Thiaoouba Prophecy?

[spirit]

^ This is your first post here??

Well, while the old thread has been dug up, lets not waste it.Just to point out a common fallacy made by the credulous about people who argue that they want better proof, who make comparisons like this who tells who had what breakfast scenario. The crucial difference between believing what Robanan had for breakfast and believing that the Thiahouba guy travelled instantly to distant stars and had meetings with aliens (and do please correct me on any detail I have wrong) is, surely, more than obvious. We don't believe Desmarquet because what he says is incredible and fantastic.

I haven't read the book, only the web site, and I'm afraid it's not really the work of a "fantastic" story teller in the sense of "superlative". Nothing worse than science fiction by people who are not regular science fiction authors and consumers. Two films as cases in point, The Stepford Wives - as if the inventors of the sex robot would hide them away and keep for themselves, instead of selling the perfect wife robot to the world and making themselves billionaires, and Donnie Darko which was based on a seriously scientifically-illiterate concept of time travel.

Yes, indeed one of the most beautiful in the English language, comparable to "cellar door" for euphony.

Well, yes. I recently joined just to make that post. And more.

I understand why Desmarquet and Chalko receives such a negative, if not violent, impact on people, eventhough with 'seemingly' selfless intent on their works. This is mainly due to the fact that their works Thiaooba Prophecy and Freedom of Choice by Desmarquet and Chalko respectively, is such a belief shattering experience, even if you chose to accept it or not.

So that does it have to do with the reactions? Well, our belief system is so inherently tied to us, if not define us. The belief system is actually connected to our ego. Not the connotational ego, but the ego in terms of psychology. The ego that defines us. The ego that is us. Now, shattering your belief system is like shattering the ego, and thus, is like shattering the person.

Now most of us will have to resist. The defense mechanism that all of us have is to resist completely, leading to biased judgements in favor of our belief system, the preservation of our ego.

Why do I say that those who completely resist have biased judgments? Well the case is how can you say that a piece of work is a total piece of crap and rubbish? Do these people actually mean that one cannot find any logical premise that Chalko wrote in Freedom of Choice? Do these people didnt see any logic in the suggestions of the aliens in Thiaooba Prophecy? To say that the entire work is purely shit? Even if you consider Thiaooba Prophecy as a fraud and purely fiction, you still have to admire the remarkable fictional work and the lesson it is attempting to preach.

An OPEN MIND has room for UNDERSTANDING and DEVELOPMENT. Preferring to close your mind for the preservation of the ego is not the way to go anymore. It's like why they don't want to believe that the earth is round way back in history.

I'm not saying that I am a total believer on the works of these authors. I'm more of a neutral. 90% of the time I agreed on Chalko. And I find Thiaooba Prophecy a worthwhile read. The issue if I BELIEVE in it or not is not WHAT MATTERS to me. What matters is if the suggestions and the lessons it is trying to preach may be beneficial/feasible for us. It requires study. Not biased opinions.

Now if some of you are truth-seekers like me. The idea is to separate the gold from the ore. We are bombarded with data all the time, and we want the truth. The truth is always there, mixed with all the lies and deceit. What matters is our intent to find it.

FOR SILAS: Well I suggest you read the book. It is not really that good to tell the story of a movie to your friends by just watching the trailer right? =)

 

[SkinWalker]

So that does it have to do with the reactions? Well, our belief system is so inherently tied to us, if not define us. The belief system is actually connected to our ego.

I always assumed it to be more connected with the Id than the Ego. But either way, our belief systems can be balanced by forcing ourselves to think critically and use reason instead of blind "faiths" that reflect our hopes and wishes rather than reality. Looking for the truly qualitative and quantitative observations and forcing oneself to be open-minded to possibilities that the results are outside our belief systems is necessary. I apply this to all things religious, paranormal, pseudoscientific, political, etc.

Now most of us will have to resist. The defense mechanism that all of us have is to resist completely, leading to biased judgements in favor of our belief system, the preservation of our ego.

