Some of you may know that I do a live talk show every Wed night called the Frank and Chris show.

A  few weeks back Frank and I discussed the incredibly ridiculous 2012 episode of “Conspiracy Theory” with Jesse Ventura.

We played a few clips from the show and talked about how unbelievably bad it was, and hilarity ensued.

Click here to listen to a clip from the show (or right click to download it)

Click HERE to download this video in FLV format 374MB

If you prefer, below I have split the video  into shorter parts,and provided the notes for that particular section.

Gregg Braden Debunked (1 of 15) INTRO
youtube.com/watch?v=7rkwQgeJcFs
the2012deception.net
Notes for this video:
The 2012 Deception Presentation- (1 of 6)
youtube.com/watch?v=VaVDhOU6jLE
How 2012 “Enlightenment” Will Lead To Genocide (1 of 3)
youtube.com/watch?v=7xtN1qo9yLw

Gregg Braden Debunked (2 of 15) The Schumann Resonances
youtube.com/watch?v=zLGDOVeb5bw
Notes for this video:
quake.geo.berkeley.edu/ncedc/em.intro.html
knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Introduction_to_Geomagnetically_Trapped_Radiation/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17795213
crawford2000.co.uk/sch.htm

Gregg Braden Debunked (3 of 15) Pole Shift
youtube.com/watch?v=7CG62lSLrzk
knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Earth%27s_magnetic_field/
The Earth’s magnetic field reverses at intervals, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of years. It is believed that this last occurred some 600,000 years ago (Comins – DEU p.84).
The overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which will cause the field to disappear by about 4000 AD.1 Other sources have put the date of field collapse as early as 3000 AD.
knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Introduction_to_Geomagnetically_Trapped_Radiation/
scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/02/is_the_earths_magnetic_field_a.php
nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/nature03674.html
bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/43775-pole-shift-idea-origins.html

Gregg Braden Debunked (4 of 15) The Earth Stops Rotating
youtube.com/watch?v=t9Dxu3PkYr8
notes
khouse.org/articles/2003/479/
trustbible.com/planetx.htm
creationism.org/patten/PattenMarsEarthWars/PattenMEW10.htm
creationism.org/patten/PattenMarsEarthWars/PattenMEW08.htm

Gregg Braden Debunked (5 of 15) The Photon Belt
youtube.com/watch?v=zXZqlKbzfwg
notes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_belt
bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/esp_cinturon_fotones_15.htm
geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/Pleiades.html
etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html

Gregg Braden Debunked (6 of 15) The Sun’s Magnetic Field
youtube.com/watch?v=QQEf89GtDiI
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992A&AS…92..221B
science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ap_index_oct09.png
globalwarmingart.com/images/4/43/Solar_Cycle_Variations.png
science.nasa.gov/ssL/pad/solar/solar-b_brochure.stm

Gregg Braden Debunked (7 of 15) Quantum Physics , Entaglement, Bell’s inequality EPR Paradox
youtube.com/watch?v=IFrVGYt-Y1A

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
physlink.com/Education/askexperts/ae634.cfm
A commonly debated use of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of ’superposition’, which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger’s seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of ‘observation’ and ‘measurement’ must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense.
That is that the reason science must come up with a third possibility namely that the cat is neither alive or dead is because they cant mathematically detailed. And they like to be able to explain things mathematically..

Gregg Braden Debunked (8 of 15) Fraudulent Footnotes
youtube.com/watch?v=nreOOetXZJM
greggbraden.com/resources/technical_references/
twm.co.nz/DNAPhantom.htm.:
skepdic.com/plants.html
greggbraden.com/newsletter/2000.html
energygrid.com/spirit/guide/gregg-braden.html

Gregg Braden Debunked (9 of 15) The Great Red Spot
youtube.com/watch?v=pnS0BBpLBMc
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981AcApS…1…87X
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Great_Red_Spot_and_other_storms
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1899MNRAS..59..574D

Gregg Braden Debunked (10 of 15) The Maharishi Effect
youtube.com/watch?v=uewnSF3p-No
youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo
behind-the-tm-facade.org/Maharishi_Effect-mdefect-uscities-1976.htm
behind-the-tm-facade.org/mdefect-peer2.htm
behind-the-tm-facade.org/maharishi_effect-mdefect-lebanon.htm

Gregg Braden Debunked (11 of 15) The God Code
youtube.com/watch?v=jWoA0v2lyKM
energygrid.com/science/2004/03ap-godcode.html

Gregg Braden Debunked (12 of 15) Messages from Water
youtube.com/watch?v=uyp_4Ttbt6k
youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Gregg Braden Debunked (13 of 15) The Global Consciousness Project
youtube.com/watch?v=gxbLPDwNUPQ
skeptiko.com/73-skeptoid-brian-dunning/

Gregg Braden Debunked (14 of 15) The Council of Nicaea
youtube.com/watch?v=ngQMOBY26ck
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
youtube.com/watch?v=mh4OoIseGGs
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4395387373297652024
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3367901243436172139

Gregg Braden Debunked (15 of 15) Jesus and Conclusion
youtube.com/watch?v=SBBdNEx3RJw
dvdtract.com

But thanks to the valiant efforts of these researchers many more studies have been uncovered showing virtually the same thing.

