* Posts by Marino

24 posts • joined 25 Jul 2012

Tiny, invisible EXTRATERRESTRIAL INVADERS appear at South Pole


Re: Who to truly believe

I looked at the link you recommended, and was fascinated by this quote,

"When the experimental data was compared to the Schrödinger equation for the various excitation states, there was a statistically valid match. So it is likely that this is actually what hydrogen’s electron orbital looks like"

Once again, man made algorithms to suit man laws.

Nice try though.


@smartermind - Ignorance is forgetfulness.

If universal law was founded, scientists still wouldn't be searching for answers now would they, hence I said "man's laws".

And fact doesn't necessarily constitute truth.

And you call your self smartermind?


Re: Who to truly believe

Steve Roper, I must truly believe without a doubt, to even have the balls to write what I am writing.

How many can or could say the same, I probably can count them on one finger (which finger, I'll leave that to one's imagination).

Once upon a time, all thought the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe (or the very least the solar system), and America's NSA didn't spy on it's own civilians.

But hey most humans still believe paper money is actually worth something.

"Time" will only tell, if I am wrong.


Re: Who to truly believe

There is evidence to increased cancer and deaths, you just need to dig deeper (if you are unaware statistics/ratio are calculated by numbers on ground).

In today's world, there is no MONEY in keeping people healthy, Big pharma is making a killing supplying drugs, and they are the first to knock on a recently qualified doctor's door to push their drugs, wake up.

Bill Gates had publicly said the worlds population needs to be culled by 80% and the best way is through sterilization of the population, and what is his new venture, vaccinations.

Again, do some research.

But I must admit, less humans means less money for the elite, so the logic there doesn't compute.

The majority are brainwashed, because how can (in a mostly democratic society) the 1% rule the 99% when supposedly majority rules????

And one would have to be truly brainwashed, to pay an entity to tell you what you can and can't do.

Hence education and the majority walk around like pre-programmed robots and believe what they are told and taught.

A truly educated human questions what he/she is taught, and not just accept.

If one cannot think for themselves, perhaps culling is the best thing.

But not to worry, your "matter" will go to good use, it will get recycled for the remainder (of the sum of the whole) to feed off.

And again I must say, I forgive you for your ignorance.

Perhaps you can answer one question for me, How did the very first of any trade/practice, gets it's qualifications when there was no teacher/school to begin with so as to give a qualification???????????


Re: Who to truly believe

We do the know the whole (because we are I.O.U of the whole), those now in control have suppressed this knowledge.

Because if all had "the knowledge" no one could have any control or any power over the next.

Earth has an output "frequency" of 7.83 Hz if you must know, because you can't do your own research.

And if you haven't already figured out what exactly the planets do, they orbit, hence an event reoccurring (as are the seasons on this planet).

And the flak I am enduring for my comments.

And if you read all my comments, punch all man's laws into a computer model of a universe and "time" how long it would last.

I would love to know your answer, and if I'm wrong I will publicly admit it.

And if you recall my answer was, not even a nano second of man based time.

Ignorance is forgetfulness, so I do forgive you for that.


Re: Who to truly believe

If you are unaware "time " is man made ideology.

Did time exist before man walked the earth?

If you think evolution is always ongoing where are the half man half monkey's, or are you one of them?


I apologize to those who may take my replies and comments as arrogant.

I am just trying to open minds to other possibilities, and not just the perceived learning's most have been taught/told, so one may do some further research to gather your own conclusions.

As each and everyone of us holds a piece to the puzzle (even if one doesn't yet know it).


Re: Who to truly believe

I guess you haven't heard of the "Schumann resonance"

With regards to drugs, they change the electrical frequencies delivered to the neurons, hence why one sees the world differently.

Even some of the greatest minds experimented with drugs to get their theories.


Re: Who to truly believe

If that was the case for Judo, there wouldn't be such a thing (or a need) as weight classes in competition, now would there.