But you have to admit that human beliefs generally include a predisposition to engage in magical thinking, as evidenced by the multitude of religious and cult practices worldwide that use "magic."

An OPEN MIND has room for UNDERSTANDING and DEVELOPMENT.

I would agree with that. But if you are implying that those that heavily criticized Desmarquet's work are not open-minded, then I would have to disagree. It is precisely because my mind was open that I bothered to read and subsequently because my mind was open that I was able to critically see through it and point out the flaws that I did. I noted many other flaws as well, but the ones I posted were sufficient, I believe.

What matters is if the suggestions and the lessons it is trying to preach may be beneficial/feasible for us. It requires study. Not biased opinions.

I think you would do better to find the same lessons in Jarod Diamond's work... I'm reading his latest, Collapse, and find it fully engaging and thought provoking in the current and future human conditions.

 

[Silas]

Apologies for my rudeness, spirit, and welcome to the forums!

Why do I say that those who completely resist have biased judgments? Well the case is how can you say that a piece of work is a total piece of crap and rubbish? Do these people actually mean that one cannot find any logical premise that Chalko wrote in Freedom of Choice? Do these people didnt see any logic in the suggestions of the aliens in Thiaooba Prophecy? To say that the entire work is purely shit? Even if you consider Thiaooba Prophecy as a fraud and purely fiction, you still have to admire the remarkable fictional work and the lesson it is attempting to preach.

It's message is totally undermined by the supposed veracity of the events and the purported reality of the aliens. Fiction as fiction has a lesson to teach us. Fiction disguised as fact is a priori suspect. And if the whole thing derives from a delusion or madness, then it can hardly be taken seriously, can it?

An OPEN MIND has room for UNDERSTANDING and DEVELOPMENT.

But understanding and development has to be based on actual stuff that is right, rather than concepts or beliefs that are demonstrably wrong. I admit I haven't read the prophecy or "alien advice" in any detail, but I understand there is one prediction that the moon is going to collide with the Earth in some thousands of years (is it 150k years?) I then read Chalko's apologia of that, and it simply made a nonsense of any kind of proper scientific investigation. He was claiming that errors in laser beam distance measurement could hide the fact that the moon was moving towards earth instead of away from it. This is palpable nonsense that doesn't stand up to (informed) scrutiny for more than five minutes. Unless it's based on a catastrophic event, which Chalko did not suggest, the prediction is just plain wrong. Consequently there is no reason to place any credence in anything else they have to say, whether it be scientific or just philosophical. I do have an open mind, but it's not so open that I let my brains fall out.

 

[spirit]

The a priori assumption that people didn't have enough culture to speak 15,000 years ago is Desmarquet's second fallacious statement.

Actually you made the fallacy of FACTUAL ERROR. This is concerning if the prehistoric humans that attacked Desmarquet has language facilities or not. You said "apparently don't have language facilities but utter guttural sounds". First of all, the exact quote is "Suddenly, this woman got up and began, it seemed to me, to issue orders in a guttural voice to the others". It was a voice not a sound. Why do I rant about this? Well, you might say that if it was written as sound, then maybe it was not speech. Secondly, the woman was giving orders. Now, I cannot say that I can give an order to you without common language between us perhaps? . In prehistory, matriarchy rules, so the woman making the orders is not surprising at all. The woman giving orders says a lot. It says that their culture suggests a form of hierarchy, and also the fact that she gave orders means there is language. Unless she is telepathic.

 

[SkinWalker]

I'll concede to that point quite readily. "Gutteral" invoked an immediate bias in my mind that I now see. But I still imagine that the author's intent was to provoke that bias in the reader. Otherwise, wouldn't he simply say, "a prehistoric woman got up and issued orders," -sans "gutteral?"

Still, I see your point.

How about the Atlantis/Mu conundrum that the author creates by borrowing from the mythology of Greek dialogs and the fabrications of a Victorian antiquarian? Each of these topics has many serious reasons to completely dismiss their factual basis when viewed in their original contexts. When combined in the same work of literature that purports to be "non-fiction," they become doubly incredulous, do they not?

