Thursday, December 20, 2012

The End of A Different Perspective

As you all know, tomorrow the world ends. I don't know if it will come in a collision with an invisible, undetected planet that will smash the Earth into dust, in a Cosmic Ray Burst that will strip the Ozone from the atmosphere allowing the sun to kill us slowly with radiation, in a swarm of meteors and asteroids, or if the Earth will respond with volcanoes, earthquakes and storms that will kill billions... the power grids will be down and the Internet gone. With that, this blog will fade away like everything else...
 
Or, if the world does not end tomorrow, well, then, we'll all be back on Saturday to await the next end of the world prediction. I suspect that George Noory is right.

4 comments:

cda said...

It is a different perspective that the world will end on December 21. Or perhaps it is merely a new interpretation on an old perspective?

In either case you need to stand back, take a relook at this perspective whether old or new, and give us a new fresh perspective on the matter.

My perspective is that the world will not end tomorrow, but I am open to correction.

Steve Sawyer said...

Well, we're all still here, right?

So I guess this blog can continue.

In related news, "UFO lawyer" Peter Gersten, who had vowed to leap off the top of Bell Rock in Arizona at precisely 11:11 UT (Universal Time) on Dec. 21 has apparently "changed his tune" and now says he'll only jump if a "vortex" appears first.

Which, of course, has not happened.

Nor will it.

See: http://bit.ly/UW92ZY

Steve Sawyer said...

Brief follow-up:

I found something which further "explains" Gersten's prior statements about his "leap of faith" -- now he says he never intended to actually jump, which is untrue.

See: http://bit.ly/VbbsHe

As the ineffable Bugs Bunny once said about the indefatigable Marvin the Martian, "What a maroon!"

I mean, everyone knows the real earthshaking paradigm shift won't occur until sometime in December, 2017, right? 8^}

Marco Sedlav said...

The incongruousness of the locations from which Trent took his photographs is an often overlooked aspect of this case. If truly of an object in the sky relatively close to the horizon, the house (not seen in the photos) would have blocked his field of view on the right, the garage on the left. The logical and natural reaction for someone sighting a "flying saucer" from this spot would be to run into the unobstructed open space in front of the property to photograph it. The fact that this didn't happen only makes sense if the photographs are of an object suspended from the wires running between the house and the garage.