For instance:

Displacement of the Sun from the Galactic Plane Authors: Yogesh C. Joshi (Queen’s University Belfast 2007)

We have carried out a comparative statistical study for the displacement of the Sun from the Galactic plane (Z⊙) following three different methods… We found Z⊙ varies in a range of ~ 13 – 20 pc from the analysis is of YOCs…

or

The Sun’s Displacement from the Galactic Plane from Spectroscopic Parallaxes of 2500 OB Stars Reed, B. Cameron Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 100, Issue #4, p.146 2006

The Sun’s vertical displacement from the galactic plane, Z_ȯ, is determined model-independently from 3526 spectroscopic parallax distance estimates for 2488 OB stars within 1200 pc of the Sun. The result, 19.6+/-2.1 pc, agrees well with various other recent determinations. The distribution of stellar z-values as a function of galactic longitude shows a very scattered sinusoidal dependence with an amplitude of about 27 pc.

The following is from a researcher who was pointing out some of the many problems in Graham Hancock’s 2012 alignment assertions in a post called “The 2012 Winter Solstice Non-event”

It appears that good ol’ John Major Jenkins, a person who claims to be the uncontested king of all 2012 theories, replied to this persons post saying that first, Hancock stole the information from him, and then apparently got all the info wrong . Jenkins is pretty active in surfing around the internet and telling people how awesome he believes himself to be (see some of his comment’s on one of my own blog posts )

At any rate, the author of the article then took it upon himself to look into Jenkins pseudoscience in the stead of Hancock’s.
This is what he wrote:

2004 May 09 I have received a couple of emails from a “John Major Jenkins” who asserts that he is the original source of this 2012 stuff, and who alleges that the author of the immediately preceding nonsense has plagiarised him, albeit inaccurately. Jenkins objects that my comments above reflect badly on him. Jenkins (and anyone else) should be aware that (a) I was commenting on what was actually written on the site to which I referred, not to Jenkins’ writings (I do not comment on stuff that I have never read) and (b) objections to alleged plagiarism should be addressed to the alleged plagiariser, not to a third party.
Update, 2006 February 14:
(These comments refer to content in Jenkins’s web pages as at 2006 February 13.)
Jenkins, in various pages on his web site, has attempted to refute criticism, from here and elsewhere, of his astrocrud. I am not going to attempt to go into detail with respect to all of his attempted refutations. Some are based on Mayan history which I am incompetent to comment upon; there are so many that they almost qualify as a complex question fallacy and, to quote them all would mean quoting such a high proportion of Jenkins’s web site that it would be way beyond what is permitted by Fair Use clauses of copyright legislation (which I prefer to abide by, even if Jenkins — by quoting, in full and without permission, my private correspondence to him — evidently does not).