 

[spirit]

Pure bunk. "Neutralising the cold magnetic force by raising certain high frequency vibrations" is nothing but pseudoscientific gibberish. It sounds scientific, but only to the undereducated. Vibrations are present in matter, but their frequency doesn't affect their "weight." Raising vibrations to higher frequencies doesn't negate the attraction that the mass of the given bit of matter has on the mass of other matter. Indeed, the methods by which monumental architecture was built in Mesoamerica or Northern Africa (several thousand years and even more thousand miles apart, I might add) are relatively well known and understood. There was no "levitation" as Desmarquet suggests. It wasn't needed.

The exact quote from the book is Man, like a piece of rock, is made of matter, but, by neutralising the cold magnetic force by raising certain high frequency vibrations, we become ‘weightless’. Weight is an illusion. We established weight as a property of things that concerns its push against the ground. The reality is, we have a larger body, which is the earth, pulling the lesser bodies, which us, towards it.

I know you all know that but what the book is trying to say is that the high frequency vibrations are applied to matter, which in turn will generate a force that would neutralise the gravitational pull of the earth. Why did I say that the matter generated a force but it wasn't said in the book? Precisely due to the fact that it said neutralise. Now, how can you neutralise a force? By applying force that would negate it right?

Now I know all you know that when you raise the frequency of the vibrations of matter, be it the vibration of electrons etc, it would GENERATE FORCE or ENERGY (yes, the incandescent light bulb can be an example). Now if we have a force that can neutralise gravitational pull, then surely we have force that can "affect weight".

So the question IS: What are these certain high frequency vibrations, that can cause "weightlessness?; But NOT How can vibrations affect weight?

 

[SkinWalker]

Wouldn't the questions be: how does one achieve these "certain high frequency vibrations" and what energy is required to achieve these "vibrations?; and why are these "certain high frequency vibrations" harmless to the matter that they are "vibrating?"

The type of vibration necessary to negate that force would require energy that isn't feasible, I should think.

The latter question is also significant, I recall from my time in the military that the weapons system that I was the crew chief for underwent regular examination of welds to ensure that micro-fissures or cracks weren't developing due to the vibrations. Indeed, I recall an engineer using a term that was something like "harmonic stress analysis" where they examined vibrations and the deleterious effects of vibrations.

Why wouldn't the "vibrations" necessary to create "weightlessness" be deleterious to the fragile human body?

 

[spirit]

I'll concede to that point quite readily. "Gutteral" invoked an immediate bias in my mind that I now see. But I still imagine that the author's intent was to provoke that bias in the reader. Otherwise, wouldn't he simply say, "a prehistoric woman got up and issued orders," -sans "gutteral?"

Still, I see your point.

How about the Atlantis/Mu conundrum that the author creates by borrowing from the mythology of Greek dialogs and the fabrications of a Victorian antiquarian? Each of these topics has many serious reasons to completely dismiss their factual basis when viewed in their original contexts. When combined in the same work of literature that purports to be "non-fiction," they become doubly incredulous, do they not?

Yes, I understand completely, although I do not readily agree that the author will provoke that bias in the reader. Mainly due to the fact that guttural means throaty, rough, low, deep and the like. It can be said that this can be properties of their language OR it can be a physical, since these humans are described to be really large, their vocal tract may have been proportional.

I cannot say anything about Atlantis/Mu right now, due to the fact that I do not have enough knowledge on the matter. I'll be back after research

 

[spirit]

Wouldn't the questions be: how does one achieve these "certain high frequency vibrations" and what energy is required to achieve these "vibrations?; and why are these "certain high frequency vibrations" harmless to the matter that they are "vibrating?"

The type of vibration necessary to negate that force would require energy that isn't feasible, I should think.

The latter question is also significant, I recall from my time in the military that the weapons system that I was the crew chief for underwent regular examination of welds to ensure that micro-fissures or cracks weren't developing due to the vibrations. Indeed, I recall an engineer using a term that was something like "harmonic stress analysis" where they examined vibrations and the deleterious effects of vibrations.

