Have the SuspiciousObservers spotted “The Wave?”

XPan

The Living Force
Well I just had to laugh (with joy of course).

Laura and the Chateau team apparently exactly where they need to be to start the 'New Atlantis'...

View attachment 48318View attachment 48319

From the following

.

Oh dear…:-[ I don’t wish to spoil the party

Yet I wish to outline, that France has its very youthful volcanoes; the Auvergne in the Massif Central with its 80 volcanoes. The last eruption there occured between 6000-8000 years, which is younger than the huge eruption of the Laacher See Volcano in Germany 13,077 years ago (the latter is indicated as a red triangle over Germany in the chart). Both areas, if i remember correctly, are considered to be dormant or sleeping (potentially active)

On the Spanish side right south of the Pyrenees you have the Olot volcanic field, another area with youthful volcanic cones… the last eruption is believed to have taken place 11,700 years ago. So, those areas are located in that pink area outlined in the prospect of “safe zones”

I am sure that a crust displacement event could potentially make many places become hot zones, such as fractures and dormant fault lines - we never would consider to be at risk today (of volcanic activity).
 

ryu

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Oh dear…:-[I don’t wish to spoil the party

Yet I wish to outline, that France has its very youthful volcanoes; the Auvergne in the Massif Central with its 80 volcanoes. The last eruption there occured between 6000-8000 years, which is younger than the huge eruption of the Laacher See Volcano in Germany 13,077 years ago (the latter is indicated as a red triangle over Germany in the chart). Both areas, if i remember correctly, are considered to be dormant or sleeping (potentially active)

On the Spanish side right south of the Pyrenees you have the Olot volcanic field, another area with youthful volcanic cones… the last eruption is believed to have taken place 11,700 years ago. So, those areas are located in that pink area outlined in the prospect of “safe zones”

I am sure that a crust displacement event could potentially make many places become hot zones, such as fractures and dormant fault lines - we never would consider to be at risk today (of volcanic activity).
Remember also that SO, even if they are doing a lot of research, are not God and thus we can't know where the danger zones will be for sure. Even if you take out the most common natural disasters, you can have other "issues" like starving people, a pandemic, a comet impact, an alien invasion (!)I mean, there just so many ways you can die🥳.
 

Cass

The Force is Strong With This One
I think the answer to that, broadly, would be yes. But maybe we can research it a bit more and ask at a future session.



The Cs have been pretty explicit about that. What isn't so clear, and we'll probably have to wait and see, is what the criteria for 4D transition is. They've said "karmic and simple understandings", but that's not exactly specific, but perhaps as specific as we're gonna get, so....wait and see!
Is it possible to stop paying karma? I.e. choose not to pay any Karma break karmic contracts? Joe could you give some examples of karmic laws of simple compressions?
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
Remember also that SO, even if they are doing a lot of research, are not God and thus we can't know where the danger zones will be for sure. Even if you take out the most common natural disasters, you can have other "issues" like starving people, a pandemic, a comet impact, an alien invasion (!)I mean, there just so many ways you can die🥳.
Yup, they pretty much say this in one of the videos. I'm taking a keen interest in SO following a number of things I've heard him say in his videos. He's quite grounded and doesn't appear to fall into hysterics or over dramatisation which is interesting. I think he's learnt from the years of doing this. In any case, what he says about the incoming energy sheet and the diminishing magnetic protection from the planet seems to make some sense based on the observable evidence he presents. Sooo we wait and see.

Plus who knew about micro or recurrent novas? I didn't!
 

N1mTzo

Jedi
Well I just had to laugh (with joy of course).

Laura and the Chateau team apparently exactly where they need to be to start the 'New Atlantis'...

Untitledcon1.jpg
This zone on the map, which is labeled "Surivors Likely", resembles the outline of the country known as Afghanistan. We know that Afghanistan is a territory isolated from all sides by mountains. We also know that literally all the last days, the most incredible news has been coming from Afghanistan: these American military men, President Ghani, thousands of ordinary people fleeing in a hurry from there. What the hell is going on there?
PS Yes, just a week ago, Russian Defense Minister Shoigu publicly stated: we (Russia) need to build new million-plus cities in Siberia. Does this guy know something too?
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Here is what Laura asked in another thread:


The question is: does that model have a track record?

I watched and it was interesting, but I wasn't terribly impressed because the model does not match some of the archaeological/geological type of evidence I've read. I think the guy has gone just a tad over the top.

