2012hoax His predictions even reach 3797 but they also indicate 2012 as the end. But if you count how many right how many wrong
79 onikrulz 2012hoax Then 2012 can't be taken as wrong either just like Hitler, World Wars, Alliances etc So let's get this straight: Nostradamus, in X.72 says nothing about 2012, but we can't "take that as wrong" because he predicted Hitler (which he didn't), world wars (Nostradamus' quatrains are chock full of images of war and destruction, nothing specific there) and "alliances"?
80 2012hoax onikrulz yes, I am very familiar with that misquote of nostradamus.
81 onikrulz 2012hoax and do the figures 21 12 2012 ring no bell?
82 2012hoax onikrulz my point stands: Nostradamus said nothing about 2012. The quatrain identifies 1999.
83 onikrulz 2012hoax Hitler, World Wars, Alliances, French Revolution, Napoleon's rise and fall are misquotes too? Yes. Nostradamus predicted none of those events. The people who would like Nostradamus to have predicted things take his quatrains, misquote them, often adding bits of different quatrains, or using
84 onikrulz 2012hoax You don't seem good at history in that case My opponent appears to be mixing apples and oranges. I did not say that these events did not occur, but rather that Nostradamus did not predict them.
85 2012hoax onikrulz The followers of nostradamus use fallacious post-hoc reasoning. It's just confirmation bias.
86 onikrulz 2012hoax So 2012 and 3797 just came out of the air? Why those figures then why not 2019? Nostradamus did not mention 2012. 3797 is the farthest date mentioned in his quatrains. Again, apples and oranges. My opponent is attempting to hitch the year 2012 (which Nostradamus did not mention) to the year 3797 (which Nostradamus did mention)
87 onikrulz 2012hoax I read that confirmation-bias explanation nicely written in your site, like a Disclaimer Everybody is guilty of confirmation bias. Including me. The difference is that when someone points it out to me, I will at least make an effort to correct my reasoning.
88 2012hoax onikrulz Where do the quatrains mention 2012?
89 2012hoax onikrulz my point is the nostradamus ppl have to work really hard to pull "2012" out of his writings.
90 2012hoax onikrulz why not 1999. After all, that was when the "great king of terror" was supposed to be here.
91 onikrulz 2012hoax Not 1999 doesn't eliminate 2012 from the list and leave 3797 There is nothing to 'eliminate'. Nostradamus did not mention 2012. The "Great King of Terror" in the mistranslated version of the quatrain was supposed to come in 1999. The followers of Nostradamus are now claiming that the "prediction" means that he will come at some unspecified point after 1999, so 2012 is a "strong possibility. This is, again, confirmation bias, and special pleading.
92 onikrulz 2012hoax The end of the world at 2012 isn't assured but not assured to be fake either as long as considered a prediction it can come true The end of the world in 2012 is a hoax. The old saying that a broken clock is right twice a day comes to mind. In the specific case of Nostradamus, he wrote lots and lots of deliberately vague quatrains. They are open to various interpretations. Whenever an event occurs the FoNs (Followers of Nostradamus) run to the quatrains and comb through them to find something that fits. This is fitting the evidence to the theory, not fitting the theory to the evidence. This is clearly confirmation bias.
93 2012hoax onikrulz and how do you get to "2012" from his writings again? Just asserting that it is so isn't enough.
94 2012hoax onikrulz I will consider any evidence supporting your ideas. So far you have not presented any.
95 onikrulz 2012hoax http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1999_natural_disasters Yes, there were natural disasters in 1999. How does this prove that the "great king of terror" quatrain was correct?
96 onikrulz 2012hoax You can clearly see there how many disasters throughout the world struck in 1999
97 2012hoax onikrulz so you are saying that X.72 refers to natural disasters? That wasn't my question. How do you get to "2012" from his writings?
98 onikrulz 2012hoax You forget you haven't presented anything more than calculated assumptions and articles either No, I made an assertion that archaeologists do not think that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, and supported my assertion by showing that Johan Normark (an archaeologist) does not think that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012.
99 onikrulz 2012hoax As much as Nostradamus' predictions went, the article by Johan Normark are nothing more than calculations either
100 2012hoax onikrulz I'm not the one making claims I can't support. Please support your claim that Nostradamus said anything
101 2012hoax onikrulz Johan Normark claims that the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012, and he supports his claim with evidence. Where is yours?
102 onikrulz 2012hoax I repeat, who is Johan Normark, did he win any nobel prize?
103 onikrulz 2012hoax Nostradamus predicted end of the world, 2012 is a suspicion for that event. 2011 or 2013 aren't. Why not? After all, both of those dates are after 1999, and some people are predicting the End of the World in 2011 (Calleman in October and Camping in May)
104 2012hoax onikrulz apparently you have forgotten why I linked to his site. You made a claim about archaeologists. I made a counter-claim.
105 onikrulz 2012hoax That's why people consider it to come true then, adding one with another.
106 onikrulz 2012hoax Just like 1999 had more than 20 disasters across the world, 2012 is the nearest for his predictions of the end.
107 2012hoax onikrulz You have not provided the names or websites of archaeologists who support your claim, I have supported mine.
108 onikrulz 2012hoax What is Normark's evidence? A calculation article? Here we are again, still arguing over his initial claim.
109 2012hoax onikrulz But all of that is a red herring on your part. Please support your claim that Nostradamus said anything about 2012.
110 onikrulz 2012hoax You supported your claim linking to an article that's nothing more than an assumed calculation. So we have a claim by a guy who saw a slide in class some time ago, and we have another claim by an archaeologist, someone with a PhD, who actually studied the Maya, and who went to Mexico and Guatemala … hmm … who should we believe?