Re: Who to truly believe

For those of you didn't believe me that man's laws are wrong, just read, MY EYES! Earth engulfed by BRIGHTEST EVER killer gamma-ray burst.

This article is also on The Register.

I hate to say it but, I told you all so.


Re: Who to truly believe

Open your eyes and all you see (sense) is mine (mine = IN ME).

Close your eyes and all you see (sense) is mine (IN ME).


Re: Who to truly believe

And 100 years ago + cancer used to be 1 in 1000, now 1 in 2.

If science truly knew the truth, why is science killing more humans more than ever.

One would think that by now there would be no such thing as disease, cancer, or for that matter death.

With the combined knowledge on all subjects (which numbers into the millions of years and for some billions of years) older than man is, yet here we are arguing if what one says is true or not.

And if one was to combine all the years of all the humans on this planet it would outnumber the age of the universe by tenfold, so how does science explain all that "time" matter.


Re: Who to truly believe

A circle can be created utilizing only straight lines (I can draw a diagram to prove this, but unfortunately I cannot upload it onto this comments page).

One only has to look at what the ancient's achieved (which man today can only guess how they achieved it and would have a very hard time to replicate, even with today's technology/machines).

So they obviously knew something that modern man doesn't or have we have forgotten (because those in power are not wanting to teach this knowledge in fear of losing control of the masses).

It is hard to get out of our thoughts what we have been taught, but if one can break through that way of thinking... then who knows?

The easiest way the enslave the masses is to withhold/deny one true knowledge.


Re: Who to truly believe

The problem being is most are taught with a curriculum to "remember and repeat" and not to "think and know".

Those that question the supposed norm are ridiculed (as I have on this site by others).

But if not one truly knows the "meaning of life", how can any answer be wrong?

Humans utilize "linear time" yet, scientist know that time doesn't truly exist and further yet they continue to use it in their math.

That is what scientist cannot do in any laboratory or with their math, to create the sense of existence and the will to exist.

I read a good analogy when it comes to existence and who we think we are.

1. Ask a person who do they think they are, and they will naturally look at themselves and say "I am me".

2. Get them to close their eyes and picture something in their mind (dog, cat, or what ever).

3. Ask that person then, who is looking at the image they conjured, and they will answer to you "I am".

4. You then ask them (while their eyes are still closed) "who then is you"?


Re: Who to truly believe

How do you know I am truly wrong, have you done any tests on Mars?

Because if one did, the maths "laws" would be according to the findings of what one observes on Mars (if one lived there).

I can guarantee you that the "frequency" of Earth differs from the frequency of Mars (or any other planet).

It has been said that to know the secrets of the universe think energy, frequency, vibration/reverberation.

If one was to reverberate at the same rate of another, (say a glass panel for instance) one would/could pass through it.

If the Philadelphia experiment is to be believed, this would explain why some of the personnel were found fused to the ship, after the magnetic coil was shut off (as all were and had an equal vibrational frequency at the time of the coil being activated).


Re: Who to truly believe

The universe doesn't work in accordance to the "laws of physics".

As I said, apply man's "physics" to the universe it would not last a nano second.

Make your own model, punch all what you know into a computer and see how long that model of the universe would last.

Because the macro doesn't work for the micro.

Religion, science, nor philosophy can explain how the "one" came about.

To say it came from nothing or it has always been there, doesn't truly explain/answer.

To even suggest it came from nothing, says that it was lurking there all along.

All has to be taken into account (the whole), not just what suits to make the model work.

Because all (the whole) is making the actual work.

We will all know soon enough when the Apocalypse happens (apocalypse meaning- revealing what was once hidden).

Bag me if you want, but no matter what, the whole will remain the whole, only the sum of it's parts differ from time to time.

A.E.I.O.U - Absolute Energy (=) Input, Output, Utilization

And if one of anything is the I.O.U of AE, as is the next one.

