Isn't this supposed to be the day of the end of the world because the alignment of the planets?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 05, 2000

Answers

Indeed it is! Although, some sources have said that today is the BEGINNING of the end of the world, and that it may take until later this year for all the Earth Changes to manifest.

Do you know ths Swim? If not, better learn the Hymn!

-- OneWhoKnows (ready@for.the.ride), May 05, 2000.

I have been looking for myself all day and I have yet to find me. Maybe it did end.

-- FutureSHock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.

Hey, the world can't end today. It's my birthday. Let the world end tomorrow.

In celebration of becoming another year older, I have started on a program called "Body for Life". After a week, I can tell a huge difference in my energy and can even begin to feel the changes taking place deep within body. Only 11 more weeks to go and I'll have back what I once had. So I take the comment about the world ending tomorrow back.... let me get by the next 11 weeks and I'll see how I feel.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 05, 2000.

I just glanced out the window and there is a cloud in the sky, is that a sure sign of something?

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), May 05, 2000.

Sheeple:

YOU needed more energy? I have a birthday in 4 days. Please E-mail me the information on the 11-week program. It's been so long since I had what I once had that I now question whether I ever had it at all.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.

Well, if today's the end of the world, it couldn't end on a better note.

There's not a speck of cloud in the sky, there is a soft gentle breeze, it's 86 F, the birds are chirping and I didn't get a bill in the mail.

I'm going out in style lying in my hammock.

-- (y@x.x), May 05, 2000.

Anita,

go to http://www.bodyforlife.com. Some of the pictures that you will see there will blow your mind at the progress these people have made in just 12 weeks. I can say that my body is in there somewhere, just not attached to my face. I felt really disgusted when I saw the "before" picture that was taken. But it serves as inspiration. I'm not that bad now, it is just that I know that I should be better. Note, if you make up your mind to try this, know that the day after each of the first sessions (Upper Body then Lower Body) you will be sore as heck. By the time you get back around to the part again, the pain will be gone and it will be a lot easier. I made the mistake of working my hamstrings twice. The next day it was all I could do to actually move my legs, and I had to ride my exercise bike for 20 minutes on a program of peaks and valleys. But today, I feel fresh and very much alive. My butt (not powered) feels the difference deep down inside, well actually all of me feels it.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 05, 2000.

happy birthday, sheeple.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.

FutureShock,

Thanks!

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 05, 2000.

Anita,

In case I don't see ya before the 9th. Happy Birthday to you. I knew there was something that I liked about you, I just couldn't put my finger on it. Let's just hope that us two bulls never need to rub horns.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 05, 2000.

FS,

Hi, tell us, IS that why you were hanging onto that box in your trunk?

O= ] O= ]

Once today is over the box goes, remember?

geez, I hope it is you with the box of canned goods in the trunk, I just started taking Ginko Bilboa and it dont work till 4 weeks, providig I remember to take it everyday. (*snicker*)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 05, 2000.

Humongous California earthquake will hit between now and May 22.

-- (things@to.come), May 05, 2000.

"things" - how did you come to this conclusion?

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 05, 2000.

Hey, HAPPY BIRTHDAY to you both! Sheeple, you`re lookin `especially` dapper today! Keep up the good work! [as for me, I`m too d*^# fat and tired to get in shape] ;)

-- Bullheaded (Taurus@heart.com), May 05, 2000.

In actuality, California has had an abnormally low incidence of quakes greater than magnitude 2 in the last week. This is troublesome, and often does precede a bigger one. We'll see. Glad I'm not over there right now! The posted 2 week map is real interesting, but doesn't properly reflect the last week's activity. I know, I lived there for 28 years until recently, and have been watching the USGS web site every day for the last 4 years.

-- Quakeman (Qman@no.quakes.thankyou), May 05, 2000.

Link Here's a world-wide quake view. Abnormally quiet all over the world. Get Ready!

-- Quakeman (Qman@quakes.are.nofun), May 05, 2000.