• “By mid-1999 I had received a statement from an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University to the effect that ‘it is not possible that the Maya could see the Galactic Center.’ My general response to this opinion is that the region of the Galactic Center should be more generally identified as the “nuclear bulge” which can be noticed with naked eye observation because the Milky Way is wider in that region and there are more bright stars there.”
  1. Note the “to the effect that ” ; i.e. he does not state what the actual objections were in order that we can see if he is actually addressign them.
  2. “there are more bright stars there“. Note that Jenkins is deliberately vague: he fails to specify what he means by “bright” or “here” or to what he is comparing “more”. This sort of vagueness is characteristic of pseudoscience:it makes it far more difficult to critically examine the claims. However, there is a greater density of naked-eye visible (magnitude 6.5 and brighter) stars in several other regions of sky (e.g. Cass/And/Lac region, Cyg region) than there is in the region of the galactic centre.
  3. The “nuclear bulge” as a rather large region. This (see later) introduces such a wide error-bar into his 2012 pseudo-hypothesis that it becomes even more meaningless.
• “the Milky Way was conceived as a Great Goddess and the dark-rift was her birth canal. This demonstrates that the Maya understood the region of the Galactic Center as a source-point or birth place.” .
  1. This (“source point“) is contradicted by his argument and his diagram #2 on this page. (See later)
• “Ancient Maya knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes is the hitch that most skeptical scholars invoke to discredit my work. The evidence for precessional knowledge is found in the academic data, (…) Citations to the work of Brotherston, Tedlock, Schele, Smiley, Hunt, Aveni, and others are available upon request (electronically) and are also contained in my book. ”
  1. But these citations are not provided with the assertions on his web page, so this is a clear case of failure to specify.
• “These assumptions or critiques are easily addressed:”
  1. Then why does he not address them?
  2. He states on the same page “check back in a week“, but to date the page is unaltered since 2004 May 29. Some of the “easily addressed” objections have languished there since May 2003!)
• In response to this statement: “True statement: “The solstice sun is in conjunction with the galactic equator in 2012.”” and the sun is half a degree wide and therefore your statement is factually wrong. (…) You should use the more accurate term “solstice colure” (…) It’s a question of linguistic accuracy; or, in your use, a misleading misuse of a term.”
  1. A classic case of proof by redefinition of words! Jenkins seems somewhat reluctant to accept the astronomical definition of Conjunction. Perhaps his own definition is that used in astrology or in pseudoastronomy; I’m not competent to say. However, if he wants to be taken seriously by astronomers, he might wish to start using astronomical terms correctly.
  2. When he made that statement about the colure, Jenkins seemed to be blithely unaware that solstitial colure always crosses the galactic equator (at two points), and does not only do so just at the 2012 winter solstice! The point above about correct use of astronomical terms applies.
• I have no doubt that the likes of Jenkins will continue to bluster against the preceding comments so, for the sake of argument, let us see where Jenkins’s “[Tonkin] overlooks the fact that the sun itself is one-half of a degree wide, and will in fact be touching the galactic equator on all winter solstices between 1980 and 2016 (which is 1998 plus/minus 18 years; 36 years = one-half (…) What he is doing is invoking a precise level of accuracy that is inappropriate to the real situation.” and “the region of the Galactic Center should be more generally identified as the “nuclear bulge” which can be noticed with naked eye observation” take us, i.e. let us see the consequences of what Jenkins himself insists to be the case.Jenkins insisted that it is “inappropriate” to use the real conjunction of the Sun with the galactic equator, and that we should really consider the entire disc of the Sun. Presumably we must then take an equally “fuzzy” view of the galactic equator, i.e. we must regard it as a band of at least 30 arcmin wide (same angular size as the Sun). So, if we are no longer concerned with the precision of what Jenkins falsely terms “abstractions”, i.e. the centre of the Sun and the galactic equator, and allow ourselves to consider the entire disc of the Sun and the region of the “nuclear bulge”, the period of “conjunction” is a great deal more than Jenkins’s ±18 years; it is at least double this. In other words, the consequence of Jenkins’s attempt to, although he does not appear to have said so, is that the period during which the disc of the winter solstice Sun is in geocentric line-of-sight contact with the middle region of the “nuclear bulge” takes at least 70 years! His 36 year error bar was imprecise enough; a 70 year error bar is ridiculuous. With either error bar he has so great a margin of error that any prediction is meaningless and is essentially untestable; i.e.Jenkins’s argument falls even deeper into the classification of pseudoscience.So why is he so insistent on 2012 and not 1962 or 2034 or any of the other intervening years? How about 2030, the year when the Sun is most central in the Cygnus Rift, thus allowing us to combine two bits of astrocrud into one? There is no way to get to 2012 without either circular argument or argument by scenario and affirming the consequent.Whatever his reasons, they clearly have no basis in astronomy, be it proper astronomy or Jenkins’s preferred species of pseudoastronomy.In other words, this is just another example of astrocrud.

Source: The 6 Best 2012 Apocalypse Theories (Are All Bull@#@%)

#5 The I Ching

A less popular but equally convoluted source is the I-Ching. In the pre-800-number era of human existence, the people of China received their psychic advice from one of their oldest texts, the I-Ching. You asked the I-Ching a question and a certified physic flipped three coins in to the air, drawing a hexagram based on the results. This told your fortune, somehow.

The I-Ching had nothing to do with the end of the world until a man by the name of Terence McKenna came along and made a pattern out of every possible result. After applying this pattern to a line graph accompanied by a timeline of recorded history, he discovered that the high and low points of the graph coincided with several significant events.

On December 21, 2012, the line slowly dips off of the chart, once again supposedly indicating a world-ending catastrophic buttfuck.

What Predictions (Supposedly) Came True?

The Fall of the Roman Empire

The Discovery of the New World

World Wars I and II

Why it Might be Bullshit:

The reality is McKenna utilized a pattern of his own invention to create a timeline of his own invention, and then predicted world events that had already happened.

After all, there’s enough bad sh%$ in human history that you could probably correlate several large scale catastrophes right alongside the peaks and valleys of a line graph showing Disney’s stock price over the last decade.

He couldn’t even decide what the end of his timeline signified, claiming everything from the apocalypse to alien invasion to time travel. Honestly, what kind of half-assed prophet was this guy? Maybe the next Batman movie comes out in 2012 and it’s a huge disappointment, and the I-Ching just takes it way harder than everybody else.