Why wouldn't the "vibrations" necessary to create "weightlessness" be deleterious to the fragile human body?

Yes, those questions would be more proper.

How does one generate these vibrations and what energy is required is the question that Desmarquet should have asked to the alien Thao. After giving such a nice scene about it, I wonder why he did not.

And I must admit, the issue that these vibrations may be harmful occurred to me only after you said it. This force that our body will generate after being applied with this "frequency" may be equal to the force of gravity on us, our "weight". I reckon our own weight in terms of vibrations would be harmful though.

 

[spirit]

In just the first six pages, Desmarquet makes several fallacious comments and un-testable, but pseudoscientific, appeals to the reader's intellect. He might as well state that there exists in his garage a dragon and that it cannot be disproved because he can give a reason for every test conceived: invisible, weightless, non-corporeal, etc. To those that have read it, I'm borrowing Dr. Sagan's analogy in Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. . . .

I must defend the book from what you call FALLACY with regards to its appeal to the untestable. First of all, if you would regard the whole "pseudoscience" as fallacious just for being as it is, that is, cannot be tested by science, hence the name, then this whole section of threads of "Parapsychology" may have been obviously just a big fallacious section waiting to be laughed at by the scientists that are writing in these posts.

So then the FALLACY OF PSEUDOSCIENCE as a weapon against the book, or pseudoscience for that matter may have been unfair. Why? Because you are trying to say that it is the NATURE of the topics in question to be FALLACIOUS.

I mean, why would we even try to argue that a topic in question is fallacious, if the nature of the topic in question is fallacious in the first place?

Another thing, the fact the pseudoscience CANNOT be tested is not pseudoscience's fault. It is the current limitation of science. Remember, science today was also pseudoscience BEFORE. It is just a matter of
time when a bit of pseudoscience will unite with science WHEN THEY ARE TESTABLE AND VALID and the rest will be either scrapped or again, still considered as pseudoscience.

If the arguments were testable in the first place, we would not be discussing it here. Scientists would have tested them by now

So I think what would really matter in this thread is this:
The book's lesson (yes, always gold from the ore)
The use of only logic to measure the probability of truth in it. We cannot test it remember? And I must admit is quite hard, if not impossible.

 

[Squeak22]

First of all, if you would regard the whole "pseudoscience" as fallacious just for being as it is, that is, cannot be tested by science, hence the name, then this whole section of threads of "Parapsychology" may have been obviously just a big fallacious section waiting to be laughed at by the scientists that are writing in these posts.

Pseudoscience doesn't mean cannot be tested by science. It means FALSE science. We use it to term "science" that has no basis in the scientific method, which is the only way to consitantly make correct determinations.

So I think what would really matter in this thread is this:
The book's lesson (yes, always gold from the ore)
The use of only logic to measure the probability of truth in it. We cannot test it remember? And I must admit is quite hard, if not impossible.

I think you missed the point.

It's the fact that he's trying to pass it off as FACT that's the problem. The books can teach whatever lessons the author wants to try and convey, but when the writer tries to hoodwink people into thinking they and teleport to distant planets once they get into "deep space", I have a problem with them.

 

[SkinWalker]

I have to agree with Squeak, Spirit. You apparently have a misinformed definition of "pseudoscience."

A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.

"Pseudoscience" isn't an alternative to "science" that can be conducted to learn about the nature of the universe. It is a fiction that pretends to be science: sometimes intentionally; sometimes unintentionally -often through ignorance.

Actual science is the only way to examine and understand the universe. There is no other valid or reliable method. When those examinations or observations begin to stray outside the rules of science, then they become suspect and unreliable.

 

[exsto_human]

What I don't understand is why a house would want to build itself... It's allready a house, how much does it ask?

 

[Robanan]

Just to point out a common fallacy made by the credulous about people who argue that they want better proof, who make comparisons like this who tells who had what breakfast scenario. The crucial difference between believing what Robanan had for breakfast and believing that the Thiahouba guy travelled instantly to distant stars and had meetings with aliens (and do please correct me on any detail I have wrong) is, surely, more than obvious. We don't believe Desmarquet because what he says is incredible and fantastic..