"things" and Quakeman - You two may be onto something. Years and years ago I did some research on quakes and astrology so I went to my dusty old file and the first thing that jumped at me from my notes was this notation: "Nostradamus prediction: Sun @ 20 Taurus"

Uh...the Sun will be at 20 Taurus on May 10th! It will also be conjunct Saturn (loss) in the 8th house of death and square (stress) Uranus (shake-ups) just four degrees away from the February 5th eclipse/sensitive point. The moon is usually the "trigger" for earthquakes and on May 10th it will be opposite Uranus and square Sun/Saturn - both being considered "hard" aspects to set off a chain of events. It will also be conjunct (power) to last August's solar eclipse while Jupiter (release) makes a square to this sensitive point. Ouch. I guess if it's gonna happen, May 10th may be a date to keep an eye on.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 05, 2000.

Cherri:

Isn't this supposed to be the day of the end of the world because the alignment of the planets?

4:00 am in the morning. By the way, the world did end, you just aren't very observant :o) Probably cloudy in Seattle so you didn't see the event.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 05, 2000.

Did a quick search and found the Nostradamus prediction:

Century 9, Quatrain 83 Sun twentieth of Taurus the earth will tremble very mightily, It will ruin the great theater filled: To darken and trouble air, sky and land, Then the infidel will call upon God and saints.

I dunno', but a darkened and troubled air, sky and land *could* mean a kick-ass volcanic eruption (which could then set off a series of earthquakes.) Kinda' spooky how it all meshes together.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 05, 2000.

LunaC,

Thanks for the scoop. It's pretty spooky. I really have been watching the California quake data on a daily basis for several years. I can't believe how quiet it's been in terms of moderate quakes. Only 4 above magnitude 3 since 05/01. REAL UNUSUAL. Lots of little ones, but that doesn't mean much. it would take millions of them to relieve any strain at all. Also, people who are concerned about prophecies or metaphysical predictions about impending Earth changes are missing the point if they think they are home free after today. Today is supposedly the Beginning of the cycle of changes.

-- Quakeman (Qman@nomore.quakes), May 05, 2000.

Consumer:

How the hell did you remember the box of preps? And most ironically, and without a thought, I did give that box away today!!!!

Very spooky.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.

LunaC -- you seem like a nice person. But, it's not "Kinda spooky." It's not spooky at all to most of us. Comments like "Kinda' spooky how it all meshes together" say more about your belief system than anything having to do with the real world.

If you put enough effort into it, you can find corrolations in a lot of unusual places, and make a lot of weird, unrelated things "mesh."

The problem with this is that generally there are so many other facets that do not "mesh."

Good post/link on the moon/tide thing, however.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 06, 2000.

And, of course, for most people in the world, Today is ALWAYS the Beginning of the cycle of changes. Life is just like that. If it isn't, then your probably already dead.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 06, 2000.

Actually E.H., I think Luna's comment was right on the mark. Everything IS meshed together, and the energy of the mass consciousness is creating the reality we experience. Negative energy = negative events. The "spooky" part about it is that most people aren't even aware that we have this power, so as long as these events continue to occur in an unpredictable and random fashion, we continue to be the victims of our own lack of control.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 06, 2000.

Hawk -- you're the real Hawk I assume -- are you telling me that the Y2K Crisis was created just because "the mass consciousness is creating the reality we experience. . . Negative energy = negative events"?

So, in other words, if you, Yourdon, North and everyone else had been Pollies from the beginning, we could have created a reality in which there was nothing to worry about? Or, alternatively, that because almost no one (towards the end) believed the doomer line, that this is why Y2K had no effect?

A very interesting theory. I'll be interested in your response (as long as you don't try to just threaten me).

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 06, 2000.

EH - The problem with this is that generally there are so many other facets that do not "mesh."

Okay, like what? Give me an example of the "other facets" that don't mesh for the situation at hand.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 06, 2000.

E.H.

"So, in other words, if you, Yourdon, North and everyone else had been Pollies from the beginning, we could have created a reality in which there was nothing to worry about?"

Not exactly. You can't just think about something and make it happen, it has to be supported. In the physical world, the creative process works like this...

Thoughts(awareness) -> Words(conscious intent) -> Actions(physical experience, or reality)

In the case of Y2K, it was the awareness of those with previous experience, translated into words, that inspired the intent of the IT community to take the necessary actions to change the negative reality into a positive one. A classic example of the way things should work, if we wish to experience Heaven on Earth.