To show you how scientifically impotent the galactic alignment theories are I will need to show you the difference between the twenty six thousand year precession cycle and the two hundred and fifty million year cycle of the solar system’s revolution around the galaxy. Most 2012 gurus will pick one or the other, or they mix up the two as they stumble through a pseudo scientific presentation that might sound fancy until you see the difference between the two.

First Precession:

This event is only significant from the earth’s point of view. The precession cycle or the 26,000 year wobble of the earth only causes the EFFECT of the stars changing position on the horizon. and therefore on the effect of galactic alignment. if you were viewing this “precession” from anywhere else in the solar system it would be totally insignificant, There is no gravitational force or radiation to be expected from this event because other than the tilt of the earth, nothing will be any different than the last few thousand solstices, and as such, the Earth will be no closer to the galactic center than any other solstice, in fact we will be much further away from galactic center than the Mayans were at that time.

The other camp of belief surrounding the 2012 alignment issue is probably the more significant of the two because it is dealing with the solar system’s actual location in relation to galactic center. The idea is that our little solar system is moving around the center of the galaxy every 225 to 250 million years or so, and while doing so it is moving up and down in a cycle crossing the plane every 33 million years.

So, the question is, are we going to cross that galactic plane in 2012?

Not even close. According to the journal nature, as well as many others, there is evidence of crossing this plane 3 million years ago. This would mean that we are moving away from the galactic plane and won’t be due to cross it for another 30 million years. In addition the margin of error in these calculations in at least 2.1 parsecs or about 6.5 light years making images like these completely meaningless.

To conclude:
If you hear someone tell you that the earth is on a 26,000 year cycle to align with the galaxy ask them how the wobble of the earth will change its position in relation to the galaxy.

Similarly, if you hear someone say that the earth is on a 250 million year cycle to align with the galaxy ask them if they know that this happened 3 million years ago and wont happen again for another 30 million.

I actually never knew how off he was until I sat down to do this research.

this is the one of the clips with his 2012 errors. the full video available here for viewing and for free download http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/Tsarion.html

To watch all five parts, including the 2012 part you need to go to http://theblackvault.tv

MICHAEL TSARION IS TRYING TO HAVE THIS VIDEO REMOVED
DOWNLOAD A COPY IN MP4 FORMAT HERE
http://www.conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/ra/movie/Michael%20Tsarion%20is%20Wrong.mp4

This video reviews Michael Tsarion’s Origins and Oracles DVD, and attempts to show that not only is Michael Tsarion factually inaccurate about crucial issues, but it will demonstrate that best explanation for his mistakes is that he is intentionally deceiving people. I will also show how the views he promotes is intended to indoctrinate the truth seeker into a mind set that will prepare them to accept a new version of world government and dogma, one that most truthers would never suspect as being a part of the system they once rebelled against.

I will discuss his science about 2012:

Magnetic pole shift in 2012?
Galactic Alignment
Precession of the Equinoxes
The “Golden Nebula”
The Photon Belt
Enlightenment – DNA/ Chakra changes

Other issues:

‘The Macrobes’
Lucifer
Tsarion mind control tactics
Huge mistakes
Etymology
Storytelling
Blavatsky
Motivations
Who benefits?
2012 endgame

Introduction
Readers of Zecharia Sitchin’s books, particularly The 12th Planet, will recognize the above seal, VA 243 (so named because it is number 243 in the collection of the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin). This seal is the centerpiece of Sitchin’s theory that the Sumerians had advanced astronomical knowledge of the planetary bodies in our solar system. This knowledge was allegedly given to the Sumerians by extraterrestrials, whom Sitchin identifies as the Anunnaki gods of Sumero-Mesopotamian mythology. In the upper left-hand corner of the seal, Sitchin argues, one sees the sun surrounded by eleven globes. Since ancient peoples (including the Sumerians according to Sitchin) held the sun and moon to be “planets,” these eleven globes plus the sun add up to twelve planets. Of course, since we now know of nine planets plus our sun and moon, part of Sitchin’s argument is that the Sumerians knew of an extra planet beyond Pluto. This extra planet is considered by Sitchin to be Nibiru, an astronomical body mentioned in Mesopotamian texts. Sitchin’s works detail his contention that Nibiru passes through our solar system every 3600 years, and so some believers in Sitchin’s theory contend that Nibiru will return soon. Some followers of Sitchin’s ideas also refer to Nibiru as “Planet X”.
Is Sitchin correct – in whole or in part? Is Nibiru a 12th planet that will soon return? Does VA243 prove his thesis? Unfortunately for Sitchin and his followers, the answer to each of these questions is no. This paper will focus on the heart of his theory, VA243. Nibiru is the subject of another paper on my website.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL PAPER WITH DETAILED PICTURES (PDF)