Followed by some of my observations:

The last sentence expresses what I came away with quite a number of months ago when I tried to look into some stuff Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presented, combined with an irritation towards his level of "certainty" or let's call it "believe" in his theory that I found a bit rigid and way too certain. I'm speaking from a rather superficial standpoint though, since I haven't researched anything he said in great detail at all, so feel free to correct me. It also sounds a bit too materialistic IMO and there seems to be a bit too much electricity in his approach. He also seems to leave out things like the unpredictability of reality.



Has he tried to put a possible twin sun of ours into his equations? Seems to me that there is a good likelihood that something like that is happening in our solar system (twin sun phenomena). As far as I know, Davidson thinks he has discovered or gathered data that point to a bigger picture (or force) beyond the solar system which can explain what has and will happen (soon) in the solar system and on earth in the smaller scales? Sort of like: Davidson thinks he has discovered the larger domino behind the scenes that brings all the smaller Dominos in the solar system into motion?

As far as I know comets have some place in his theories, but just as a small part and not so significant? Or at least it comes across to me that way. I feel quite at unease with his steadfast point by point predictions of "what will happen" according to his ideas "soon". If we have learned anything from the C's, then it is that the "future" is very fluent and never fixed and pretty much impossible to predict, in part because of quantum phenomena and because there is not really linearity but cycles and other densities and dimensions etc. Yet what he says sounds very fixed and "certain".



Well, in regard to the bolded part I would say that Randall Carlson (among others) makes a pretty good case that some (if not most) similar features on earth can be explained (pretty convincingly IMO) by large scale flood/tsunami events (not seldom triggered by comets) that were orders of magnitude bigger than anything we can see today. IMO there is a good likelihood that many features of Mars could have been formed similarly (of course not excluding electrical scarring sometimes too). It seems to me that Davidson might be a bit too much into "everything was caused by electrical interactions" camp, while glancing over the IMO good evidence of other factors such as water.



I think part of the problem here is trying to explain it all in purely physical/materialistic terms, leaving out "higher" factors such as "the human-cosmic connection" and non-linearity. I also have to say that Davidson often rubs me the wrong way in his wiseacre kind of "know-it-all" way of delivering things that leaves me with the slight impression that „he likes to hear himself speak“. But that might just be how it comes across to me subjectively.

That might be one of the problems here. If his predictions about future events (and discoveries about past events) just minimally (if at all) include the effects of "comets" in the "small scale", than one is left to wonder how reliable his "bigger domino" idea is in the first place, since it very much seems like those "smaller Dominos" (like comets) have/do and will play quite a significant role on what is happening on our planet itself and in the solar system at large. In other words; if his ideas and predictions in the small scale don't (or minimally) include comets, then one is left two wonder how accurate his bigger scale idea can be, when it seems pretty certain that this comet phenomena has had a much bigger impact than he gives it credit for. Fine, I understand that he thinks his model points to a bigger "Domino" that brings all the smaller ones "into motion", but if that is so, one would assume that the smaller dominoes should be satisfactory explained within that model (or included) since we seem to have observed them on the smaller scale here on earth (and other planets) in quite dramatic fashions.

My issue isn't so much in the predictions Davidson is making (which I still find much too "certain" and "predictable"), but the way he presents things, which leaves me with the distinct impression that he isn't very flexible in his ideas/beliefs/thinking (which a good scholar/researcher/scientist should be IMO). He also comes across as pretty invested in his ideas to me in a dogmatic/rigid way (which is a trait I don't find very appealing in researchers), with seemingly little room for the idea "to change your mind (even completely) at any point if the data supports it". I think what it comes down to is seeing everything as a possibility and trying not to believe anything, and my impression of what I've seen from him seems to be pretty contrary to that.

Generally speaking, the more a researcher knows, the more that researcher realizes how much he doesn't know and Davidson doesn't strike me as such a thinker (quite the contrary in fact), which is one of the reasons why what he says "rubs me the wrong way".

See point above. One of my main issues is his "sureness" of his thinking/ideas.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
Here is what Laura asked in another thread:




Followed by some of my observations:
Hmmm, interesting @Pashalis. Have you seen the disaster series?

I ask as in that he states the thing he's sure off - that calm periods on Earth are punctuated by periods of intense catastrophes which appear to happen at a cycle.