P.S. I never threatened anyone who didn't threaten me first. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 06, 2000.

FS:

I OWE it all to----Ginko Bilboa. LOL.

BTW, I am so relieved to hear you didnt have to shoot it for resisting.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 06, 2000.

LunaC -- well, you say "I dunno', but a darkened and troubled air, sky and land *could* mean a kick-ass volcanic eruption (which could then set off a series of earthquakes."

Things that don't mesh include the fact that volcanic eruptions are generally not surprise, and I've seen no indication that one could be forthcoming in the near future. Mt. St. Helens was the last and only eruption in history in the lower 48 states, and everyone could see that one coming for a long time.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 06, 2000.

Must correct myself - actually, there are other volcanic eruptions in recorded history in the lower 48 states, just not since my ancestors arrived or in the last 1000 years.

The volcano in Watapki Nation Monument, Arizona, last erupted in 1066 AD, for example.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 06, 2000.

E.H.

What do you think of the Mammoth CA area. One of these days it's going to blow, most likely in our lifetimes. Also lots of quake clusters around the Clear Lake CA area. Shasta and Lassen are starting to awaken.

-- Quakeman (Qman@quakes.arent.fun), May 06, 2000.

EH - I've seen no indication that one could be forthcoming in the near future.

Really? So far there have been 17 volcanic eruptions worldwide this year alone (limiting your perspective and comments to the U.S. is somewhat myopic), while there were only 18 volcanic eruptions for ALL of 1999, 16 volcanic eruptions for ALL of 1998 and 16 volcanic eruptions for ALL of 1997. You do the math. If the current activity continues we could experience as many volcanoes this year as in the previous three years COMBINED.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 06, 2000.

Quakeman - There are more than 120 volcanic locations in the U.S. and according to the info provided for Mt. Shasta, you're absolutely correct that we may live to experience another of its eruptions.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 06, 2000.

LunaC -- So. As any statistician will tell you, "random events occur in clusters." Hell, there's generally a volcanic eruption in the Southwest about every 1000 years or so, and since the last one was in 1066, we're a little overdue (hope it's right under the Glen Canyon Dam).

But, I see no indication that there is a higher liklihood of earthquakes or volcanos right now than there always has been and always will be in the recent past or future. Personally, I think that the chances of another active volcano in the lower 48 in our lifetimes is not that great, but is possible. The chance of two is virtually non-existent.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 07, 2000.

LunaC -- also, your data looks a little flakey. I took a look at the web site you linked to (very interesting, by the way). But, the way it seems to be set up is to lits continuously active volcanos by the date of their last eruption, which means that all are listed as erupting in 2000 only. This in turn means that if somewhat such as yourself trys to count eruptions by year (which is not, I suspect, what the data was designed for), they'll always find that this year has a much larger number of eruptions than last year.

For example, I am familiar with Popo in Mexico. Your site lists it only as a year 2000 eruption. Actually, if you read that entry, you'll find its been erupting rather continuously for some time now. I'm aware of this, because I climbed it right before it started erupting (its a little short of 19,000 feet, and thus used to be a very popular high altitude climb).

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 07, 2000.

Big kaboom coming soon.

-- (I@know.things), May 07, 2000.

EH - There's nothing wrong with the data. It doesn't matter when the first eruption occured. The chart was designed to provide the date of the last eruption to show which volcanos are *currently* active. I stand by my original comments.

BTW - Mt. Etna is in VERY active mode and more violent and destructive eruptions are expected in the immediate future. Stay tuned.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 07, 2000.

The year 2000 will have many big kabooms.

-- (corrections@of.karma), May 07, 2000.

What about that volcano in the Carribean that was going off a while back? I think it was called Soufrie Hills or something like that. Is it still active?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 07, 2000.

Flash - The Soufriere Hills volcano in Montserrat experienced its most recent eruption in January where a total of 97 rockfall signals, 23 hybrid earthquakes, 8 long period and 5 volcano-tectonic earthquakes were recorded for the reporting period. The seismic activity remains consistent with continued dome growth. HTH

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 07, 2000.

LunaC -- the problem with your data is that is does not show which volcanos were active in any year but 2000.