Hey, I was having breakfast with aliens that day, I'm sorry I didn't invite you over, I thought that you are not still ready to know the truth about the universe. I was given a green goo that I found very nourishing it just smelled like shit and it didn't look appetizing.

There are indeed pieces of unverifiable data in the book. So far non of them have been mentioned here, that shows the level of scrutiny you people have applied to the book. To tell the truth it's 100% irrelevant if the author of the book had really travelled to a distant planet to meet aliens. The book has a clear down-to-earth message that remains untouched throughout the twists of the story that you call incredible and fantastic. Nobody is asking you to believe in anything if you really think that all the book has to offer is another cult or religion, forget about it and don't waste your time trying to find out what I had for breakfast that day.

I haven't read the book, only the web site, and I'm afraid it's not really the work of a "fantastic" story teller in the sense of "superlative". Nothing worse than science fiction by people who are not regular science fiction authors and consumers. Two films as cases in point, The Stepford Wives - as if the inventors of the sex robot would hide them away and keep for themselves, instead of selling the perfect wife robot to the world and making themselves billionaires, and Donnie Darko which was based on a seriously scientifically-illiterate concept of time travel..

You have taken "The Stepford Wives" film too seriously man, You liked the idea of sex robots? haha indeed what a waste, then maybe you could have had one?

Yes, indeed one of the most beautiful in the English language, comparable to "cellar door" for euphony.

There is definitely something wrong with your intellect.

 

[Robanan]

What I don't understand is why a house would want to build itself... It's allready a house, how much does it ask?

Well, If atoms can make themselves then maybe houses can make themselves too?

 

[Robanan]

I have to agree with Squeak, Spirit. You apparently have a misinformed definition of "pseudoscience."

"Pseudoscience" isn't an alternative to "science" that can be conducted to learn about the nature of the universe. It is a fiction that pretends to be science: sometimes intentionally; sometimes unintentionally -often through ignorance.

Actual science is the only way to examine and understand the universe. There is no other valid or reliable method. When those examinations or observations begin to stray outside the rules of science, then they become suspect and unreliable.

If we consider "Actual science to be the only way to examine and understand the universe" then I agree that the book is pseudoscience. I myself am happy that the book doesn't have anything in common with the decadent, self-exclusive science you are referring to. Would you please be making a definition for a table? I will rate your level of success. Good luck.

 

[Robanan]

Apologies for my rudeness, spirit, and welcome to the forums!

It's message is totally undermined by the supposed veracity of the events and the purported reality of the aliens. Fiction as fiction has a lesson to teach us. Fiction disguised as fact is a priori suspect. And if the whole thing derives from a delusion or madness, then it can hardly be taken seriously, can it?

But understanding and development has to be based on actual stuff that is right, rather than concepts or beliefs that are demonstrably wrong. I admit I haven't read the prophecy or "alien advice" in any detail, but I understand there is one prediction that the moon is going to collide with the Earth in some thousands of years (is it 150k years?) I then read Chalko's apologia of that, and it simply made a nonsense of any kind of proper scientific investigation. He was claiming that errors in laser beam distance measurement could hide the fact that the moon was moving towards earth instead of away from it. This is palpable nonsense that doesn't stand up to (informed) scrutiny for more than five minutes. Unless it's based on a catastrophic event, which Chalko did not suggest, the prediction is just plain wrong. Consequently there is no reason to place any credence in anything else they have to say, whether it be scientific or just philosophical. I do have an open mind, but it's not so open that I let my brains fall out.

Impressive, It really seems that everything is ok with your intellect. You are still not sure what exactly are you talking about isn't that so?