All is the I.O.U of AE for A.E.I.O.U.


Re: Who to truly believe

I forgot to add that "inner growth" overcomes gravity's effects.

Because how else would anything "grow".

To overcome a force one utilises a greater force.


Who to truly believe

Scientist haven't even physically seen an atom (even with all the technology they have at hand).

Now they saying they have found particles even smaller than an atom?????

There will those that say, but we utilise the findings in the maths.

And I say to you, all man made ideas and algorithms.

If one "lived" on Mars (or any other planet) the maths would have different outcomes due to the frequency output of that planet.

If one wanted to "sense" life on a different planet, one would have to be in "tune" to that planet's frequency.

Man's laws apply only to man on man's earth, apply man's laws to the universe and it would not last a nano second.

Science says believe in what we say, even though we have not physically seen an atom.

Religion also says believe in what we say, even though we have not physically seen "god".

So who and what does one put their "faith" in?

Faith is belief without doubt in the inner consciousness.

So the only logical answer is, believe in one's own self.

Dark matter: Good news, everyone! We've found ... NOTHING AT ALL


where did the one originate from?

The reason for not being able to find anything is because the science is based on "theories" and not "actuals".

Science first has to explain where the "one" comes from.

Yet science, theology (religion) or philosophy cannot truly explain where "one" came from.

Saying it always existed is not a definitive answer, and to say all came from "nothing" is also incorrect.

Because if "nothing" was truly "nothing", why call it NOTHING and even then it's given seven letters.

For it takes more than "one" to even make up "one" of anything, as even a single atom has more than one component.

As how can one of anything exist without it's "negative counterpart of space" that the "one" occupies within?

A.E.I.O.U - Absolute Energy = Input, Output Utilization.

As "one" of anything equals the I.O.U of AE, as does the next "one"

It has been said that to know the secrets of the universe think - Energy, frequency, reverberation.

And if there is/was "one" to begin with, it could only divide itself, thus multiplying itself.

And the answer will still only be "one" because no matter how many times "one" multiplies or divides by "one" the answer is always one, which makes "one" and infinite number or better still "the whole".

Alien planet is just like EARTH - except for ONE tiny detail


Re: There's science and then there's wild guesswork

Man's laws apply only to man on man's earth, apply man's laws to the universe and it would not last a nano second.

When working with computers that have man made algorithms and not universal made algorithms, man can distort the "numbers" to suit man's needs, plus the added fact that.

The ancient's knew about stars and their cycles without all man's modern technology.

Physics is based on theories and not actuals, hence the "theory of relativity" and not the "actuals of relativity".

Anything always looks good on paper as "time" stands still.

Anyways wouldn't the first logical place to look for another "earth" would be on the opposite spiral tail of our own galaxy?

But that is just too logical.

With the combined knowledge of all scientist that would number into the millions of years (older than man is itself), humans still are no further off explaining the origins of man than they did when man first walked the earth.

Technology has advanced, but man basically has not.

The Higgs boson search continues ... into ANOTHER dimension



I the silly sausage have to corret mysel, it needs "101" to produce,100%.



Let me please explain my self in the formula E/m=c2.


And by the way, the total number of humans on the planet have now reached the toatal age of the universe (or very close to, so soon "will come of age"). To explain further, the combined total of hiumans (energy to forn YOU) and the total percieved age of the universe is equal. (utilizing the inner and outer enegy) so utilizing man produced physics all energy is exhausted, (besides the individaials perception).


How could the scientist possibly find the "higgs", as the velocity of the traveling particles is not 100% of light?

So the absolute total energy needed to produce, is already behind the eight ball?

And are they also forgetting the energy it takes the person/s to "see/find" the particle into the equation?

To get 100% of the results you first need 100% of the forces involved and not CLOSE TO.

ABSOLUTE ENERGY equals INPUT, OUTPUT and USAGE (A.E.I.O.U) or another way to put it E/m=c2.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019