Comets and "impacters" actually play a crucial role in his theory but not necessarily the primary role. His theory hinges on the galactic energy sheet and the impact this will have on the sun if it exists. Electricity doesn't necessarily feature that much in the disaster series - I'd say magnetism features way more and in particular the waning magnetic field of the planet. He also talks about dust loading which is driven by this "galactic" sheets as intergalactic space is "dusty". Another key bit of his theory is the super flare or recurrent nova from the Sun which is where all the action comes from! He mentions electricity when the magnetic rings on earth get compressed to their very last ones thereby resulting in electrical arching down to the ground. This can result from something e.g. a very intense solar flair that compresses the field so much that it's nearly completely eroded.

I can't say he's right but I can say he's not dogmatic - he stands by and develops his theory in a logical sense, provides references etc. He's as dogmatic as the next person is in trying to prove their hypothesis correct 😅

Having said the above, he comes across as his own man and so this could potentially rub someone off the wrong way.

In any case, he's a useful reference point.
 

psychegram

The Living Force
Since no one asked, here's my take on SO.

I used to watch his videos regularly, part of my morning routine. He does a nice job of summarizing the interesting astronomy news of the day, at least insofar as giving quick introductions to a wide array of neat headlines, and he's certainly useful insofar as that goes.

However. My own professional research is directly related to topics that he talks about quite a bit, and I therefore know a thing or two about those subjects. There's been a few times where papers that colleagues of mine have written have been featured on his channel. His presentation of their work has been hit and miss - sometimes getting the point, other times missing it entirely. Well, no one can understand everything at a glance, so that in itself isn't a damning critique. But, Davidson's trademark delivery is heavy on the confidence - he says everything with such assuredness that he lures the viewer into assuming that he must know what he's talking about, when that is not always the case. How often is that? Well, I can't really say, except that in the small number of cases in which I have professional knowledge, his accuracy has been spotty. As those experiences built up, my skepticism towards everything else he presents - his grand narrative of an onrushing current sheet, a magnetic and rotational pole flip, the whole bit - started to grow.

There have been other times when he's said things that struck me as missing the point entirely. For instance, when he writes off binarity as the origin for certain phenomena, because ... *drum roll* ... you can't (visually) see two stars when you look! This is the kind of thing that a non-astronomer might find convincing, but to a professional it's an eyeroll-inducing groaner. Binary stars are only distinguishable as separate objects when their orbits are very large; in the vast majority of cases, they're identified spectroscopically, via the Doppler effect, and in some cases they're found via other phenomena e.g. periodic variations in the X-ray brightness of eta Car, which is a binary system in which both stars are embedded in a very thick cloud of plasma that obscures them completely at visible wavelengths. Based on some of the things he's said over the years, it's not clear that Davidson understands things like that ... things which are actually rather basic in astronomy. Of course, by pretending to not understand, he can then present himself as the brilliant maverick who actually gets it (unlike all the dumb professionals) ... and when he presents himself as such with his towering sense of conviction, he brings the viewer along to imagine that the viewer, too, is "in the know".

None of that is to say he's necessarily wrong about everything, or even dishonest. But he does seem to be lacking in humility, which is an essential quality for any scientist ... and possessed of an absolutely invincible faith in his own correctness, which is a fatal flaw in any scientist. The combination doesn't inspire confidence.

A while back I watched a video by a skeptic who did some digging on Davidson. While I usually find such individuals odious, and this case frankly was no exception, he made the interesting observation that Davidson's earthquake 'predictions' (which he makes big deal about) are, statistically, not very impressive, since the earthquake magnitudes are low enough that there's about a 50/50 chance of a quake popping off somewhere on the planet within the 3-day window Davidson uses following any solar eruption. The same individual also pointed out some rather shady practices with the so-called paper Davidson published (on the same subject, if I recall), in which he talked some professionals (again, if I recall correctly, a geophysicist and a statistician) into collaborating, who then asked to be taken off the paper when he entirely ignored their concerns about his methodology ... a request which he refused to honour. That rather rubbed me the wrong way. If he didn't want to take their advice, fine, but to then keep their names on the paper after they specifically requested they be withdrawn smacks of deceptive marketing practices - since Davidson now gets to claim that he's published a serious scientific paper with serious scientists.

