Be a Supporter!

Credits & Info

Uploaded
Jul 18, 2011 | 6:55 PM EDT
  • Daily Feature July 19, 2011

Related Stuff

If you liked this, check these out!


Author Comments

Part 2 of the "Human History" story. What happened when the Martians arrived on Earth? Well, it changed things for us. Everything in our modern world and everything that's happened over the last 13,000 years was a direct result of what happened on Earth 60,000 years ago, when the Martians first arrived.

We also talk about Polar Shifts today, so that's cool :)

Links and Sources - Remove the Spaces-

Twitter - @itsjordand
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/p ages/Spirit-Science/21023 8862349944?ref=ts

Flower of Life books - http://www.2shared.com/fi le/iWmQem1a/Flower_of_Lif e_PDFs.html
See page 78 Volume 1 for the Human History Story!

NOVA - Magnetic Storm
http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=NJUTUFAWfEY

Maya of Eternal Time
http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=n_tuogW1wGw

Reviews


OffTopicCartoonsOffTopicCartoons

Rated 1.5 / 5 stars July 20, 2011

Conspiracy Crap

Good animation and good story, but all thats all it is... A story... The true facts are that polar shifts happen every few hundred thousand years, not every 10,000 years. Our earth is due for a polar shift, but polar shifts don't happen "over night" like you were describing. Its actually a very slow process that takes thousands of years. Don't believe me? well the evidence is in your video. Like you said, the magnetic poles at that current time are imbedded in the rocks. If you go into the crust and get samples from the rocks, they actually show the poles slowly changing not just shifting randomly. The crust of the earth cant slide over the mantle because of the lithosphere. The lithosphere is harder than the mantle, and even then, the crust couldn't slide over it, because the mantle isn't liquid. And the final nail in the coffin, if the crust could slide over the mantle, then the earth technically wouldn't move. Please get the conspiracies off of newgrounds, we dont need beliefs being shoved down our throats everywhere we go.


JordanD responds:

I'm not shoving anything down your throat. You're taking it too offensively. I am merely putting this story up for anyone with an interest, and further more science HAS found that when poles shift, it happens very quickly. Perhaps both of what we are saying can be true. There is only one reality, but there are infinite ways the reality can be interpreted.


PyroflamaticPyroflamatic

Rated 1 / 5 stars July 19, 2011

wow

YOU ACTUALLY PUT ME TO SLEEP! YOU ACTUALLY PUT ME TO FRIGGIN SLEEP!!!... d you realize if you showed this to a child they would believe every word of it?


People find this review helpful!

GungaDGungaD

Rated 1 / 5 stars July 19, 2011

Science? More like pseudoscience.

As someone trained in the sciences, there are three things I find major fault with in this flash: the first is that you present theories in your flash, but you lack any sort accepted research/documentation to back them up. For this to be a true representation of a scientific theory, you either have to have data from the historical record that has been peer reviewed and accepted, or you have to have an experimental hypothesis that can be replicated by other researchers in the field. Looking through several reference databases verifies that your data has not been accepted as valid. The reference sources that you do list can at best be considered pseudoscience; they are theories presented without valid scientific evidence to back them up, and have had their methodology debunked by scientific peers, either through citing faults in the methodology or disproving the results outright via such research methods as geological surveying, modeling, etc. Your representation of pole shift as fact/accepted theory is an example of this. While the scientific community does accept the theory of "pole wandering" as a normal geologic process, there is no such body of research verifying the "pole shift" hypothesis. Much of what is claimed by various pole shift hypothesis is easily disproven with mathematics. Many predictions based on said evidence have also not come to pass: the catastrophe predicted for 5 May 2000 by Richard Noone, for example. Claims made by pole shift proponents that cataclysmic destruction has resulted have never been verified in the geological or archaeological record.

That leads to the second major fault: passing this information off as science when it belongs in the realm of the spiritual. Because many of the data sources you rely on come from imaginative sources, such as psychic readings, said data cannot be verified or disproven. Anyone trained in the scientific method knows that if it is impossible to design an experiment/observation that disproves a hypothesis, said hypothesis belongs in the realm of the spiritual, and not the realm of the scientific. The finding of the clay tablets that you mention is not described at all in any scientific journal of merit, dubious or otherwise. It is highly susceptible that such tablets exist, as they have not been made available for examination by the scientific community at large. If the tablets cannot be made available for peer review, it is impossible to design a theory to disprove what they purport to say.

The final major fault is your lace of reference materials. Your bibliography flashed on the screen rapidly, but I believe I counted seven sources? And at least one of them was a television program. Not even the least competent of scientists would cite a form of entertainment as a valid source of information/data. A typical peer-reviewed paper will have anywhere from 40-60 sources listed. Given the broad scope of information you present, I would expect you should have a lot more sources to verify the data. Again, this would be considered poor form in the scientific community.

If you labeled your flash as metaphysics, mythology, new-age spirituality, etc., I would take it seriously and consider this flash to be appropriate for the informative category. Labeling the flash as science makes it suitable for an entertainment category. It is one thing to have a spiritual belief based on faith. Basing a scientific theory on faith and presenting said theory as fact is another matter entirely.

I do not find fault with any of the technical aspects of the flash, except that it is paced too rapidly. For all I know, this was done purposely so that the viewer has less time to actually think and process the information presented; this is simply a theory (and one I can design an experiment/observation to disprove, making the theory valid to the realm of science.) If you are to pass something off as science, I'd advise you to return to the basics of the scientific method and make sure you understand how it works.


Lots of people find this review helpful!

StinkproductionsStinkproductions

Rated 1 / 5 stars November 29, 2011

What the hell

what the hell. You created your own religion... Based on what? Where do you get all these retard facts? This would be kind of maybe good if it wasn't a religion and instead just a fictional story, but I'm sorry, believing this sort of stuff is just stupid.

I'm not rating this a zero because I'm not 100% sure if this is a science fiction story or a stupid theory that you believe just because you made it up.

It would be a 6 or 7 if there was an animation instead of a slide show and if you didn't take this seriously.

I am very a very religious muslim and I have no idea how is this popular.
You have no proof or basis for what you say, and I say the only proof you might have is in your head.

Otherwise it would be fairly interesting if you haven't made a religion out of it.



XesolorXesolor

Rated 0 / 5 stars July 19, 2011

c**p

Do you know why all of these are bullshit? Because they are NOT scientific. And why do I say this? Because the following:

"The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

You jumped from the initial hypothesis to the final conclusion without even contemplating other theories, regardless of whether they be mainstream or not. Face it, everything you put here has been learned from elsewhere, therefore your very understanding of the matter is a mere by-product or other theories.

By putting scientifically-proven facts with other cock and bull ideas you attempt to fool the fools into believing the WHOLE THING is "scientifically proven", while most of them are just your own words, or interpretations, with no practical evidence whatsoever.

One question - if your discovery is so ground-breaking, why aren't these being published in research magazines such as the NewScientist? If these are REAL, why aren't they being discussed around G20 summits?


There's some debate, but overall people find this review helpful