Saying that current scientific methods might be wrong is easy and I agree that is no way a reliable proof for the truthfulness of anything at all, not talking about proving that all the unveirfiable data contained in the book is true or even can be true to any extent. But let me tell you something, the author claims in his book that the moon will fall on earth in about 195,000 years, while the distance between the moon and the earth is approximately 382,260 Kilometers it means that maybe the moon is getting closer to the earth with the speed of 1.96 Km/Y. This clearly shows that mistakes in calculations are inevitable since we are like a blind who is looking for a needle in a bunch of hay. And just because Chalko did not suggest any scientific proof it doesn't mean that the prediction is wrong, specially if the book proposes more researchable hints and the whole geological effect of a planet which has caught a moon is recorded and can be retrieved. It's just that, who cares? The idea of sex robots seems to appeal to people more.

 

[Robanan]

Yes, those questions would be more proper.

How does one generate these vibrations and what energy is required is the question that Desmarquet should have asked to the alien Thao. After giving such a nice scene about it, I wonder why he did not.

And I must admit, the issue that these vibrations may be harmful occurred to me only after you said it. This force that our body will generate after being applied with this "frequency" may be equal to the force of gravity on us, our "weight". I reckon our own weight in terms of vibrations would be harmful though.

I don't understand how forces and energies which cancel eachother can produce any harmful effect at all.

 

[exsto_human]

Well, If atoms can make themselves then maybe houses can make themselves too?

Why would atoms make themselves? They are already atoms!

Anyway I don't believe that they exist at all.

 

[Silas]

That stuff about the Stepford Wives was a sidebar about sci-fi written by people who know insufficient science, amongst whose cohorts I include Desmarquet. I did assume that everybody who read my post would understand the reference. If you don't get the reference yourself, then kindly don't comment. On the other hand, I really don't get this:

Yes, indeed one of the most beautiful in the English language, comparable to "cellar door" for euphony.

There is definitely something wrong with your intellect.

You stated that Elucidate was a beautiful word, and I agreed with you. The beauty of the phrase "cellar door" if divorced from its meaning is quite well known in certain intellectual circles. I've no doubt you'll criticise this link because J.R.R. Tolkien "only wrote fantasy", but in fact he was a professional philologist of very high standing.

http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm . On the beauty of the Welsh language, Tolkien said:

"Most English-speaking people...will admit that cellar door is 'beautiful', especially if dissociated from its sense (and from its spelling). More beautiful than, say, sky, and far more beautiful than beautiful. Well then, in Welsh for me cellar doors are extraordinarily frequent, and moving to the higher dimension, the words in which there is pleasure in the contemplation of the association of form and sense are abundant."​

This next bit defeats me, too. You quote the consequences if the prediction about the moon is true, but still seem to be jumping to the wrong conclusion:

But let me tell you something, the author claims in his book that the moon will fall on earth in about 195,000 years, while the distance between the moon and the earth is approximately 382,260 Kilometers it means that maybe the moon is getting closer to the earth with the speed of 1.96 Km/Y. This clearly shows that mistakes in calculations are inevitable since we are like a blind who is looking for a needle in a bunch of hay.

On the contrary I think it is fairly evident that in an obvious case like this, we evidently aren't looking for a needle in a haystack. At nearly 2 km/year the changing effect of the moon on the Earth would be evident to all. At any rate I think it quite likely (without having done the calculation) that the moon would now appear noticeably larger than it did, say, 30 years ago when I was 10. Annular eclipses would probably have ceased some time ago, and we would no longer see the corona in normal eclipses (we only see the corona because of the coincidence that the moon subtends almost precisely the same angle in the sky as the sun does). According to current "the moon is receding" theory, those are the eclipses we had in the past, while in the future (given a few more tens of thousands of years, that is), we will only see annular eclipses. But with your 2km/year figure, this is clearly impossible.

That is why I was saying that if aliens are correctly predicting that the moon will hit the earth, it has to be the result of a catastrophic event. But Chalko preferred to assume that the moon was not moving away from earth as measurement shows, but must be moving towards earth now. If the catastrophe theory is the correct one, why go to the trouble of raising doubt about the scientific measurement of the moon's distance? Conversely, a 2km/year difference in the distance could not possibly be missed either by ultra-sensitive laser measurement, or even by casual observation.

For the record, I'm pretty sure there's nothing at all wrong with my intellect, thank you.