More recently Davidson has been shilling for something called the Phoenix protocol. It was supposedly developed by NASA to help astronauts recover from radiation damage during deep space missions, and involves extensive dry fasting (literally going up to 3 weeks without water) in order to kickstart the body's self-repair process. So far so good, I ... guess? Who knows? Maybe it works? However, upon reading the book, the author starts making some pretty wild claims about this being the secret of literal immortality, not a somewhat extended lifespan but actual timeless youth, which strikes me as entirely too good to be true and more likely to be dangerous nonsense. Davidson claims to be doing this himself at present. I don't know if he is or if he's just got a deal with the author to take a percentage of the book sales in exchange for promoting it on his channel. If he bought into this enough to do it himself, such credulity doesn't speak well of his judgement; if not, it speaks against his honesty; either way I could well imagine it could get any of his viewers who take it seriously into very serious medical trouble.

tl;dr He certainly says some interesting stuff, and can point to neat things in the news, but there are enough red flags around the guy that I eventually stopped paying attention to him because frankly, I can read the headlines myself.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
Since no one asked, here's my take on SO.

I used to watch his videos regularly, part of my morning routine. He does a nice job of summarizing the interesting astronomy news of the day, at least insofar as giving quick introductions to a wide array of neat headlines, and he's certainly useful insofar as that goes.

However. My own professional research is directly related to topics that he talks about quite a bit, and I therefore know a thing or two about those subjects. There's been a few times where papers that colleagues of mine have written have been featured on his channel. His presentation of their work has been hit and miss - sometimes getting the point, other times missing it entirely. Well, no one can understand everything at a glance, so that in itself isn't a damning critique. But, Davidson's trademark delivery is heavy on the confidence - he says everything with such assuredness that he lures the viewer into assuming that he must know what he's talking about, when that is not always the case. How often is that? Well, I can't really say, except that in the small number of cases in which I have professional knowledge, his accuracy has been spotty. As those experiences built up, my skepticism towards everything else he presents - his grand narrative of an onrushing current sheet, a magnetic and rotational pole flip, the whole bit - started to grow.

There have been other times when he's said things that struck me as missing the point entirely. For instance, when he writes off binarity as the origin for certain phenomena, because ... *drum roll* ... you can't (visually) see two stars when you look! This is the kind of thing that a non-astronomer might find convincing, but to a professional it's an eyeroll-inducing groaner. Binary stars are only distinguishable as separate objects when their orbits are very large; in the vast majority of cases, they're identified spectroscopically, via the Doppler effect, and in some cases they're found via other phenomena e.g. periodic variations in the X-ray brightness of eta Car, which is a binary system in which both stars are embedded in a very thick cloud of plasma that obscures them completely at visible wavelengths. Based on some of the things he's said over the years, it's not clear that Davidson understands things like that ... things which are actually rather basic in astronomy. Of course, by pretending to not understand, he can then present himself as the brilliant maverick who actually gets it (unlike all the dumb professionals) ... and when he presents himself as such with his towering sense of conviction, he brings the viewer along to imagine that the viewer, too, is "in the know".

None of that is to say he's necessarily wrong about everything, or even dishonest. But he does seem to be lacking in humility, which is an essential quality for any scientist ... and possessed of an absolutely invincible faith in his own correctness, which is a fatal flaw in any scientist. The combination doesn't inspire confidence.

A while back I watched a video by a skeptic who did some digging on Davidson. While I usually find such individuals odious, and this case frankly was no exception, he made the interesting observation that Davidson's earthquake 'predictions' (which he makes big deal about) are, statistically, not very impressive, since the earthquake magnitudes are low enough that there's about a 50/50 chance of a quake popping off somewhere on the planet within the 3-day window Davidson uses following any solar eruption. The same individual also pointed out some rather shady practices with the so-called paper Davidson published (on the same subject, if I recall), in which he talked some professionals (again, if I recall correctly, a geophysicist and a statistician) into collaborating, who then asked to be taken off the paper when he entirely ignored their concerns about his methodology ... a request which he refused to honour. That rather rubbed me the wrong way. If he didn't want to take their advice, fine, but to then keep their names on the paper after they specifically requested they be withdrawn smacks of deceptive marketing practices - since Davidson now gets to claim that he's published a serious scientific paper with serious scientists.

More recently Davidson has been shilling for something called the Phoenix protocol. It was supposedly developed by NASA to help astronauts recover from radiation damage during deep space missions, and involves extensive dry fasting (literally going up to 3 weeks without water) in order to kickstart the body's self-repair process. So far so good, I ... guess? Who knows? Maybe it works? However, upon reading the book, the author starts making some pretty wild claims about this being the secret of literal immortality, not a somewhat extended lifespan but actual timeless youth, which strikes me as entirely too good to be true and more likely to be dangerous nonsense. Davidson claims to be doing this himself at present. I don't know if he is or if he's just got a deal with the author to take a percentage of the book sales in exchange for promoting it on his channel. If he bought into this enough to do it himself, such credulity doesn't speak well of his judgement; if not, it speaks against his honesty; either way I could well imagine it could get any of his viewers who take it seriously into very serious medical trouble.

tl;dr He certainly says some interesting stuff, and can point to neat things in the news, but there are enough red flags around the guy that I eventually stopped paying attention to him because frankly, I can read the headlines myself.
Very interesting! in your experience @psychegram does this thing he says about this galactic energy sheet pan out? Does it even exist?

