The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

16:33 Jan 30 2011
Times Read: 682

Interesting tid bit:



The heat a human body at rest produces is the eqv. of 1 joule of energy every 100th of a second. That means that during 8 hours of sleep the body gives off 2.88 megajoules of energy which is 2.8x as much energy as a car moving at 100 mph!

05:52 Jan 27 2011
Times Read: 703

Ok here's the convo about the Bilderberg & massively reducing world population.



On 03:49:04 Jan 27 2011 (-0 GMT)_____ wrote:



yeah, so heard the story of the 500 mill pop. and the guide stones in GA. a couple of hours drive btw from where i live. -_-



I always wondered how they was going to kill off the popuation. other then what i heard. slowly via foods and the water. Also heard of a mass pandemic was another story i heard about.



Some i am wary about of how much truth was into some of that. Foods i know is slowly killing ya.









On 04:53:43 Jan 27 2011 (-0 GMT) Xzavier wrote:



Well there's a number of ways to get rid of 6.4 billion ppl (current world pop is 6.9). Of course I don't think their restructuring of the economy will allow it to go that low. It would be better at 1 billion. I also don't think they will be able to simply bc once the system collapses they'll lose their ability to control things.



But here's how you remove 6.4 billion.



A) Encourage educated populations (US/Canada, Europe, Japan) to be consumed with their careers, education, living their life (to be only self-serving), and the expectations of ever long lifespans. The problem is while a woman born today may be able to live till 95 on avg her body hasn't adapted to allow her to give birth when she's 55. So by the time you want to have kids (say 40) you still prolly can't, just like today.



That way you've slowed, halted and reversed the only population with the knowledge and resources to fight against the NWO. In Japan for instance their population is lower than it has been in 50 years! Currently 20 countries have either zero or negative population growth.



B) Continued & increased warfare. Now this will happen most likely bc of lack or natural resources such as water and from other issues like China/Taiwan, N/S. Korea, etc.



C) Population engineering. Things like the 1 child rule in China and the over abundance of birth control measures in places like the US.



D) Famine: Some famines are caused naturally but others are man-made in one way or another. Currently 800 million people lack regular access to enough food. Add in the shrinking water supply and the increase in desertification then this will get worse. (the Sahara is expanding by 48km/yr, over 4,000 sq mi of land is turned into desert each yr, eqv to the size of states RI & DL combined)



E) Diseases. Around 30 million ppl die each year from diseases. Of course the main group you want to get rid of are those in Africa, S. America and most of Asia. Death rates have risen around .27% since 2003 whereas birth rates globally have decreased .4% since 2003, meaning global population growth is declining compared to 2003. And actually birth rates have gone down 20% since 1998.



F) Allowing "problem" areas to continue their growth. For instance in Africa even though mortality rates are very high and natural resources are shrinking their population continues to grow at a pretty big pace. The end result of this will be a population crash, all due to no food, water, space and the increases in pollution, disease & war. By just letting nature take its course you will see huge collapses in population in a number of their "problem" locations.



Human population has grown from 1.6 billion to 7 in 100 years however it took 500 years to go from a global pop of 460 mill to 1.1 bill. All of this means that a crash is inevitable and so direct intervention really won't be all that necessary.

05:41 Jan 27 2011
Times Read: 708

I was chatting with someone on here and she asked how groups like Bilderberg could theoretically reduce global population to 500 million (from 6.8 billion), without having nuclear war and the like.



So I thought for a few and added that to what I already know and really it seems aside from some relatively minor direct actions if you simply let trends continue, at least in the unwanted regions, you could have world population crash by like 3 billion without having to lift a finger.



If you want I can post my reasoning. Just something interesting to think about and if you believe the theories about such groups then it might help you understand some stuff.

02:41 Jan 26 2011
Times Read: 714

With Biden & Boehner sitting together we finally see the white man & the black man co-existing with the orange man.

02:52 Jan 25 2011
Times Read: 736

I am thoroughly amazed at the insane level of hype and psychosomatic "healings, disease, infections, paranormal, etc" things that people on this site in particular are prone to being sucked into and defend with all their might.



Even some who are usually otherwise logical and level headed seem to fall victim to any number of pseudo scientific or outright impossible claims.



Research things and listen to reason. Never give an idea the benefit of the doubt & enter into everything with a skeptical approach.



Venus doesn't control you, you are not allergic to the Sun and taking Vitamin C at 30x the daily dosage isn't going to cure you of cancer after 1 week.

06:28 Jan 21 2011
Times Read: 777

News flash! You do NOT own your profile or journal, even if it's a PM. Cancer owns everything on here and signing up or even paying doesn't give you any rights to it.



If you don't want folks commenting then don't post in your journal or go & make it private. Or better yet grow up and learn how to deal with a little criticism especially when you're using homophobic or similar terms.

11:16 Jan 14 2011
Times Read: 800


Zodiac Changes



All the "worries" about this is completely idiotic. I don't mean to be rude or anything but look folks...



Astrology is based on what? The stars right? And the signs, traits, horoscopes etc have all been based on the location of the stars thousands of years ago (when the system was developed). Thus a "Libra" is based on the Libra of 50 BC, not 2011 AD.



The Earth rotates and the zodiac changes. The stars that astrology was based upon are NOT in the same position today as they were then and haven't been for at least 300 years. Therefore if you were born say Dec, 14 you were NOT born under Sagittarius but "Ophiuchus".



It doesn't matter if the "old" traits fit you because there are just as many who it doesn't fit. It also doesn't matter what you believe, fact is fact and reality is reality. Anyone who actually studies the stars or astrology and who has a real understanding of it has known about this "flaw" for a long time. The only reason why they don't go and say "well you're not actually a Libra" is so they can still look all mystical and charge you $45 hoping they can give you a broad enough reading that you'll latch on and say it's real.



Now, generally speaking this "change" has less to do with the mystical and more to do with plain ole science. Fact is the skies have 13 zodiac constellations and it's high time we recognize it. Heck the whole reason there were 12 wasn't because of some ancient wisdom but because some of the folks who made this stuff up liked 12 over 13 and arbitrarily kicked the 13th sign (Ophiuchus) out.



So for some of you yes your "new" traits might not match up to who you are but for just as many the old traits didn't fit them and these new ones will. Why? Because astrology is based on probabilities, coincidences and best guesses, not hardcore reality. That's how it's always been and will continue to be.



Personally, being born Dec 14th I HATE my new sign because it sounds stupid (Oh-FEE-yoo-Cus) but the traits associated with it fits me for the most part, the same as Sagittarius. Go figure :)



Besides, shouldn't you be who you are not try to be what some flaming gas ball 1,000 light years away "says" you are?

04:48 Jan 08 2011
Times Read: 811

"Earth's North Magnetic Pole shifting toward Russia at 40 miles a year" - 2009



Shifting toward Russia at 25 miles a year - 2005



Shifting 9 miles a year - 1904



Somethin's going on I think :)



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html