Take Popo for example. Listed only in the year 2000 data, but has been active for many years now. Thus, it understates the number of active volcanos in prior years.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 07, 2000.

the problem with your data is that is does not show which volcanos were active in any year but 2000.

Not so! Scroll down the whole list and you'll see entries for '99, '98, '97, '96, and '95. (I'm referring to the Update on Current Volcanic Activity list.) The dates listed show the last time a volcano experienced an eruption. If you're so inclined, by all means, go ahead and create a table of when each volcano first erupted and last erupted. I'll bet the final tally shows that we're experiencing far more volcanos now than in previous years but I'll await the results of your tabulation before making further comment.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 07, 2000.

LunaC -- still flakey data. Three examples, listed for 2000 -- Etna, Pacaya and Popocatepetal. Do you see any listings in the chart you reference to these other than in 2000? I don't. Yet if you click on the entry for that particular volcano, you'll find eruptions in 1999, 1998, etc.

In other words, if that web site is the basis for your conclusion that volcanos suddenly got more active in the year 2000, you are misusing the data.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 08, 2000.

Look, EH, if you're going to disagree with my conclusion then it's only fair to present the evidence in support of your own contention. If the numbers prove you're correct I'll be the first to agree but I can't evaluate the validity of your claim without the data on the table. Like I said, do the tabulation for the years each volcano experienced an eruption and we'll see if there are more eruptions now than in the past.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 08, 2000.

LunaC-- I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusion. I am merely pointing out that the web site you have linked to does not support a conclusion one way or the other. The data is not set up for that purpose, and using that table to "count volcanos" is worthless. It lists Yellowstone National Park as an "eruption," for example.

If indeed there have been more volcanic eruptions in the first four months of this year than in past years, I am reasonably certain that someone in the field of vulcanology would have observed this. If you can find such an authority, I'd be interested.

Otherwise, you're just making a wild ass guess based on an apparently pessimistic world view. And, as such, your non-emperical, wild ass guess is no better (or worse) than my guess that there has been no statistically significant increase in volcanic activity.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 08, 2000.

I didn't think you'd rise to the occasion and actually provide documentation. In this regard you haven't disappointed me.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 08, 2000.

LunaC -- Now, now. I've got to admit you're nothing if not diligent. If there was any better data out there on the web, I'm sure you would have found it.

My only observation was that you shouldn't make definitive statements like "Really? So far there have been 17 volcanic eruptions worldwide this year alone (limiting your perspective and comments to the U.S. is somewhat myopic), while there were only 18 volcanic eruptions for ALL of 1999, 16 volcanic eruptions for ALL of 1998 and 16 volcanic eruptions for ALL of 1997" when even the data you cite to does not support such a conclusion.

Hell, let's make this topical. Your world view apparently favors such major geologic events. Thus, you are able to take some marginal data, state it as fact, and challenge anyone who doesn't like it to prove it's not true.

My world view, on the other hand, suggests that (at least within the scope of a human lifetime), geologic processes are rather constant. Thus, the fact that your data is crap makes me tend to discount the theory underlying it.

This, of course, is why some of the Y2K crowd became pollies, and others became doomers. Some (the polly crowd) wanted hard data suggesting that something bad was going to happen -- and never got it. Some (the doomer crowd) wanted absolute proof that nothing bad was going to happen -- and never got it.

You can, of course, guess where I fell in the polly-doomer spectrum.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 08, 2000.

...challenge anyone who doesn't like it to prove it's not true.

I thought that's how it worked in debates (without one party feeling the necessity to cast aspersions on the other.) Data is data. If you don't like mine, then show me yours. Simple.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 08, 2000.

Don't got any data -- just think yours is crap. And, since my world view suggests that your proposition is so unlikely that I should not accept it without valid data, I reject it. Others with different world views may disagree.

Are we having fun yet?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 08, 2000.

LunaC -- PS: still betting on a major earthquake on May 10, as per your post above?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 08, 2000.

EH - Please don't put words in my mouth or attempt to skew my comments. I said (now pay attention) "IF one were to occur...", not WHEN it occurs. Big difference. But you're too busy trying to peg people into pigeonholes that you probably didn't notice. And no, I'm not having fun. I find lazy, blustery, egocentric, blow-hards with more justifications than answers to be an annoyance. Any other questions?

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 08, 2000.