111 onikrulz 2012hoax From a person I've never heard of before too.
112 onikrulz 2012hoax And I supported my claim with more than 1 example of predictions for 2012, if not exact specification. No, actually he has not.
113 onikrulz 2012hoax 2009 wasn't considered end of world. 2012 is, for a reason. Why 2012 of all years? Apparently because my opponent says so.
114 2012hoax onikrulz If by "assumed calculation" you mean an opinion offered by an expert in the field, yes.
115 2012hoax onikrulz but you see, I was able to offer you names of archaeologists. So my claim is supported.
116 onikrulz 2012hoax What's not a red-herring on your part? I find that article of little use.
117 onikrulz 2012hoax Why don't you prove me wrong then with some solid evidence instead of calculations from an archeologist? Once again an attempt to shift the burden of proof. He has provided zero evidence of any of his claims.
118 2012hoax onikrulz Your claim, on the other hand, is not supported by archaeologists, as far as I can tell.
119 onikrulz 2012hoax 2012 itself is a calculation so 1 counter calculation and speculation doesn't prove it wrong More burden shifting.
120 2012hoax onikrulz We can talk about the Mayan calendar if you'd like to change the subject.
121 onikrulz 2012hoax 2012 didn't just come out from thin air, from all over the world Well, actually it came out of Jose Arguelles' fertile imagination.
122 onikrulz 2012hoax An expert in the field is by what you say, but he didn't win a nobel prize for his discovery. There is no Nobel prize for Archaeology.
123 2012hoax onikrulz you keep forgetting why I linked to that article. You made a claim, and said that it was supported by archaeologists.
124 2012hoax onikrulz I made a counter claim and offered not one, but six sources. I did in fact cite other sources, but when I did I failed to address them to my opponent, so he did not see them. So, I erred in this portion.
125 onikrulz 2012hoax If names matter so much, Nostradamus is a name too. And his assumptions became predictions Predictions with no validity.
126 onikrulz 2012hoax 6? When? Just that article and some pages of your site
127 2012hoax onikrulz That claim was not about nostradamus. But we can return to the calendar if you'd like.
128 onikrulz 2012hoax How many sources does Google count as. The idea that a count of hits on a google search for a given term supports one side or the other is laughable.
129 onikrulz 2012hoax No just give me a solid confirmation of 2012 being fake instead of calculations. Once again my opponent is asserting that I have to prove him wrong. I have consistently asked for him to support his claims, and he has not done so.
130 onikrulz 2012hoax Mayan calendar was one source, Google, Nostradamus etc. You gave an article countering the calendar
131 onikrulz 2012hoax And your site
132 2012hoax onikrulz http://www.dartmouth.edu/~izapa/M-32.pdf http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/nr.2006.9.3.024 This is an excellent article, by the way.
133 onikrulz 2012hoax But there's still nothing that can define and confirm 2012 as a lie but just predict equinoxes which aren't 100% acc. The timing of the equinoxes is known to within milliseconds.
134 2012hoax onikrulz Don't try to misquote me. I am giving you sources supporting my claim that archaeologists do not think the calendar ends in 2012
135 2012hoax onikrulz you certainly like to change topics a lot. First the calendar, then nostradamus, and now you're trying to shift the burden again.
136 2012hoax onikrulz It would be very helpful if you would stick to a topic for more than the first exchange.
137 onikrulz 2012hoax http://www.trap17.com/forums/Againmore-Proof-World-2012-t63214.html
138 onikrulz 2012hoax Few years after bees disappear? That coincides with bee extinction in China due to fertilizers now manual pollination
139 onikrulz 2012hoax I never changed topics my topic remained 2012 but I gave different sources indicating it's validity
140 onikrulz 2012hoax The sites and articles provided by you only call those predictions a guess without accuracy and assume as well.
141 onikrulz 2012hoax And by that, I have given fair number of sources having relevance to 2012 and indicating it's real
142 2012hoax onikrulz all of those claims have been addressed in various articles at 2012hoax.org.
143 onikrulz 2012hoax The calendar, Nostradamus, articles were all my sources of indicating 2012's existence to support my claim
144 2012hoax onikrulz you *have* changed topics. Whenever I question you on a given point you shift topics.
145 2012hoax onikrulz so far you have not supported your claim that archaeologists think that the calendar ends, nor that nostradamus predicted 2012.
146 onikrulz 2012hoax Yet did you count even once about how many different sources and indications I just gave?
147 onikrulz 2012hoax Albert Einstein said humans will live only a few years after bees die out. Actually, he didn't.
148 2012hoax onikrulz but ,as much fun as thrashing you with logic is, I now have to go. Feel free to continue this at a future date.
149 onikrulz 2012hoax I repeat, read the incident in Beijing where bees died out and now trees are being hand-pollinated taking weeks each
150 2012hoax onikrulz actually, no, he didn't. We cover that on the "7 reasons" page.
151 onikrulz 2012hoax And just 3 years left till 2012 even according to that
152 onikrulz 2012hoax Predictions of deaths before Armageddon> 9/11,Indian terrorist attack,Bangladesh BDR sabotage
153 onikrulz 2012hoax Tsunami, all mass deaths.
154 onikrulz 2012hoax Thrashing with logic or calling it inaccurate due to lack of specification and then giving a calculated assumption yourself.
155 onikrulz 2012hoax Lol cheers.
156 onikrulz 2012hoax I've given more than enough examples as to why 2012 can be real if not 100% accurate.


Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License