What about recurrent Novas or super flares? Could the Sun do this periodically (i.e. every 12000 - 14000 years) without it being widely known and available knowledge?

Another one, not sure if you'd know from your job - is the earth's magnetic field weakening?
 

psychegram

The Living Force
Very interesting! in your experience @psychegram does this thing he says about this galactic energy sheet pan out? Does it even exist?

What about recurrent Novas or super flares? Could the Sun do this periodically (i.e. every 12000 - 14000 years) without it being widely known and available knowledge?

Another one, not sure if you'd know from your job - is the earth's magnetic field weakening?

A galactic current sheet isn't part of standard astrophysics, but its existence nevertheless seems very likely to me since there is in fact a large-scale, galactic magnetic field. You get a current sheet whenever you have a magnetic field that gets stretched open, such that opposite polarities come close to touching; for instance, the Sun has a current sheet that goes from just beyond the corona (where its magnetic field is opened by the wind) to the heliopause out beyond Pluto (where the solar magnetic field rejoins the interstellar medium).

Superflares aren't actually unexpected. Studies of solar twins - stars with similar mass and rotation period to the Sun - indicate that these do happen, and there's furthermore evidence of super-Carrington events in the geological record. Whether these can rise to the level of the sort of micronova Davidson talks about is another question. We've certainly never seen anything like that from a solar-type star. In general, when we see evidence of a nova, the central object is a white dwarf; a supernova, a neutron star (left over from an exploding massive star); and superflares tend to happen around M stars (much smaller, redder, more rapidly rotating, and therefore more magnetically active than the Sun, a G-type star). Certainly the Sun can probably have flares much stronger than those seen in recent history, but strong enough to be a near-extinction level event? I'm skeptical. Such an event would however certainly wipe out the electrical grid.

The geomagnetic field is unambiguously weakening and doing so quite rapidly. There is no doubt this poses dangers to e.g. the electrical grid, since our shields are going down, thus charged particles from solar flares and CMEs are able to penetrate closer to the Earth, which raises the risks of blackouts due to induced telluric currents. It also poses a threat to satellites. In other words, if the geomagnetic field gets weak enough, you don't even need super-Carrington, or even just Carrington level, events to do serious damage to our technological infrastructure.
 

Michael B-C

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
For what it's worth, I'm somewhat in agreement with Pashalis in that also find his certainty level grating and concerning. Plus his non inclusion of cyclical cometary involvement strange considering the now considerable evidence that has been emerging, particularly over the last decade or so. It wouldn't negate his own theory to include this factor but it seems he too often prefers a one size fits all analysis which is clearly off for it's a much more complex scenario with many variables down the ages. I think his core theory is interesting, however, and we know the C's have often pointed out the pole flip issue as being a possible factor in what is ahead - whether this is connected to min-nova is another matter, though possible. However his faith that the CIA Adam & Eve release - upon which he bases some of the 'proof' supporting his narrative - can be taken on face value suggests he lacks knowledge that agencies have a long history of faking documents before then releasing them years after the event so as to spread confusion (with their longevity suckering many into believing they must have been real, otherwise why suppress them for so long? A massive case in point being the Zapruder film). This is just one example of how I think he falls into the potential trap of rushing to preconceived judgement based on a perhaps a narrow band of understanding. I'm not saying this document is fake - I'm just saying that not seeming to be aware of the possibility is perhaps worthy of a note of caution around his propensity for certainty.
 

Ellipse

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The geomagnetic field is unambiguously weakening and doing so quite rapidly. There is no doubt this poses dangers to e.g. the electrical grid, since our shields are going down, thus charged particles from solar flares and CMEs are able to penetrate closer to the Earth, which raises the risks of blackouts due to induced telluric currents. It also poses a threat to satellites. In other words, if the geomagnetic field gets weak enough, you don't even need super-Carrington, or even just Carrington level, events to do serious damage to our technological infrastructure.
Do you know if a graph showing in real time the trend of the geomagnetic field exist? I did a quick search but I did not found. Only pages with maps with local data.
 
Top Bottom